Escape from Innsmouth: Why are the NPC stats so high?

[Sinclair]

I just recieved a copy of Escape from Innsmouth I ordered, plus MoN.

I'm flipping through EfI, and the Raid scenario has some really wierd numbers for the Marines.

Your average human has, according to the standard CoC rolls, about a 90-95 total tally for their stats. A "Typical Veteran Marine" has 120, including a 14 EDU, 2 points beyond high-school education, along with INT 14 and POW 15, not to mention excellent physical stats, even a 12 APP.

WTF is this? I'm generous, and for Investigators I hand out 105 or 110 points, depending on how I'm feeling. But I'm reading the section, and my reaction is more or less "WTF?"

I had no idea that 1920s Marines were so well-educated, especially when you consider that nowadays most enlisted Marines usually have just managed to squeak through high school. It's not an insult to the USMC, it's simple reality: In the US, as in most other Western countries, the military is often the only way for poor, uneducated kids, disproportionately Southern, to get some sort of education and some job prospects.

INT and EDU get even higher for some named Marines, high even for the officers, except for Sgt. Grabatowski, who has a 9 EDU, 4 lower than your "Typical Marine Recruit".

Marines in general are famous for being brave, for being good in combat, for being tough, etc. Qualities notably missing from that list include "exceptionally well-educated" and "more intelligent than the norm". Neither of those qualities is really useful in a combat soldier, beyond knowing which part of a grenade to throw, and being able to understand instructions. Keeping one's cool is far more useful.

I'm just confused as to why the stats are so high, especially for mental stats. Nothing gives me a headache like reading through a scenario and encountering these bizarre, "why-have-the-investigators-along-they'll-just-lower-the-average-stats" friendly NPCs.

[Orlock]

I´ve noticed the fact that NPC stats tend to be a bit weird in published scenarios too. Usually I think that they are too low, though (professional soldiers who can´t shoot straight, psychotic cultists who wouldn´t be able kill a rat with a pranga etc.).
Still, I have to agree with you on the stats in EfI. I suppose the high EDUs _could_ be explained off as military training, not formal schooling as such. If it bugs you, just cut the scores a bit.
Another thing I found irritating was the armament choises for the troops. Bolt-action rifles for a town clearance operation, WTF? Ok, so tommy guns, BARs etc. were available in lesser numbers, but Covenant is supposed to be a very special op, after all. I think that the Delta Green short story about the raid had the right idea, describing the troops being issued tommies and pump action shotguns in numbers. "Seems some one actually gave a bit of a tought for this mission"

[cjbowser]

Don't like 'em? Change 'em.

[Sinclair]

I just want to know the original reason for a bunch of Marines having not only exceptional physical stats, but above-average mental stats.

[KenFinlayson]

A "Typical Veteran Marine" has [...] a 14 EDU [...] along with INT 14 and POW 15, not to mention excellent physical stats, even a 12 APP.

I'd agree with Orlock; the EDU represents military training rather than book-learnin'. Even in the rulebook EDU is explained as being your choice of academic learning or School of Hard Knocks.

The high POW score shows that (to quote you) "[m]arines in general are famous for being brave", representing the ability to keep one's cool. The INT is harder to explain; perhaps it is supposed to indicate that the typical veteran is alert and perceptive (I think INT covers those areas). But I'm reaching.

And APP 12 just shows that folks look good in uniform.

[Gallowglass]

A "Typical Veteran Marine" has [...] a 14 EDU [...] along with INT 14 and POW 15, not to mention excellent physical stats, even a 12 APP.

I'd agree with Orlock; the EDU represents military training rather than book-learnin'. Even in the rulebook EDU is explained as being your choice of academic learning or School of Hard Knocks.

The high POW score shows that (to quote you) "[m]arines in general are famous for being brave", representing the ability to keep one's cool. The INT is harder to explain; perhaps it is supposed to indicate that the typical veteran is alert and perceptive (I think INT covers those areas). But I'm reaching.

From talking to people who have actually been soldiers, the general opinion seemed to be that a certain form of "high-cunning" (Not necessarily high academic scores, but quick wits and an ability to parse information rapidly and come to quick, clear decisions) is essential to a soldiers survival in combat situations: mediocre, indecisive people don't survive these sorts of high risk situations, whereas the quick witted (and the amazingly lucky...) do.

It seems reasonable to represent those factors by high POW and INT to me. Mind, I wouldn't use the stats in EfI for typical raw recruits or draftee's - but any force of veterans will have been through some sort of winnowing process. Just pity the poor fools on the far less famous Outsmouth raid where they had all the army ercruits that were rejected from the Innsmouth raid (a lot were apparently recruited from some place up state, Dunwich or some such place... )

And APP 12 just shows that folks look good in uniform.

