That doesn't like like a real person, can you imagine someone so 1 dimensional that they can basically only fight in combat even though they're 35 years old?
First and foremost, you don't roll skills, you roll pools.I think that hits on something that's been somewhat more clearly outlined in the CRB.
Most of these things —common tasks like eating, sleeping, and crossing an empty street—are done automatically and are kept in the background of the game.You don't roll skills, you roll pools. Dice Pools show how well you do in an unusual, dangerous, timed, or limited resource situation. Skill Ranks give the GM an idea of a character's performance when not under pressure.
*(unless the character is Incompetent, and then hilarity ensues)
When you need to do something difficult or extraordinary, or when you need to avoid someone who has got you in their crosshairs, you have to roll the dice to determine a result.
That doesn't like like a real person, can you imagine someone so 1 dimensional that they can basically only fight in combat even though they're 35 years old?
In the vast majority of cases on this board, you get a thread with a sheet and a comment of "plz to critique." No context about the game, about expected dice pools, etc.
Not knowing how your game is set up,and thereby not knowing how to build for it, is especially common if you're joining a PbP of random people who don't know each other but it certainly happens in established groups where the GM has failed to hold a Session Zero in which they set expectations of power levels and theme (yes, I'm comfortable laying this at the feet of the GM).
In the absence of that info it's no surprise that the default advice is set to "be as good as possible in your focus areas."
I also don't agree with the idea that pools are what matters and not the skills. That doesn't seem to make very much sense to me. Attributes govern your natural (or unnatural) ability and cover a certain spectrum of skills. Skills explicitly cover how proficient you are. You could have a Face with only a 3 Charisma. He tends to rub people the wrong way and his hygiene isn't great, but he is a hell of a negotiator and he has 10 ranks in it. That tells me that he is far more skilled than many other Faces with a dice pool of higher than 10. Taking maxed out cyber limbs and grabbing a bunch of skills at rating 1. while completely legitimate, does not indicate that you're talented at the skill, it means that your cyber limbs are carrying the bulk of the weight.
I build my characters with realism and immersion in mind and my characters tend to do pretty well in the shadows. I build them with a range of power and each one has provided me with an amazing experience. I don't really see the need build super powered characters every single time. And to be clear I am capable of, and do occasionally, build extremely powerful characters, but I still always manage to stay true to the character concept. I just find it very disappointing that so many characters here are made using the same formula that was developed by power gamers and all the new players are being taught to do it. Number crunching is definitely fun for some players, some people really enjoy it and that's great. But it is not going to provide the best roleplaying experiences. It's possible to get the best of both worlds and that's when you'll have the most fun.
Failing to complete one or more runs, or losing a fight here and there can be a very good thing for the game because it makes the times you do win more memorable.About the winning/losing :
they are clearly just piles of stats and gear to be extremely powerful in a particular area,
I have a hard time making a mage character without resources E. None of the those I have made or played started with a focus. Current character is Sum to 10 Magic A, Skills A, Attributes C, Meta E, Res E. Background is that he is old (aged quality, low low phys stats), down on his luck (low lifestyle, takes the bus, no foci, minimal surveillance gear). I wanted a full load of magic skills (6 in sorcery group, 6's with specs in all three conjuring skills, 6 in Astral Combat, perception, assensing, plus good dicepools for sneak, interrogation, negotiation (diplomacy), tracking (for tailing), Con (fast talk) and disguise. Loads of dice pool 10 and 12 knowledge skills.
So you might say I'm munchkining with AACEE, but the backstory makes sense. I play him as old and frail, but wise and subtle with spells. Different people prioritize different things. I like lots of high level skills. My dump stats (all four) make sense for this character.
If I were playing missions, I probably wouldn't build this way. Missions is a grinder. Home games usually are about character and story. Probably go Magic A, Skills B, Attr C, Res D, Meta E. Dumb Cha and Log instead of Body and Agil.
When will people get over this "munchkin" negativity concept . Game theory was developed over a century ago, it eventually developed to the concept of taking the least bad action to help all the players as a whole, aka the Minimum Maximum or Min/Max. It was then and it is now about helping everyone playing as a whole. Feeling guilt cause ya did some math and developed a background you like is just silly. You don't need justify anything, the stormwind fallacy alive and well in so many, is just blows me away. Everyone should play the game to have fun, for some it means taking the time to math out a great build and having a great story, for others it is different. It doesn't matter the order of creation, all that matters is ya have fun playing the game.
Thanks for your replies, I found them interesting. So many different points were made that I cannot reply to all of them, instead I will give a general reply. I don't agree with the notion that Shadowrunners need to exceptional at their specialty. This may be true if you are dead set on being successful early in a campaign, but I think it's not accurate to say that it must be this way. Some of the most fun I've had playing rpgs, Shadowrun included, was when my character wasn't that powerful. I still built these characters with the same amount of Karma as my more specialized characters (the ones that most people here would probably prefer), but the provided me with a new experience. It can be very interesting to explore the life of a Shadowrunner that isn't amazing, yet has potential. After all, not everyone starts off at the same level of skill. Working your way up can be fun, especially if you play that character for a longer period of time you will feel a strong connection because you got to experience the entire process.
