Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Arioch on June 28, 2012, 02:53:24 PM
-
How do you handle them?
Do you let the players control them or do you treat the as normal NPCs? Do you give them a "morale" stat?
Do you usually fully stat them out, use pregenerated characters (like those in Character Law) or what?
Do you you use them as a replacement for dead PCs?
-
I treat them as normal NPCs, often with motives of their own for accepting service with the PCs. I don't use any sort of morale stat for them....I tend to develop things like that when I do their background.
Any significant henchmen I fully stat, otherwise I use one of the templates I've developed for my campaign (skilled mercenary, mall ninja, would-be warrior, and so on) with adjustments as needed.
On a couple of occasions I've allowed players to take over a hireling if their character was killed (if that's what you mean). In most cases the hireling had been with the party for a number of adventures and was already something of a de facto party member. Sometimes I'll let them run the hireling during combat if their character is killed or otherwise out of action.
-
For henchmen, I fully develop the character like a PC, including personality and motivations. I let the player control up to 1 henchman at a time (the others are off doing other tasks), as long as the henchman is being played faithfully.
Hirelings are usually only around long enough to accomplish their one task, so I don't spec out the hireling, but I do establish the usual physical appearance and demeanor information.
-
How do you handle them?
Usually, quite rough. ;D
Seriously though, as a GM and player I will have full stats and treat them as a player/full-fledged individual.
-
In general, in game, I have the PC's treat them as they would in real life. As per stats I stat or stat out the important aspects of the NPC or iNPC (important NPC), hNPC (henchmen NPC), foNPC (follower NPC) and hiNPC (hireling NPC) but in general I wing it from there. I give the xNPC level approp. stats in skills and then drop the level approp. skill level for other skills.
I generally do not use books with NPC's (and they tend to be the last book I would ever buy, but that is me) but there are times that I enjoy reading them and I can see people looking at them now a-days for build ideas. Build ideas was not a big term for me back in the early 2000's and late 1990's but it has come into the for-fount today.
MDC
-
On a couple of occasions I've allowed players to take over a hireling if their character was killed (if that's what you mean).
Yep, that's precisely what I meant!
-
On a couple of occasions I've allowed players to take over a hireling if their character was killed (if that's what you mean).
Yep, that's precisely what I meant!
It's happened on a couple of occasions, like I said, and usually with an NPC that had been "part of the party" for some time. I also tend to level up henchmen and more important hirelings along with the PCs (means I have to track their XPs), so after a time the players feel like these NPCs are "one of them" and in some cases form game friendships with them. The two that ended up being taken over by players were a Fartrekker Bard (Fartrekkers are something like Gypsies in my world) with a drinking problem and a Dwarven duelist who grew from a bit walk-on part in an inn to something of the party's hired tank.
-
I tend to develop them as the game goes on. At the beginning the players usually just need "someone to pick that lock" or "someone who'll guard our back for money" and they have very minimal stats (like profession, race, level. I look skill bonuses up in character law according to their level).
If they survive and stick to the group long enough to become of some importance, I fully stat them.
After re-playing d&d (b/x) for a while, I found that Morale is actually a nice way to handle their reactions to danger: it lets me be completely impartial and makes running NPCs slightly more entertaining (sometimes they'll surprise you, they really seem to act according to their own will, rather than being controlled by the GM).
I'm thinking of incorporating it into RM, too, maybe just as a straight % roll.
-
After re-playing d&d (b/x) for a while, I found that Morale is actually a nice way to handle their reactions to danger: it lets me be completely impartial and makes running NPCs slightly more entertaining (sometimes they'll surprise you, they really seem to act according to their own will, rather than being controlled by the GM).
I'm thinking of incorporating it into RM, too, maybe just as a straight % roll.
Sorry I am not up on the D&D lingo what is D&D (b/x)?
Also have you looked into War Law for Moral? IIRC they have some rules in there that I think would work well or NPC's or group moral.
MDC
-
DnD morale rules are far better than those in War Law: quicker, clearer and intuitive. GG knocked it out the park with that tiny d20 table. I have used it for years, slightly modified.
Basically, 5 or less, screaming attack...100+, over bearing affection.
-
War Law was, IMO, overly-complex. Sort of an attempt to convert RM into a tabletop war game. It could be handy for unit morale, but didn't work too well when taken to the individual level.