That's a good point actually: in 20's America and even more so in Britain at the time or earlier, the correct dress and behavior could do an awful lot for ones acceptance, both materially (dress the part and play the role and I'd consider boosting a characters Credit Rating) and simply in terms of peoples immediate reactions (a smart young soldier is far more pleasing to the young ladies than a slovenly farmhand...). Even in recent times, the history of Con jobs shows that the correct dress (and behaviour) can massively influence how people percieve an individual.


Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Agent_Donald]

The short answer....... to give the players a fighting chance against the inbred denizens of Innsmouth.

[richardwatts]

And APP 12 just shows that folks look good in uniform.

Folks? Not so sure. Men? Yes, defintely. As a card-carrying member of the International Homosexual Conspiracy, trust me when I say that your average corn-fed Iowa farmboy looks much better in uniform than in, say, overalls and a checked shirt...

[Sinclair]

Looking good in uniform is a thing to do with habit, getting whacked by your DI for not shining your boots is a strong motivator. But APP measures one's base attractiveness: It doesn't mean one is necessarily well-dressed.

Being "clever" is different from EDU and INT. First of all, EDU is a big question, is it supposed to represent book learning, or experience, or both? I tend to say it's book learning, and pass out extra skill points for military service. And the sort of things soldiers do to stay alive are available to just about anybody, your average soldier will have an INT on par with, or maybe a point below, the general average, they'll just acquire different behaviours to stay alive.

As for POW, I'm using my custom rule that you can trade POW for 10 SAN per point traded, on top of what you had BEFORE you traded in the POW. So a Marine with 10 POW, who traded in 3 points, would have 7 POW but 80 SAN.

Militaries are sensible, and don't rely on getting large amounts of smarter-than-average people with great educations. They just want people who can figure out how to work their equipment, with something vaguely resembling a high school diploma.

And any "brain" stuff associated with combat can most likely be represented with skills instead of stats. Basic training is designed to get people beyond the point where they know how to do something, to the point where they can do it without thinking.

[Roucheau]

EDU is primarily book learning, but rules do state for every 10 years of age after 20 you gain 1 point of EDU from experience.

While your comments on Marines or military personnel are generally correct, the key point to remember is that the average or slightly below INT and EDU apply to those serving during the classic period. I'll go so far as to include up until 1980. After that, at least the US military demanded no less an average INT and EDU to join. To excel, both usually had to be above average. Today it is very common for even junior sergeants to have a college degree.

During the 20s it would be very common to see even senior sergeants that were illiterate or functionally illiterate. Even in the classic era officers were required to have a college degree, unless they received a battlefield commission. However, even these few to be so selected were greatly encouraged to get a degree.

[delrio]

From talking to people who have actually been soldiers, the general opinion seemed to be that a certain form of "high-cunning" (Not necessarily high academic scores, but quick wits and an ability to parse information rapidly and come to quick, clear decisions) is essential to a soldiers survival in combat situations: mediocre, indecisive people don't survive these sorts of high risk situations, whereas the quick witted (and the amazingly lucky...) do.

It seems reasonable to represent those factors by high POW and INT to me.

It might be more reasonable to represent that as an ad-hoc Skill. "Combat Training 60%" or whatever.

Del Rio

[Sinclair]

Well, combat with firearms and explosives would most likely involve a SAN check, to avoid freezing up. This after a while would go away, although long-term SAN losses from extended combat (I believe that in WWII, the stats the US came up with were that soldiers were at their best after a couple weeks of combat, started to go downhill after 30 days, and once they reached 60 a mental breakdown was more or less inevitable) would be unavoidable.

The Initiative system in GDW's games, where Initiative reflects one's ability to do things while under stress, not how fast one does them, was great.

And I should add that for various reasons, psychological harm due to long-term combat has gotten much worse as technology has change the face of war. Anybody interested, hell, EVERYBODY WHO CAN READ, should procure a copy of "War", by Gwynne Dyer.

[sda]

Maybe its just me, but this all seems like an awful lot of fuss over something as trivial as NPC stats! If the keeper doesn't like or agree with them he or she is free to change them to fit the situation. As one of the authors of said book, I can tell everyone that none of us set about to cause any big stir with the NPC stats. For me I generally just roll things randomly and then fudge a bit as needed. Worrying about such things as how educated a military NPC would have been back in the 1920's (for an NPC who will either get killed or otherwise never be seen again after the scenario) seems rather like drowning in minutia!

[Sinclair]

I'm sorry, I'm a nitpicky little sod. I blame my parents: Historians and bureaucrats SHOULD_NOT_BREED :P

Humour aside, I am honestly cursed with the inability to let any damn little detail go. I'll lie in bed, unable to get to sleep, worrying about what seemed to be an error in map scale in a book about WWI I was reading. That actually happened.

[FunGuyfromYuggoth]

I'm sorry, I'm a nitpicky little sod. I blame my parents: Historians and bureaucrats SHOULD_NOT_BREED

Where do you think good editors come from? The stork? Seriously, cultivate your interest in productive pursuits. Just watch the O-C stuff and you'll do well in life.