Do you STAT your Big bad or do you just kinda play it by ear?

[fantazero]

Like for example you were fighting the Hulk/Thor/Superman/Super Baddy do you STAT it out or just kinda wing it?

[Mr. Death]

Yes. If the PCs are going to be facing them in direct conflict of one type or another, they should have solid stats written down somewhere. If the opponent doesn't have stats, then the PCs' stats are next to meaningless, and you won't be able to provide a consistent challenge.

[Aminar]

Yes. If the PCs are going to be facing them in direct conflict of one type or another, they should have solid stats written down somewhere. If the opponent doesn't have stats, then the PCs' stats are next to meaningless, and you won't be able to provide a consistent challenge.

untrue.

I have found that playing a battle by ear keeps the tension going far better, as long as you keep the rolls they are making consistent.  Much like in writing it is better to do things in an exciting way than following too complex a set of rules.  Granted, this takes a good deal of concentration, memory, intuition, and on the spot thinking; but my players have enjoyed the fights where I stat things out less more.

[admiralducksauce]

I might not have stats right when the fight starts but when it does and I have to roll, I write down their stats when it comes up.  Kind of like a villainous version of on-the-fly character creation.

I prefer, however, to have stats ready in advance.  If I do have time for stats, I try to make sure they have meaningful ways to interact with the PCs as well as the stats to back up whatever evil machinations they'd be doing if there WERE no PCs to interfere.  My group may not attempt to damage a villain's Resources, but if he's set up as a corrupt CEO trying to buy a congressperson, he'd BETTER have something in his Resources stat.

[sinker]

I read the title and I wanted to respond: Yes.

Sometimes I'll stat out some aspects and powers ahead of time, sometimes just some aspects. Skills I always tweak during conflict. I find it makes for a better conflict. I'm experienced enough as a GM that I prefer to feel the flow of combat and adjust to the ideal pairing for the PCs. If the conflict starts to drag I can speed it up with a drop in skill levels or if it looks like the PCs are bored and trouncing the competition then I can give them a little burst of skill.

I had a conflict once where I had planned it all out exactly for the PCs. Then two of them decided to take off right when the conflict started... If I hadn't adjusted some stats then the conflict would have nearly killed the remaining PCs, and it was just some thugs (albeit supernatural thugs).

[wyvern]

Yes, here, too.  ...Though, the last time I put together really solid stats for a big bad, the PCs went and decided to ally with her instead.  Not quite what I'd had in mind.

[devonapple]

It varies. The Big Bad can have so much Refresh to play with that I find it helps to add powers and see what fits, and how much Refresh is left over.

[Richard_Chilton]

Yes - but it can be modified at times.

Something to remember is that the Big Bad should be someone that that PCs can take out - but only after a fight that they will remember.  Having stats means you have a base line.  Something you can look at and "is this guy too tough? Too weak?".  Sometimes you'll make the wrong call and decide "Um, that toughness stunt that gives an extra mild - he should have that" or realise that sinking all four item slots into "Magic force field armour" means he's untouchable in a bad way - and have to adjust things on the fly.

Richard

[polkaneverdies]

Richard nailed it.

[Tallyrand]

untrue.

I have found that playing a battle by ear keeps the tension going far better, as long as you keep the rolls they are making consistent.  Much like in writing it is better to do things in an exciting way than following too complex a set of rules.  Granted, this takes a good deal of concentration, memory, intuition, and on the spot thinking; but my players have enjoyed the fights where I stat things out less more.

I disagree completely, if you just wing it then whether the PCs win or lose becomes an arbitrary choice on your part.  It removes agency from the players.

[admiralducksauce]

I have found that playing a battle by ear keeps the tension going far better, as long as you keep the rolls they are making consistent.

I agree with your sentiment, Tallyrand, but I don't think that's what Aminar was advocating above.  Once the Big Bad rolls Athletics, he should be rolling the same Athletics stat from then on.

It's like Schrodinger's Big Bad.

[devonapple]

I disagree completely, if you just wing it then whether the PCs win or lose becomes an arbitrary choice on your part.  It removes agency from the players.

There is a whole continuum between Player Control and GM Control, and the optimal level will change from table to table.

As DFRPG is largely based on narrative control wielded by both GM and Player, and not a tactical combat simulator, the arbitrary choice is in fact a huge component of the game. Add in the fact that players can effectively write their way into or out of situations with a well-justified Declaration, and the playing field is just not that dire if the GM opts to play it by ear from time to time. In fact, he will often need to in order to adapt to the Players' contributions to the game.

[UmbraLux]

Like for example you were fighting the Hulk/Thor/Superman/Super Baddy do you STAT it out or just kinda wing it?

Any of the characters you mentioned, I'd stat out.  I'll stat any character I consider important.

Mooks are a different story - I don't 'wing it' for mooks but I will set skills at +1 or +2  with one primary skill one step higher.  So a stop & rob night guard might be at +1 for Awareness and +0 for everything else* while a bank guard is at +2 to Awareness and +1 to everything else*.  Don't think I've modified those after the fact though - just didn't bother writing out a character sheet.

*By 'everything else' I mean any other skills important to the NPC.  A night guard's Resources may well be negative, but it's not likely something I'll ever need to roll. 

[CottbusFiles]

There is a whole continuum between Player Control and GM Control, and the optimal level will change from table to table.

As DFRPG is largely based on narrative control wielded by both GM and Player, and not a tactical combat simulator, the arbitrary choice is in fact a huge component of the game. Add in the fact that players can effectively write their way into or out of situations with a well-justified Declaration, and the playing field is just not that dire if the GM opts to play it by ear from time to time. In fact, he will often need to in order to adapt to the Players' contributions to the game.

Yes but both have exact rules for narrative control. I can just decide that my PC now has a different power (okay i can if i have modular power or something like this).
Deciding on the fly that "oh, that is too weak he needs more stressboxes" is cheating. It's cheating in a game sense of way and it is cheating the PCs part of their victory.

If something has concrete stats it can be beaten by a clever player. Once you start changing stuff arround on the fly the PCs have no power in any way and only you, the GM, decides who wins.

[Aminar]

No, you as a GM are working purely to entertain your players.  If the big bad is going down in an unsatisfying way you work to make sure he is more of a challenge so the players have FUN.  You're looking at GMing as a competition.  You're telling a story.  If the story ending sucks the players don't have fun, and you as a GM have failed, (or at least gotten a C.