@2P51: If that is the case in your opinion then they why bother with stats at all?

You bother with stats because you're comparing capabilities to a desired outcome, which is only tangentially related to the PCs, their XP, and what they've spent it on.

If you go through all the trouble to make an opponent who happens to be an Engineer to be on par with the PC's Engineer, and you only use it for a combat encounter, then you've wasted a pile of time giving the NPC "Gearhead" and other Talents that are going to be irrelevant.

I would say that depends on your players. I have been in games where players were bored at the beginning because they kept getting knocked unconscious and were only really interested when they got to the higher levels and could really do a lot more.

Maybe they got knocked unconscious because the challenge wasn't scaled appropriately.

Yes, and not having a good way to compare (or at least an understanding of how to compare) an NPC to a PC can help alleviate this.

@Kael: and that is precisely the point I am making, you are right that NPCs don't use the same rules as the PCs because there are no rules in how (or guide) in how to create NPCs other than give them what you think they shoudl have.

If you did use the same steps then you can better judge what is a challenge for the PCs when you create NPCs.

Even systems with real rules for NPC building falls prey to being hard to judge what is going to be a challenge for PC's. This system seems to suggest that dice pools is a good way to judge though. But the exact numbers are less important than to the function they serve in the story.

And that is true in that but being able to compare the amount of XP it took to create an NPC can lessen the challenge as you can compare o the PC's XP total. I also like to introduce NPCs to the PC and if the players do something that makes me want to use that NPC as a recurring NPC knowing how to develop that NPC alongside the PCs makes it more fair

There's nothing currently stopping you from using NPC's along side PCs. Nor is there nothing that stops you from developing NPC's along PC's in an unfair way. NPC's are meant to develop based on the narrative needs of the GM, of which there is no single path to. NPC's that are meant to be bad guys can be adjusted based on the current PC dice pools and the tricks they have. There is nothing unfair about that. Flipside NPC's that the PC's work with don't really need detailed stats to be fairly developed with them.

This game doesn't equate stats with fairness.

The game may not, but some players do.

The game may not, but some players do.

Not to be harsh or anything, but that's that players' problem. If a player honestly has issues with NPC's not being built like PC's then he should only play in games that do just that. I don't feel that every game needs to work the same way. As a matter of fact the variety in ways to game is one of the things I personally enjoy. The fact that this game doesn't play like L5R, D&D, or WoD is part of why it's so fun.

But if a player is looking for a particular experience, he should stick to games that provide them and not play games that don't even agree with that outlook.

So if I had a player who equated fairness with stats I'd tell him to either deal or find a new game. I know it sounds harsh but the idea that all games should deliver the same experience (which is basically what is being asked here) is asinine. After all there are versions of Star Wars that do a better job of making NPC stats the same as PC's. So I see no reason why FFG needs to duplicate that when we already have that (granted people have their gripes with those systems too so it's lose/lose but eeeeh).

It also helps when new adventure modules are published so that a GM will know whether the module needs to scaled or not. There is a big difference between running an adventure intended for beginner characters versus one for advanced characters.

It also helps when new adventure modules are published so that a GM will know whether the module needs to scaled or not. There is a big difference between running an adventure intended for beginner characters versus one for advanced characters.

Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled.

Edit: Granted I've only read two, but I recall Arada I and Jewel of Yavin mentioning what level of play the adventure is being aimed at.

So if I had a player who equated fairness with stats I'd tell him to either deal or find a new game. I know it sounds harsh but the idea that all games should deliver the same experience (which is basically what is being asked here) is asinine. After all there are versions of Star Wars that do a better job of making NPC stats the same as PC's. So I see no reason why FFG needs to duplicate that when we already have that (granted people have their gripes with those systems too so it's lose/lose but eeeeh).

Player? So what about a friend? Still the same deal or else answer?

It also helps when new adventure modules are published so that a GM will know whether the module needs to scaled or not. There is a big difference between running an adventure intended for beginner characters versus one for advanced characters.

Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled.

Do they say scaled to what sort of level? Knight level?

