So, I'm putting together my campaign and I realise that I am in need to stat up Ackbar (for this weekend) and other members of Alliance High Command.

I'm uncertain on where to start to stat them up and would appreciate the help with this.

A few members that I am looking to stat up include:
Admiral Ackbar
Senator Garm Bel Iblis

Mon Mothma.

and anyone else that is in high command

Thanks all

You could recycle some preexisting Nemesis stat blocks, modified as required.

Otherwise, try this

Rebellion High Councilbeing (Nemesis)

Brawn: 2

Agility: 2

Intellect: 3

Cunning 3

Willpower: 3

Presence: 4

Soak: 3

WT: 16

ST: 22

Charm 3, Cool 3, Deception 3, Discipline 3, Knowledge (Core Worlds) 3, Knowledge (Education) 3, Knowledge (Warfare) 3, Knowledge (Outer Rim) 3, Leadership 4, Negotiation 4

Blaster Pistol (Damage: 6, Crit: 3, Range: Medium, Stun Setting), Uniform (+1 Soak)

Adversary 2 (Upgrade difficulty of all combat checks by 2), Kill with Kindness 3 (Remove 3 Setback from all Charm and Leadership checks), Nobody's Fool 3 (Upgrade difficulty of incoming Charm, Coercion and Deception checks 3 times), Inspiring Rhetoric (Take the Inspiring Rhetoric action; Make an Average Leadership check. Each Success causes 1 ally in close range to recover 1 strain. Advantages may be spent to cause 1 ally to recover 1 additional strain), Confidence 2 (Decrease difficulty of Discipline checks to avoid fear by 2)

ahh. that makes sense.

But i was almost hoping to be able to fully create them, as if they were PC's. with a careers and spec. but im unsure what career's and spec's would suite them best.

Can i ask a a few questions?

Why do you need the stats for them?

I mean, unless the players are coming into conflict with them (combat or opposed skill checks), or actually playing these characters or trying to kill them, what is the benedit of having their stat blocks on front of you?

As the EverGM, I personally, want fewer stats on things. Focus on the story, rather than numerical values of everything.

For Admiral Akbar, I would stat him as an Engineer/Scientist, adding Commodore and Analyst as additional specs.

Mon Mothma I would give Diplomat/Ambassador with Agitator and Advocate.

Senator Bel Iblis might be more of a wild card. Possibly a Colonist/Politico with Mercenary Soldier and Quartermaster would give him a broad range Talents.

Spending xp to make NPCs is somewhat overthinking things. I would take a cue from the Lando Calrissian entry in Jewel of Yavin and only give them the talents adn abilities that are likely to come up in the scenario you are using them in.

thanks

I think I would personally make Ackbar a Commander/Commodore with Scientist and Analyst as extra specs then starting as an Engineer.

And I would definitely give Bel Iblis Commodore.

I would give Ackbar some Commodore talents, but with some added Quartermaster perhaps?

Mon Mothma would certainly get some Ambassador and maybe Advocate talents

Can i ask a a few questions?

Why do you need the stats for them?

I mean, unless the players are coming into conflict with them (combat or opposed skill checks), or actually playing these characters or trying to kill them, what is the benedit of having their stat blocks on front of you?

As the EverGM, I personally, want fewer stats on things. Focus on the story, rather than numerical values of everything.

Just quoting this because the questions raised are good ones. Why do you need stats for them? What purpose do they serve? Stats that don't get used are stats that don't need to be.

-EF

The FFG games actually ask us to look at gaming differently, a bit like 13th Age does for D&D style games.

One example of this is that you don't need exhaustive stats for NPCs. Unless you're planning to fight Akbar, you don't need his stats. And if you are planning to fight him, you can extrapolate those stats from the Nemesis level NPCs in the book.

Seriously, if someone's just giving you a mission, you don't need to know what his Ranged (Heavy) or Mechanics skill is.

The days of WEG or Saga, where the movie characters were statted out with 'special snowflake' super-NPC powers that PCs couldn't have, are over.

reason i am asking for them is i do plan to use them. perhaps putting my PC's in command of them. i dont have my entire story arc figured yet, so im seeing what sorts of things they would have to better make adventures involving them.