While it is true that the common objective of the game is to go on shadowruns, I don't think that failure is a bad thing. In my experience, the majority of groups tend to win the vast majority of the time, and in some groups, all of the time. Each time you win you get a little more comfortable. Over time winning becomes expected and the fact that you don't lose makes the wins less fun. Failing to complete one or more runs, or losing a fight here and there can be a very good thing for the game because it makes the times you do win more memorable. Of course it's fun to complete runs but if you always complete them, in all campaigns, it isn't as fun as it could be. I will go so far as to say that I'm extremely confident that is true as I have experienced all angles of it.
I also don't agree with the idea that pools are what matters and not the skills. That doesn't seem to make very much sense to me. Attributes govern your natural (or unnatural) ability and cover a certain spectrum of skills. Skills explicitly cover how proficient you are. You could have a Face with only a 3 Charisma. He tends to rub people the wrong way and his hygiene isn't great, but he is a hell of a negotiator and he has 10 ranks in it. That tells me that he is far more skilled than many other Faces with a dice pool of higher than 10. Taking maxed out cyber limbs and grabbing a bunch of skills at rating 1. while completely legitimate, does not indicate that you're talented at the skill, it means that your cyber limbs are carrying the bulk of the weight.
I found the post by ZeldaBravo to be an interesting one. I think you would be quite well developed for combat, there is no doubt about it. However, don't they teach you how to do first aid and survive in the wild? I'm sure they teach you many such skills, none of which are represented in the example character I provided. I am aware that many people have the opinion that you can't possibly represent all of the skills you should have, but I think you can at least make an attempt to do so. You do start with a minimum of 25 Karma, I don't see why you can't allocate some of it to purchase skills that your background supports. It seems very immersion breaking to me for a soldier to watch his teammate bleed out because he has literally no ability to use a traditional medkit. Granted, perhaps in Shadowrun they would just use the autodoc because it is available, but you get my point.
As for increasing levels of difficulty, that's another trap I've fallen into for most of my gaming career. Like many, I started with DnD and that taught me that rpgs should have a linear scale of challenge. That is extremely unfortunate and immersion breaking. It is much more powerful when the challenge is not linear. Once in a while it is good to lose to an opponent you have very little hope of defeating. Should you defeat this opponent the value of the victory is amazing, should you lose, the lose feels appropriate. Who is to say that you would encounter increasingly difficult challenges and start out with easy ones? That is more like a video game than a roleplaying game, especially since you can't view the statistics of your opposition and thus have no way to accurately guage their power consistantly. Encountering a weak opponent can also be good because it demonstates how far you've come and that not everyone is going to pose a challenge. Varying the level of difficult is a powerful technique.
I build my characters with realism and immersion in mind and my characters tend to do pretty well in the shadows. I build them with a range of power and each one has provided me with an amazing experience. I don't really see the need build super powered characters every single time. And to be clear I am capable of, and do occasionally, build extremely powerful characters, but I still always manage to stay true to the character concept. I just find it very disappointing that so many characters here are made using the same formula that was developed by power gamers and all the new players are being taught to do it. Number crunching is definitely fun for some players, some people really enjoy it and that's great. But it is not going to provide the best roleplaying experiences. It's possible to get the best of both worlds and that's when you'll have the most fun.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.Hehe, a Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy? :D
Herr Brackhaus' post was one I agree very much with and it sums up a lot of my feelings on this topic. If you examine the example characters in the core book, which are there for people to play, you will see that they are far from power gamed.
I think powergaming is generally favored by less experienced players.
When you have 8 combat skills at rank 5 a person might reasonably think that being good at all of them means being able to be effective in all situations when what it really means under the math is a whole lot of redundancy and wasted points and money that is very unlikely to generate a return. Yes, wasted, since carrying 8 different weapons is impractical and you get to use one per pass and the situation where someone has no gear but finds a random weapon is pretty edge case.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
It is important to keep in mind that Shadowrunners are not normal, believable persons. The wageslaves are, the KE officers are, the blue collars are, but not shadowrunners. They are oddballs and freaks that live outside of the society. They are terrorists and thieves and murderers, plain and simple. They must have an edge to live through another day and to be good enough to get hired.
Seriously, Shadowrun is not a game about abolutely normal people.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
Thus you prove your ignorance. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically. But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves.