-
yammahoper and intothatdarkness;
Thanks I am playing in a Pathfinder game (it was that and/or a WoD game and I am very tired of WoD right now) and I will look that up.
MDC
-
Sorry I am not up on the D&D lingo what is D&D (b/x)?
Basic/Expert aka the red and the blue box (these: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NwmONfFRlSs/T3YXBQTtG6I/AAAAAAAAAIQ/KqwU6q0SpIY/s1600/IMG_0304.JPG (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NwmONfFRlSs/T3YXBQTtG6I/AAAAAAAAAIQ/KqwU6q0SpIY/s1600/IMG_0304.JPG))
-
Otherwise known as D&D as opposed to AD&D. Although by now that distinction may have disappeared.
It's interesting to look back through those old books, actually. They were pretty well put together. Rules sorta sucked in some areas, of course.
-
Isn't Pathfinder 3e? Or 3.5e I guess. Haven't read it yet. I image I will, as something that popular rather demands attention from a gamer geek like myself...
Yet I refer to the original Dungeon Masters Guide from 1e, sorry for the confusion. It is the only DnD book I wish I still had (and can see myself purchasing if one happens upon me via random book encounter roll).
-
Pathfinder is fixed 3.5e and they did a lot of fixing IMHO so it works very well together. If you want to take a look look for the pathfinder srd and you will find all the info you need in the book. I will not post the URL as it is another company.
D&D (b/x) when I bought the Basic Set it was just one Blue book with a Dragon on the cover.
MDC
-
The DMG was from AD&D as far as I know. Older D&D (which co-existed with AD&D for a time) had red, blue, and I think gold covers (don't remember the last one...I never bothered with Immortal or whatever they called it).
-
D&D went back to being D&D and not AD&D for 3rd edition.
We usually refer to Pathfinder as 3.6. Since it picked things up from where 3.5 had left it, with enough fixes to qualify for adding a .1, while WoC released their tabletop MMO as 4th edition.
I played a little 3, 3.5, and 4. 4 was so bad we switched to World of Darkness instead. It looked shiny and new for some members of our group at first, and it did some things well (e.g. it really succeeded in terms of clarity in my opinion), but it didn't take long before no one in the group could tolerate it at all. The first player to try it (in someone else's campaign), who had pitched it, was also the first person to bail out and didn't come back until we changed systems.
I'm on a tangent from the thread, aren't I? :-[
-
I'm on a tangent from the thread, aren't I? :-[
Par for the course my friend ;)
-
I'm on a tangent from the thread, aren't I? :-[
No worries. It happens. :)
I really stopped paying attention to D&D around the time Forgotten Realms came out in a big way, so missed the dropping of the 'A'. Got more into WHFRP, Mythus, and of course stuck with RM2.
-
Yet I refer to the original Dungeon Masters Guide from 1e, sorry for the confusion. It is the only DnD book I wish I still had (and can see myself purchasing if one happens upon me via random book encounter roll).
WotC just reprinted ad&d 1st edition, if you're interested.
I played a little 3, 3.5, and 4. 4 was so bad we switched to World of Darkness instead. It looked shiny and new for some members of our group at first, and it did some things well (e.g. it really succeeded in terms of clarity in my opinion), but it didn't take long before no one in the group could tolerate it at all. The first player to try it (in someone else's campaign), who had pitched it, was also the first person to bail out and didn't come back until we changed systems.
4th edition is the only d&d I can stand beside the old basic, probably because is so different from any other edition. I really like the "boardgaminess" of combat (tactical movement, powers, etc...) and the fact that it's stupid easy to DM. Really, it cuts prep time to almost nothing.
-
Back on topic, I looked up the morale rules in war law, but they're indeed too complex for my tastes. I've decided to use the old ad&d rules, slightly modified to better fit RM, if someone is interested, I might turn my notes about it into a small article and send it to the GC.
-
On thing I did in the past was to have the players create 2 PC's about a month apart. One was combat oriented and the second more support oriented. I made sure to have a mix in both groups so one round of PC gen did not contain all of one type. This worked well and the PC's had a back up in case things went bad for them. It also provided for some of the extra bodies they needed for a spaceship in SM:P.
MDC
-
Rolemaster put out a book which had all the main classes, for that expansion, written up with stats, spells and magic items at several different levels. Was called Heroes and Rogues #1420. 1991 publish date.