Also, Red Squadron, theyd just be Fighter Aces from the Ace source book?

Even if your PCs are commanding them, NPCs shouldn't be the ones adventuring.

The PCs are supposed to be the ones actually doing stuff.

reason i am asking for them is i do plan to use them. perhaps putting my PC's in command of them. i dont have my entire story arc figured yet, so im seeing what sorts of things they would have to better make adventures involving them.

Also, Red Squadron, theyd just be Fighter Aces from the Ace source book?

the PC's will be doing the majority.

i just wish to include the High command with stats just in case.

reason i am asking for them is i do plan to use them. perhaps putting my PC's in command of them. i dont have my entire story arc figured yet, so im seeing what sorts of things they would have to better make adventures involving them.

Also, Red Squadron, theyd just be Fighter Aces from the Ace source book?

the PC's will be doing the majority.

i just wish to include the High command with stats just in case.

That is what a nemesis stat block is for. Having a full block is just going to bog down your game.

My first session I actually filled full character sheets for my NPCS, no obligation or motivation but the whole stat soak shebang. In about 20 minutes I decided that was a bad idea. I had paper cuts from flipping between, for what seemed to be no real reason.

reason i am asking for them is i do plan to use them. perhaps putting my PC's in command of them. i dont have my entire story arc figured yet, so im seeing what sorts of things they would have to better make adventures involving them.

This is putting the cart before the horse (The repulsorlift generator before the speeder?)

You shouldn't design the adventures/plot lines around what NPCs can do. You're wasting your time if you're trying to stat out NPCs and you don't know what the story arc is yet. These NPCs should do (be statted to do) whatever the plot requires of them.

If you don't know what the plot will require of them, then (and I don't use this phrase lightly) you're doing it wrong.

reason i am asking for them is i do plan to use them. perhaps putting my PC's in command of them. i dont have my entire story arc figured yet, so im seeing what sorts of things they would have to better make adventures involving them.

This is putting the cart before the horse (The repulsorlift generator before the speeder?)

You shouldn't design the adventures/plot lines around what NPCs can do. You're wasting your time if you're trying to stat out NPCs and you don't know what the story arc is yet. These NPCs should do (be statted to do) whatever the plot requires of them.

If you don't know what the plot will require of them, then (and I don't use this phrase lightly) you're doing it wrong.

Yeah, this. You should know what your NPCs are doing before you build them. Fate Core has a nifty way of doing things. There's a reason that establishing the NPCs is the last step before scene 1.

-EF

reason i am asking for them is i do plan to use them. perhaps putting my PC's in command of them. i dont have my entire story arc figured yet, so im seeing what sorts of things they would have to better make adventures involving them.

This is putting the cart before the horse (The repulsorlift generator before the speeder?)

You shouldn't design the adventures/plot lines around what NPCs can do. You're wasting your time if you're trying to stat out NPCs and you don't know what the story arc is yet. These NPCs should do (be statted to do) whatever the plot requires of them.

If you don't know what the plot will require of them, then (and I don't use this phrase lightly) you're doing it wrong.

I ..... I have to disagree with all of this.

Look .... it may not be your way to GM but it's his way to GM. If his GM style includes stating up all the major NPC's he think's he'll need and working from there then who are we to spend more time trying to discourage him than time actually helping him?

The only wrong way to GM is to GM in such a way that the players aren't having fun. As it currently stands I don't see how his method is going to limit the fun of his players. So by all accounts he's doing it right. But at the end of the day who are we to tell this man not to stat up NPC's? Or to insist that he's doing something wrong? It's a bit presumptive to think that we know his players well enough to say that his GM style isn't fun for them.

But also important, constantly telling him that he's doing it wrong and he doesn't need to stat these NPC's because ...... reasons .... kinda creates the image that this forum isn't a place to come to for help or to discuss the game. It gives the feeling that the only thing to discuss here are things that others consider good ideas. I doubt that's what anyone in this thread is going for but as I read through this thread (because I was kinda interested in seeing what some of the High Command stats might look like) I found myself questioning if this is the kind of forum that is really worth ones time if a simple question is going to generate this much push back for no reason other than a difference in overall GM style.