The published adventures do have a difficulty

It also helps when new adventure modules are published so that a GM will know whether the module needs to scaled or not. There is a big difference between running an adventure intended for beginner characters versus one for advanced characters.

Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled.

Do they say scaled to what sort of level? Knight level?

They don't speak to that. Like I said, a fixed xp # isn't going to tell you anything, they just say things like they're good for PCs just starting or they need to have some experience, and if not tweak adversary #s downward.

So if I had a player who equated fairness with stats I'd tell him to either deal or find a new game. I know it sounds harsh but the idea that all games should deliver the same experience (which is basically what is being asked here) is asinine. After all there are versions of Star Wars that do a better job of making NPC stats the same as PC's. So I see no reason why FFG needs to duplicate that when we already have that (granted people have their gripes with those systems too so it's lose/lose but eeeeh).

Player? So what about a friend? Still the same deal or else answer?

Yes I'd say it to a friend. I'm not going to apologize for how this game does stuff and if I had a player who didnt like how this game was designed, even if he was a friend I'd tell him to deal with it or find another game. We can still be friends of course. But I have friends with whom I can't game with because we don't see eye to eye on how to game. Still doesn't stop them from being my friend though.

The published adventures do have a difficulty

It also helps when new adventure modules are published so that a GM will know whether the module needs to scaled or not. There is a big difference between running an adventure intended for beginner characters versus one for advanced characters.

Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled.

Do they say scaled to what sort of level? Knight level?

They don't speak to that. Like I said, a fixed xp # isn't going to tell you anything, they just say things like they're good for PCs just starting or they need to have some experience, and if not tweak adversary #s downward.

And I think it's worth noting that the reason why there isn't an exact scaling level given is because there is no way for FFG to know how to scale an adventure for individual groups. Due to the number of possible combinations out there for party's any concrete advice would be a shot in the dark at best and may not be useful to any given GM.

Maybe they got knocked unconscious because the challenge wasn't scaled appropriately.

Yes, and not having a good way to compare (or at least an understanding of how to compare) an NPC to a PC can help alleviate this.

Fair enough. Yes, this game is harder to scale than something like D&D. We have a group game we're planning, with rotating GMs, and as much as I'd love to use EotE, the main problem is that a couple of the guys aren't rules-savvy...and they don't want to be. So the D&D GM's guide has a handy chart for building encounters, and that makes it easier to give everybody a turn in the GM chair.

But building NPCs to match PCs isn't the solution. There are several threads on scaling encounters in the Game Masters sub forum which you might want to check out, but you basically start by comparing dice pools. It's simpler and more accurate than building the NPCs as if they're PCs.

Maybe they got knocked unconscious because the challenge wasn't scaled appropriately.

Yes, and not having a good way to compare (or at least an understanding of how to compare) an NPC to a PC can help alleviate this.

Fair enough. Yes, this game is harder to scale than something like D&D. We have a group game we're planning, with rotating GMs, and as much as I'd love to use EotE, the main problem is that a couple of the guys aren't rules-savvy...and they don't want to be. So the D&D GM's guide has a handy chart for building encounters, and that makes it easier to give everybody a turn in the GM chair.

But building NPCs to match PCs isn't the solution. There are several threads on scaling encounters in the Game Masters sub forum which you might want to check out, but you basically start by comparing dice pools. It's simpler and more accurate than building the NPCs as if they're PCs.

Understood. One of the ways I tend to learn a new system is by creating characters or NPCs, it helps me learn the system and understand it better, typically.

So if I had a player who equated fairness with stats I'd tell him to either deal or find a new game. I know it sounds harsh but the idea that all games should deliver the same experience (which is basically what is being asked here) is asinine. After all there are versions of Star Wars that do a better job of making NPC stats the same as PC's. So I see no reason why FFG needs to duplicate that when we already have that (granted people have their gripes with those systems too so it's lose/lose but eeeeh).

Player? So what about a friend? Still the same deal or else answer?

Yes I'd say it to a friend. I'm not going to apologize for how this game does stuff and if I had a player who didnt like how this game was designed, even if he was a friend I'd tell him to deal with it or find another game. We can still be friends of course. But I have friends with whom I can't game with because we don't see eye to eye on how to game. Still doesn't stop them from being my friend though.