-
I fully stat any NPCs that will be around for a while, and usually let the players control them, provided they aren't having them do things that they wouldn't normally do. For ujust a hireling I would probably just give them a stat block, selecting a couple of skill highlights reflecting what the PCs are hiring for.
And off topic :) In my D&D set I have the red basic, blue expert, greenish companion, black masters and gold immortal sets. And a full set of 1st ed AD&D, a good portion of the non-setting 2nd ed, most of the non-setting 3rd/3.5, and none of the 4th. I did a demo game for 4th at a convention, and after 45 minutes I had to get up and walk away it was so bad. And I wasn't the first player to do so.
Pathfinder as mentioned above is 3.5 mended. I'm not overly enamoured of the way they keep on loading specific special abilities with new effects (e.g. the paladin's lay on hands getting additional effects so one LoH application might heal damage, cure disease, remove fatigue, remove paralysis... etc with no way to just select one ability), but a lot of the rule tweaks make a lot of sense and are very playable. I particularly like the fighter bonuses for weapons and armour, and also the wizard school bonus abilities (e.g. an evocation specialist can shoot an energy missile that does somthing like 1d6+ half level daamge) & the option to have a bonded item rather than a familiar.
My favourite mechanism from all the D&D series though is second edition character kits - lots of interesting new templates to play, completely opened out the game from it's linear character pathways. Unfortunately they went back to the linear for v.3
-
Rolemaster put out a book which had all the main classes, for that expansion, written up with stats, spells and magic items at several different levels. Was called Heroes and Rogues #1420. 1991 publish date.
Good to know, it might be worth giving it a look, NPCs from SW (or even MERP) modules tend to be relatively high in level or have very peculiar items with them. A bunch of low level NPCs ready to go are always handy :)
-
My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's. SW and MERP NPC's, especially the powerful ones, were not. Many were designed by Terry, and Terry sees no reason to not just write down what he thinks/wants them to have. I dislike this because it typically either over powers or under powers and rarely results in a number resembling the reality players live in under the game mechnics and rules.
Rule zero is great, but if the GM is enforcing a rule players must follow, he should too.
-
My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's. SW and MERP NPC's, especially the powerful ones, were not. Many were designed by Terry, and Terry sees no reason to not just write down what he thinks/wants them to have. I dislike this because it typically either over powers or under powers and rarely results in a number resembling the reality players live in under the game mechnics and rules.
Rule zero is great, but if the GM is enforcing a rule players must follow, he should too.
I always rolled up and developed my NPCs (the more specific/special ones, anyhow) EXACTLY like I would a PC.
-
I'm not saying I never used or invented a talent or optional rule for a NPC: odd that most are villians the players are set on killing rather than learning from ;)
One such NPC I used the option of a 5.4.3.2.1 skill rank bonus. They never had to fight that guardian, but I might have suspected they would attack him anyway. Ah, watching the spell users drag off the warriors (no one could teleport due to the Guardian using a nice Arcane list to increase gravity in the area so everyone was to heavy to use transport magic.).
RM, goodtimes.
-
My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's.
I totally agree.
(Well, except for monsters. Monsters should never follow the same rules as PCs imho, but that's another story)
-
My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's.
I totally agree.
(Well, except for monsters. Monsters should never follow the same rules as PCs imho, but that's another story)
Then what to do with things that fall into both categories, like Orcs? "Monsters" that are also a character race?
-
Then what to do with things that fall into both categories, like Orcs? "Monsters" that are also a character race?
Good Point.
But, to put it simple, if a race is available as a character race, then it isn't a monster, and I'd build NPCs from that race using character generation rules.
Imho, monsters should be scary, strange and mysterious. If something is well-known or commonplace, then it's not a monster. If orcs are available as a PC race, then that orc you just killed is not a monster, it's a person (like trolls in my current campaign :)). A savage brute maybe, but not a monster.
Or, if wyverns are so common that you can go and buy one as a riding steed, then wyverns are not monsters but just animals.
(OTOH, if you played a pseudo-historic campaign set in the ancient Rome, things like elephants, lions or crocodiles could be treated as monsters and be given "magical" abilities, like a fear-inducing roar...).
-
Then what to do with things that fall into both categories, like Orcs? "Monsters" that are also a character race?
I didn't have Orcs as a player race in my word, but they did exist as nation-states. In that case, when they appeared, I developed them in the same way I did other NPCs (a set of generic types and then more detailed ones developed in a similar way to PCs).