This may place me in the minority opinion, but let the man build his game the way he feels comfortable with.

I ..... I have to disagree with all of this.

[/snip]

You're more than welcome to disagree with what I wrote. What follows is not me trying to convince you I'm right, but instead to clarify what I said and why I said it.

The purpose of what I wrote was to provide some perspective, and it was intentionally blunt for effect. The approach described by the OP creates a lot of front end work, to the point where he could get bogged down and discouraged from running the game because he's set himself too much to do before he even gets the campaign started.

You say the only way to do it "wrong" is for him to run it in a way that isn't fun. IMO you can do it wrong if you never run it in the first place. If his players aren't playing, they aren't having fun, are they? I think more games have died because they never lived, than have died because they weren't fun.

Additionally, I think it's pretty obvious that this:

... is not at all what I'm saying. I will say statting out NPCs if you don't know what they're for is wrong, at least in my opinion. And it's wrong because when stat them out before you know what they're supposed to do, then you've spent all this time and effort statting for something they may need to do. As a GM, you don't want to toss all that work!

I will also admit to making the assumption that I assume the OP is something of a neophyte when it comes to GM'ing. If that's untrue, I apologize, but based on the grammar and topic, I think it's a pretty safe bet.

The forums should be a safe place to come and ask for help, but as more experienced members of the community, I think it's important to inform those asking for help when they're [likely] on the wrong track. I've had to say "Okay, just *stop* what you're doing" many times to my students to explain why that the mess they're making is totally irrelevant because they took a wrong turn 3 steps back.

The purpose of what I wrote was to provide some perspective, and it was intentionally blunt for effect. The approach described by the OP creates a lot of front end work, to the point where he could get bogged down and discouraged from running the game because he's set himself too much to do before he even gets the campaign started.

You say the only way to do it "wrong" is for him to run it in a way that isn't fun. IMO you can do it wrong if you never run it in the first place. If his players aren't playing, they aren't having fun, are they? I think more games have died because they never lived, than have died because they weren't fun.

It's his time though. If he wants to put in the front end work (and it sounds like he does) then how telling him he's wrong actually going to help? Sure there's a chance that he may not get the game going because he's put in to much work up front. But there's an equal chance that he does. Some people are extremely detail orientated and they need those details up front in order to work out other details of the plot. There is no single path to creativity. What is a lot of front end work for some is not really all that much work at all for others.

Also whose to say the OP doesn't have perspective? He likely has the best perspective of all as he knows best how his mind works and how he best designs plots and story elements. The OP didn't ask for help with perspective he just wanted help coming up with NPC's. But instead of coming up with NPC's people questioned whether or not he should even be doing that and casting his desire to do the NPC's first before anything else as bad. But it's only bad if it doesn't work and well ..... upfront and online we have no way of knowing if it wouldn't work.

It wasn't just your post though, it was others as well. I didn't opt to quote everyone but in general a lot of bad assumptions were made about the OP and his GM style based on nothing more than the OP wanting to stat some NPC's before he worked out all the plot details. Hell I could explain the entire plot for Ep IV based on stating Vader and Obi Wan first and working from there.

... is not at all what I'm saying. I will say statting out NPCs if you don't know what they're for is wrong, at least in my opinion. And it's wrong because when stat them out before you know what they're supposed to do, then you've spent all this time and effort statting for something they may need to do. As a GM, you don't want to toss all that work!

It's wrong to you. But it isn't actually a wrong thing to do. Some GM's might not toss out that work. Others can and would toss out that work. I've seen my fair share of GM's who have tossed out carefully plotted out and planned notes and work because the PC's did something unexpected. So the idea that a GM won't toss all that work isn't true.