Just stops you from being able to enjoy the game together though.

The published adventures do have a difficulty

It also helps when new adventure modules are published so that a GM will know whether the module needs to scaled or not. There is a big difference between running an adventure intended for beginner characters versus one for advanced characters.

Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled.

Do they say scaled to what sort of level? Knight level?

They don't speak to that. Like I said, a fixed xp # isn't going to tell you anything, they just say things like they're good for PCs just starting or they need to have some experience, and if not tweak adversary #s downward.

And I think it's worth noting that the reason why there isn't an exact scaling level given is because there is no way for FFG to know how to scale an adventure for individual groups. Due to the number of possible combinations out there for party's any concrete advice would be a shot in the dark at best and may not be useful to any given GM.

So printing adventure models with the disclosure "may need to be scaled" is fairly useless as this is a given, at least based on what you said.

So this comment "Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled." doesn't really help in any way at all then.

I kinda figured the whole "knight level play" would begin to address these type of issues but guess not.

Just stops you from being able to enjoy the game together though.

True, but if we don't see eye to eye on how to game then we weren't going to enjoy gaming together to begin with. Better to be upfront and part on friendly terms than to have a friendship ruined because both of us got bitter about how the other games.

I accept that I can't game with all my gaming friends. And I accept that that's true because I don't always agree with what my friends find to be fun. I'm not going to change for them so I'm not going to force them to change for me.

So printing adventure models with the disclosure "may need to be scaled" is fairly useless as this is a given, at least based on what you said.

So this comment "Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled." doesn't really help in any way at all then.

Well yes and no. It mostly lets you know if the adventure is good for starting characters or not. From there it's all on you to decide how to scale it.

I kinda figured the whole "knight level play" would begin to address these type of issues but guess not.

No but even Knight Level play is misleading. Two PC's built at Knight Level can be radically different in terms of power that will screw with a GM's pre made NPC's and encounters. The flaw in the system is that there is so much diversity in how to build a PC and what's possible that having rigid rules fails.

I encountered this problem a lot in WoD. At first they tried to stat NPC's as PC's. But then we soon discovered that what we considered average for a PC (at least in our games) was out classing what WoD was telling us was elite for the game. Their system was such that due to the level of diversity between PC's that all attempts by them to give you standard NPC's were either too hard or too easy.

Rigid rules work well though for games designed like D&D, in which the amount of differences between PC's and between possible builds across numerous tables is smaller. A 5 level Warlock (for instance) is going to always have X abilities at Y power. There are going to be some differences but in general it's easier to be rigid in such things when the system offers fewer build options.

A system like this though, you'd soon find that what the book suggest doesn't work for your group. Either because it's too hard, or to easy, or your PC's are just too creative. I find that this system is more flexible in regards to NPC creation than most games I've played that are similar. Which does suck for people who live on more rigid styles of play.

So printing adventure models with the disclosure "may need to be scaled" is fairly useless as this is a given, at least based on what you said.

So this comment "Most of the adventures released so far mention whether or not they need to be scaled." doesn't really help in any way at all then.

Well yes and no. It mostly lets you know if the adventure is good for starting characters or not. From there it's all on you to decide how to scale it.

I kinda figured the whole "knight level play" would begin to address these type of issues but guess not.

No but even Knight Level play is misleading. Two PC's built at Knight Level can be radically different in terms of power that will screw with a GM's pre made NPC's and encounters. The flaw in the system is that there is so much diversity in how to build a PC and what's possible that having rigid rules fails.

I encountered this problem a lot in WoD. At first they tried to stat NPC's as PC's. But then we soon discovered that what we considered average for a PC (at least in our games) was out classing what WoD was telling us was elite for the game. Their system was such that due to the level of diversity between PC's that all attempts by them to give you standard NPC's were either too hard or too easy.

Rigid rules work well though for games designed like D&D, in which the amount of differences between PC's and between possible builds across numerous tables is smaller. A 5 level Warlock (for instance) is going to always have X abilities at Y power. There are going to be some differences but in general it's easier to be rigid in such things when the system offers fewer build options.

