Re: Re: Friendly NPC Ability Scores

From: Bo <lorgryt_at_...>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:12:50 -0800

On 12/21/2011 7:24 AM, matthew.cole wrote:
> I myself mostly use a subset of the full HQ2 rulebook, keeping the more
> complex stuff for special or very fitting occasions. I find complex rules
> often represent increased work and can be counter to my desired comfort
> level. You seem to have a more complete knowledge of the text than I; a
> cursory search of the HQ book for "Supporting Characters" revealed that an
> example (possibly the same one you mention, about the reporter) does indeed
> have a reference to an ability rating for a supporting character but my
> reading suggests it's just the base resistance (+ PFC/Story Logic) being
> spoken of as if it were an Ability. Perhaps you can show me what you're
> talking about?
>

I believe RAW page 61, Changing Ability Ratings over Time, shows your point, Matthew. It clearly shows the competency going up to the PCs level.

That being said I see no reason not to stat out major NPCs so there is some idea of their abilities (whether that is with actual stats, references to competency or bullet-points). Some folks want to spend more time with their game that others and for them the "dark path" is they path they like. As you said, changing some of the features of the system changes the flavor and function of the game. Nothing wrong with that if that is what you want.

I am still juggling "crunchy bits" in my head about my Star Wars game ideas. I know the system doesn't require them, and may be easier without them, but adding them isn't going to break it, it will just add to the workload of the narrator. I am trying to decide if I want to put that much work into it. This, too, is a dark path... but you never get to Granny's house if you don't walk one once in a while.

Bo