Also you've made a lot of assumptions about the kind of GM this person is based on nothing really. It's ultimately his time. If he wants to spend it stating out NPC's then there is nothing wrong with that. His time, he can use it as he pleases. And this point of mine bears repeating, but maybe stating out the NPC's is how he works out his plots and story arcs. Maybe knowing what they can do and how they affect the world helps him get a better grasp on the world he's building.

The forums should be a safe place to come and ask for help, but as more experienced members of the community, I think it's important to inform those asking for help when they're [likely] on the wrong track. I've had to say "Okay, just *stop* what you're doing" many times to my students to explain why that the mess they're making is totally irrelevant because they took a wrong turn 3 steps back.

But you aren't creating a safe place to come and ask for help when the essence of the question isn't really answered and people start telling you what they think you should be doing and how they think you should be building an adventure with out having very much information on the type of person they are. And it becomes less of a safe place when people start deciding for others what is the wrong track. The problem is that this guy isn't one of your students and he didn't necessarily take a wrong turn 3 steps back. In order for him to take a wrong turn 3 steps back you have to buy into the assumption that there is a correct way to design a game. There isn't though. It really comes down to how best game design works for you.

He's working the problem from a different angle. But it's no less valid than the angle you approach the game with. Maybe it's more time consuming and more work. But some people think best when doing all that work. Others want the quickest path with the least amount of work. Both paths are valid. We can't decide for him whats the right way or the wrong way to design his game. But we can answer his question on what Ackbar looks like that may actually help him get a better grasp on what he wants to do for his game.

The game is meant to be NPC-lite. Exhibit A: Lando in JoY.

If he wants huge stat blocks he's better off going to WEG or Saga.

Yeah, he can do it how he likes. But if he's coming to a forum, we have a right to point out: 'that's not how the game was intended to play, sorry'.

The game is meant to be NPC-lite. Exhibit A: Lando in JoY.

If he wants huge stat blocks he's better off going to WEG or Saga.

Yeah, he can do it how he likes. But if he's coming to a forum, we have a right to point out: 'that's not how the game was intended to play, sorry'.

NPC Lite but not NPC Less. The OP didn't ask for stats to every NPC possible. He asked for help with just a few key members. By my account wanting NPC stats for Ackbar and Mothma is NPC Lite. As you pointed out, there are stats for Lando. So what's the big deal for having stats Ackbar? You can't make the argument that the system never intended key movie characters to be stated because we have .... well ..... Lando.

And the GM didn't ask for huge stat blocks. He asked for stats for key members that he feels he'll be using. Thus this isn't a WEG or Saga thing. The system clearly intended for there to be NPC's. The system clearly intended for there to be NPC's with stats. The system was written to be light in many regards but I doubt anyone who actually wrote the game would object to a GM stating up every NPC he wants if that's what makes the GM comfortable.

The only time we should recommend that someone play Saga or WEG over FFG version is if what the person is asking for is basically a system overhaul that more resembles those system designs than FFG's. But I don't think asking for NPC's falls into the category of system overhaul.

As for a right to say 'that's not how the game was intended to play, sorry' ... that clearly does not create a friendly welcoming environment. More so when you're actually wrong on the matter. There is no way you can prove that this system was created to not have NPC's. No way. And there are no grounds to rule that his desire to have NPC stats (bearing in mind that this game is actually filled with NPC stats, including Lando) is against the intent of how this game was made to be played.

No one should have to justify to you guys why they need NPC stats. But he had to and that is wrong. Instead of being helped he was told he was GMing it wrong. When he admitted that he was going to use these NPC's he was told he was doing it wrong (never mind that making use of NPC's isn't against the rules and is more a matter of GM style than anything). When the GM stated that creating NPC stats helps him work out his plot he was told he was wrong. He is being told he is wrong for doing things that are different from how you would do it, but by all accounts is just a style difference.

Telling someone that they should go play WEG or Saga because they come at plot creation different from you creates a forum environment that is not a safe place. It isn't welcoming. And it's slightly hypocritical considering how there's a create Anakin/Vader thread that no one has decided to leap into and tell people to take their stat creation over to WEG and Saga.

I felt after reading all the responses this post was a trap...

That said EF thanks for this: Fate Core has a nifty way of doing things