This would be better facilitated if basically everything in this game wasn't over costed for post-chargen earnings (in both nuyen and karma - skills and stats are ludicrously overpriced at the higher levels for what amounts to +1 die, and I feel like the ware costs are set up to assume chargen expenditures). You start with as much as you can because there's no guarantee you'll ever be able to afford that shiny new Wired 2 even if you save for it all campaign. And yes that sucks, again that's a system issue with the suggested payouts. Growth can be fun if the system facilitates it, and not all systems do that very well.
Also, when PC don´t start out fully optimized, there´s more room to grow. IMO, starting out with a low-cybered "rookie" Sam, earning the money and favours to get that used Level 2 Wired Reflexes with broken triggers and slowly descending into Cyberpsychosis is a much more satisfying roleplaying experience than just starting out as that escaped-clonewarrior-guy with 0.2 Essence and an 22+ Assault Rifle pool who ends every battle in under 3 seconds - at least when everyone at the table has build their Character just the same way.
My personal preference is to run games for people who build characters with broad sets of skills, because that means I don't have to just throw combat at the samurai or social situations at the face but can include everyone in everythingI feel like there's a fallacious assertion here. Any character can already get involved in any scene and the only relevant factor is player interest and if it makes sense for the character to be there. A troll Sam or antisocial decker can totally be in a snobby gala and be uncomfortable or out of their element and roleplay this and there probably will be no good reason to force them to make a test on an Etiquette dice pool of 3 or whatever unless the GM's goal is to make them feel bad for their build choices. This could be a fun scene to run and play in but that doesn't mean that mechanically enforced consequences are necessary.
Hehe, I knew someone was going to go on about the "sample characters"...
For anyone responding to my specific post, note that I said "examples" and "example characters"; when I do this I'm not referring to the "Character Archetypes" that are listed on pages 112 through 127 (which absolutely have some problems, though I tend to think of them as less glaring than some here) but instead to any time an example is given.
Characters like Automatic Jane (Gymnastics 3 + Agility 5, page 135), Wombat (Pistols 4 + Agility 6 - modifiers 1, page 174), and Tesseract (Cybercombat X + Logic Y for 12 dice), and so on. These characters almost never have dice pools in the 12+ range. In other words, the examples given in the book constantly and consistently refer to characters with dice pools in the single or low double digits. That's all I'm saying.
Now, whether or not you play with high or low dice pools doesn't really matter; I do think it's a bad idea to mix and match player character where some have a wide spread skills with overall low dice pools and others have a very few skills with very high dice pools as this tends to lead to balancing issues, especially in combat.
I think the comments about having somewhat focused characters making Shadowrun easier for newcomers is a very good one; it's easier to wrap your head around the rules if you build a combat focused and optimized character as you only have to concern yourself with the combat rules. So the fact that a seemingly (because they may or may not be) inexperienced players ask questions about how to make a "good" character and receive feedback without having divulged much about the table overall isn't surprising.
In this respect, I think this specific subforum is a poor representation of the Shadowrun players in general; chances are that if you've played Shadowrun since 1st Edition, or even just began with 5th but have a firm grasp of the rules, you're not coming to ask advice on how to build your character. So by it's very nature this subforum will have a polarized audience; it's not that the vast majority of players are powergamers (and I don't mean that as a pejorative, merely as a broad label that may fit some people), it's just that people who are new to the game will inevitably ask the same kind of questions. And that is just fine.
My personal preference is to run games for people who build characters with broad sets of skills, because that means I don't have to just throw combat at the samurai or social situations at the face but can include everyone in everything, and also because to my mind players with those kinds of characters tend to focus more on teamwork for tasks other characters could easily do by themselves because these characters can't actually pull off difficult tasks on their own. But that's just it, that's my personal preference. I'm not pushing my view on anyone, nor am I deriding people who like to play characters with 20+ dice pools; whatever makes the game fun for you is cool with me.
Maybe so, but in a game built around dice rolls it puts characters with ludicrously low dice pools at a significant disadvantage. If the player character in such a situation is asked "Why are you here" and they don't respond "Uh, to steal all your shit" (assuming that's their job), then his character is lying and you can bet I'm going to make you roll Con if you do indeed try to lie. So by having hyperspecialized characters in situations they are absolutely unprepared for, I'm having to cater to such characters extreme weaknesses, whereas in a more rounded group most of the people can lie and mingle adequately enough that it's more often not a problem (i.e. they can buy the 1 or 2 hits needed to lie semi-convincingly).My personal preference is to run games for people who build characters with broad sets of skills, because that means I don't have to just throw combat at the samurai or social situations at the face but can include everyone in everythingI feel like there's a fallacious assertion here. Any character can already get involved in any scene and the only relevant factor is player interest and if it makes sense for the character to be there. A troll Sam or antisocial decker can totally be in a snobby gala and be uncomfortable or out of their element and roleplay this and there probably will be no good reason to force them to make a test on an Etiquette dice pool of 3 or whatever unless the GM's goal is to make them feel bad for their build choices. This could be a fun scene to run and play in but that doesn't mean that mechanically enforced consequences are necessary.
