Rating Characters from Literature

[Finarvyn]

As a co-thread to the "Characters from Literature" thread, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the process of stating out characters. But instead of cluttering up the other thread I thought I would do it here.

As a disclaimer, clearly everyone has their own idea of how this can be done. This is just my own system.

1. Level
My primary assumption here is that the terms "hero" (4th level) and "superhero" (8th level) have some meaning. As such, my first step is to assign characters to a ranking based on a couple general criteria:
Level 1 "flunky" -- general non-heroic characters
Level 2 "experienced" -- slightly experineced characters
Level 4 "hero" -- lesser heroes and/or sidekicks
Level 8 "superhero" -- greater heroes
Level 12 "mythic" -- pretty much my ultimate top-off point.

Then I can do a +/- level thing to distinguish between two similar tiers where characters may vary slightly.

This is a little game that my son and I began with "Star Wars" and we found that we could actually OD&D stat out an entire group of characters in a hurry with a staircase approach like this. If you wanted to do it more AD&D style you almost double the levels (perhaps 1,3,6,12,20).

For example, this could be levels for The Hobbit:
Level 1 = Bilbo
Level 2 = most of the dwarves
Level 4 = Thorin Oakenshield
Level 8 = Gandalf
Level 12 = Smaug

How about characters in The Lord of the Rings?
Level 1 (or 2) = the Hobbits, basic orcs
Level 4 = Legolas, Gimli, Cave Troll
Level 8 = Aragorn, Nazgul
Level 10 (had to do a +/- here) = Gandalf, Saruman, Balrog
Level 12 = Sauron

[Finarvyn]

2. Attributes:
The second step after level is determined is to generate the stats for characters. One thing I hate about most of the standard ways to rate characters is that they never seem to give any weaknesses to them. Look at the AD&D Deities & Demigods book to see King Arthur's stats. Or Conan's. Or (fill-in-the-blank)'s. Wow. Pretty much every character ever statted is 18's in everything.

Boring.

I like to begin with a simple system like this:
A = among the best; he's renowned for this
B = above average; clearly good at this
C = average; neither a help nor hinderence
D = below average; occasionally a disadvantage
F = clear weakness; often a disadvantage

The scale for OD&D might be somehting like this:
A = 16 - 18 (the +2 or +3 range in B/X)
B = 13 - 15 (the +1 range in B/X)
C = 9 - 12 (the +0 range in B/X)
D = 6 - 8 (the -1 range in B/X)
F = 3 - 5 (the -2 or -3 range in B/X)

When we rate characters, it's with the idea that A-ratings are few and far between. Also, that very few characters would have more than one A-rating.

Conan is clearly an A-Strength, since that's what he's know for the best. I'm more inclined to give him a B for dexterity even though Howard describes him as having panther-like speed, mostly because I'm looking for a character with variation.

Maybe this could be Conan:

He's a "superhero" of level 8 (clearly the star of his series)
Strength = A
Intelligence = C
Wisdom = C
Constitution = B
Dexterity = B
Charisma = C
His strength is amazing. He is known for great CON and DEX. He's apparently not of low intelligence or wisdom, even though he's not very educated. His charisma is at least average; he does lead sometimes but isn't known as being super-attractive or anything else to really distinguish him in this regard.

Maybe not as amazing as REH sometimes portrays him, but certainly a character that seems to fit into a campaign rather than totally unbalance it.

What do you think?

[driver]

I like this approach better than the "Giants in the Earth" column ... the early columns especially inflated the characters to levels that'd be ludicrous in most campaigns. Cugel the Clever shouldn't be able to go toe to toe with a dragon.

[murquhart72]

That's not only how I'd do it, but it's how I generate statistics for PCs as well (after getting a clear character concept going)! It works perfect for OD&D, which is a bit more down-to-earth than the uber-campaigns of AD&D and other games.
But again, this feels like a Men & Magic thread to me...

[Finarvyn]

themattjon said:

But again, this feels like a Men & Magic thread to me...

Hmm. I agree. And now it is one!

[redpriest]

Yeah, it's hard to nerf Conan in the charisma and intelligence categories. You're clearly looking for some balance and I think those are safe categories to downplay his abilities just a wee bit. IIRC, Giants in the Earth spec'd Conan by age, and I think that was a cool idea. Clearly, the barbarian gained in wisdom as he matured. Maybe a middle-aged Conan would lose a level of strength and gain one each in wisdom and charisma. The older Conan was earning the allegiance of entire kingdoms, and you're not doing that w/o at least a "B" charisma.

Excellent classification system; take an exalt.

[Finarvyn]

redpriest said:

Yeah, it's hard to nerf Conan in the strength and intelligence categories.

Um ... I did rate him an "A" in strength. How much higher do you want it to go? (But I'll take that EXALT anyway! ;D )

[redpriest]

admin said:

redpriest said:

Yeah, it's hard to nerf Conan in the strength and intelligence categories.

Um ... I did rate him an "A" in strength. How much higher do you want it to go? (But I'll take that EXALT anyway! ;D )

Oops.. that was supposed to be intelligence and charisma, not strength. Fixed.