A system like this though, you'd soon find that what the book suggest doesn't work for your group. Either because it's too hard, or to easy, or your PC's are just too creative. I find that this system is more flexible in regards to NPC creation than most games I've played that are similar. Which does suck for people who live on more rigid styles of play.

So it sounds like we're back to one of the big problems that the d6 system had.

Will keep this in mind, i had a feeling that this was going to be the way it is but was hoping somebody remembered from back then but guess not.

So it sounds like we're back to one of the big problems that the d6 system had.

I don't think it's the same. Similar maybe, but a) you can still measure dice pools against what you want to achieve, and b) this system scales far better...IMHO, which, admittedly, is limited as I didn't play D6 a lot.

So it sounds like we're back to one of the big problems that the d6 system had.

Will keep this in mind, i had a feeling that this was going to be the way it is but was hoping somebody remembered from back then but guess not.

I never played WEG version, just WotC and FFG's. So I have no clue what the problems d6 had and if this system is doing that over again. Sorry.

I will say this though, there are more structured versions of Star Wars out there, namely WotC. So if FFG's looser way of doing it doesn't suit you then play by a different rule set that does. I don't feel that FFG's take on it is going to satisfy every gamer out there. But I also feel that it shouldn't have to. That's why it's good that we have different versions and different games out there.

So it sounds like we're back to one of the big problems that the d6 system had.

I don't think it's the same. Similar maybe, but a) you can still measure dice pools against what you want to achieve, and b) this system scales far better...IMHO, which, admittedly, is limited as I didn't play D6 a lot.

The d6 has basically the same thing, here you compare dice pools, where as there you compare how many d6 each PC\NPC had. The only real difference is that everything was an opposed role in d6, but Destiny has a few set difficulties.

So in the aspect of comparing an NPC to a PC in regards to a specific task, then it is no different.

So it sounds like we're back to one of the big problems that the d6 system had.

Will keep this in mind, i had a feeling that this was going to be the way it is but was hoping somebody remembered from back then but guess not.

I never played WEG version, just WotC and FFG's. So I have no clue what the problems d6 had and if this system is doing that over again. Sorry.

I will say this though, there are more structured versions of Star Wars out there, namely WotC. So if FFG's looser way of doing it doesn't suit you then play by a different rule set that does. I don't feel that FFG's take on it is going to satisfy every gamer out there. But I also feel that it shouldn't have to. That's why it's good that we have different versions and different games out there.

Yeah, I have the SW RPG since WEG d6 and I prefer the d6 & Destiny as a player as it allows me to better tailor my character to the way i want and to develop it however and in whatever direction I want without too many restrictions (if any) and as a GM I prefer so far the d20 & Saga versions as it allowed faster and easier compare between NPC & PC (or group of PCs) in my opinion as it was already built into the system with the Challenge Rating mechanic.

I never partook as a GM in the d6 system (only experience was as a player) but I heard my GM grumble about it all the time he had a hard time figuring out what would be a good challenge for us. For destiny system I am beginning to see this for myself.

WotC system has it's ups and downs just like FFG's. I actually found Saga to be wonderful. Though I am enjoying FFG's more.

WotC system has it's ups and downs just like FFG's. I actually found Saga to be wonderful. Though I am enjoying FFG's more.

Yep, every system does.

I'd hate to answer a question with a question, but since it's suddenly a "broken" aspect of this game, is there an RPG where you go through & make opponents with the CHARGEN system, or documentation showing how opponents were created with the CHARGEN system?

D&D 3.0+/Pathfinder do build NPCs like you build PCs. Adding levels and feats on the same chart progression.

Shadowrun, GURPS, Savage Worlds, D6 (WEG Star Wars, D6 Fantasy, D6 Space, etc...), TORG, FFG Star Wars build NPCs with stats as needed. Same with HERO/Champions.

In HERO you can gauge the strength of an opponent by how much XP was spent on all the abilities, but like other non-level based systems, equal expenditure of points doesn't mean equal balance for something like combat.

D&D (old school) didn't have NPCs built like PCs.

Not sure about other systems like FATE.