Stating NPCs and Adversaries

[WisdomOfWombat]

I really like the introductory nature of the Rivers of London rulesbook. But what I am missing is a bit of advice on crafting NPC stats. The text gives some general ideas in regards to opposed skills, but not really any instructions on how to come up with stats, or how the combat skills should scale. In particular, I need to stat a Manticore for my first adventure idea.

[Silverfoxdmt73]

I've noticed there isn't much in the RPG to aid with creating monsters or other magica creatures beyond the half dozen or so example creatures. Being new to BRP I don't want to make my first few new adversaries over the top or totally underpowered. Will there be any tools out there for GM's to make bespoke opponents? 

[WisdomOfWombat]

Just something I realized looking at the unicorn stats. A unicorn has a STR of 200. Thus, a unicorn will succeed on a damage roll on a 01-99 (either a hard success or a critical) or fumble. Together with a damage bonus a unicorn will regularly inflict 3 damage on a hit. So I am note sure that an adversary can be over the top… on the other hand, a unicorn will also ever take 3 damage before being taken out (of course they are naturally tough).

So, all things considered, I am not sure if an adversary can be overpowered. 😉 What I would like to know is how to rank the combat skills. So far we know: 30% is an untrained beginning character, 60% is somebody with training, 40% is somebody who sometimes resorts to violence (from the introductory solo). But when should I hand out 75%, 80% or higher? Of course I could take the skill values on page 79 as guideline.

But anyhow GM guidelines for creating opponents are a bit missing. Especially since Rivers of London is an introductory RPG. Personally, I have 30 years of GMing experience and I am versed in at least 50 different systems, I have less difficulty looking at the rules and coming to conclusions. But there are those with a lot less experience.

I can also see the argument that combat isn‘t the core of the game, and that the system is abstract enough to handle fights quickly. But even Peter gets into a couple of fights in each book.

[Silverfoxdmt73]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:56 AM, WisdomOfWombat said:

Just something I realized looking at the unicorn stats. A unicorn has a STR of 200. Thus, a unicorn will succeed on a damage roll on a 01-99 (either a hard success or a critical) or fumble. Together with a damage bonus a unicorn will regularly inflict 3 damage on a hit. So I am note sure that an adversary can be over the top… on the other hand, a unicorn will also ever take 3 damage before being taken out (of course they are naturally tough).

So, all things considered, I am not sure if an adversary can be overpowered. 😉 What I would like to know is how to rank the combat skills. So far we know: 30% is an untrained beginning character, 60% is somebody with training, 40% is somebody who sometimes resorts to violence (from the introductory solo). But when should I hand out 75%, 80% or higher? Of course I could take the skill values on page 79 as guideline.

But anyhow GM guidelines for creating opponents are a bit missing. Especially since Rivers of London is an introductory RPG. Personally, I have 30 years of GMing experience and I am versed in at least 50 different systems, I have less difficulty looking at the rules and coming to conclusions. But there are those with a lot less experience.

I can also see the argument that combat isn‘t the core of the game, and that the system is abstract enough to handle fights quickly. But even Peter gets into a couple of fights in each book.

 

Just reading through the entries for creatures etc and I have to agree, nothing is necessarily "overpowered" as such, but I guess going into combat with fae and other creatures should be a last resort or self defence rather than someone's first port of call. I guess combating fae antagonists should be more about researching their weaknesses and/or affiliations and working out what they want then deciding how best to tackle them.

Skills would be useful to know, but as a GM it would be a case of working out what would be a logical level to give them. As you say, we have the 60/30 skilled and unskilled benchmark to work from. 

Magic is something I think that needs more of a 'balanced' approach, or at least some more carefully considered means of putting them into the right Order without making them too powerful.