As to combat, everyone should be able to do something in combat because "the best run is one where you never fire a shot" is a nice conceit especially for a book but when it comes to an RPG it's just a meme, and I can't think of anything more boring than every run going down that way (because now you're penalizing the guy who played a gun bunny and the GM should be throwing complications at your neat and tidy perfect infiltration).Again, for my personal preferred playstyle, I disagree. I've played games where there simply were no gun bunnies or samurai because the team was all mirrorshades all the way and got into a fire fight maybe once or twice every 5-6 adventures, and even then they were brief as the team ran rather than stand and fight. I've also played games where everyone was borderline combat monsters and almost every scene had some sort of combat. Both can be fun, they're just different. My point is that with everyone on an equal footing in terms of having low dicepools there is inherently a much stronger focus on teamwork because the player characters literally can't fight their way through a horde of security guards on their own.
This statement, paradoxically, is decrying specialization while also asserting that people can't roleplay outside of their mechanical spec. And that's just not true at all. But not every roleplaying moment has to be fraught with dice rolls. It certainly can be, and maybe the rude decker does get ejected from the gala for being super inappropriate, but that should be a mere complication to the characters getting the McGuffin out of the panic room now that the decker has to work totally remotely, not mean the run is completely ruined and failed.Your words, not mine. I never said people can't roleplay outside of their mechanical spec; but when a game is built on game mechanics and a GM calls on someone who doesn't have skill X to make a skill check, things get interesting. Whether that's interesting good or interesting bad is up to the players. As you say, if the rude decker gets ejected that doesn't mean the end of the run, and it's my job as a GM to enable the team to complete their tasks with the skills they have. But I don't think I'm being unfair if I play up a characters mechanical disadvantages and actually make players feel the consequences of their actions without trying to "punish" them.
I think that those example characters are built similarly as archetypes. With the rules that you can have a single 6 or two 5 in your skills and all other can be max 4. Try to create your character by using this rule. They looks very different after that.Absolutely. It just so happens that that is one of my personal house rules that I brought straight in from SR4A. :D
Your idea in last paragraph is very interesting. I think that I would enjoy to play in this kind of teamwork group. But does it work in Shadowrun? At least for me the growing power of the characters is one reason to play. You can see how your characters grow and get more abilities. In Shadowrun karma rewards are so small that you very seldom rise skills to higher levels than 5. The teamwork group characters are mediocre just after chargen and after 10 runs not much better. Without growing potential I think that the game becomes very uninteresting after some runs at least for me. Maybe it's only me, but growing potential is very essential, I can see ordinary persons and successes in real life enough.Does it work? Absolutely. Progression can be slow, however, but it's my job as a GM to make sure that players are having fun; I try to set expectations before we start playing by getting a general consensus of what people expect in terms of rewards vs what I had planned. One game we had going for a year and a half gave players very little in terms of monetary rewards, and the players followed more of what you see in the fiction where the team was literally living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to make ends meet. The players were all in on this idea, however, and it's definitely not for everyone. But, you can easily play something like what I described simply by making sure that the team gets enough karma and money to make it interesting if the players are more interested in seeing real progression. So really, it's all up to the GM and players on agreeing on an overall feel for the game.
If you optimize your character, you can see him to grow much faster, because with joat you can easily train new skills to max 4 and rise those low attributes to higher level.
<znip>Hooah to that :)
Does this mean I can't have fun both ways?
No, I can most certainly have fun with 12DPs as 20s.
My problem with excessive Min-Max-Powergaming is that it´s basically a Zero-Sum-Game.
It´s the Gamemaster´s responsibility to offer a good challenge to the players. When handling a group of the "18+ shooting dice or GTFO" type of PC, he/she has to come up with bigger threats to even things out. The only thing the Players have accomplished is that they have stripped themselfes from interesting options and fluff without getting any net advantage.
Also, when PC don´t start out fully optimized, there´s more room to grow. IMO, starting out with a low-cybered "rookie" Sam, earning the money and favours to get that used Level 2 Wired Reflexes with broken triggers and slowly descending into Cyberpsychosis is a much more satisfying roleplaying experience than just starting out as that escaped-clonewarrior-guy with 0.2 Essence and an 22+ Assault Rifle pool who ends every battle in under 3 seconds - at least when everyone at the table has build their Character just the same way.
That being said, optimising can be fun. But as GM, I´d always encourage my players to give their characters a more diverse Portfolio.
and the utter sacrifice of thematic elements and essentially discarding the character concept in exchange for more attack dice.Yeah this isn't an actual Thing. This is Chicken Littleing.
thekind of typical powergamer that has been ruining this forum for yearsYou're going to talk about people being rude and unable to have a civil conversation, in the middle of a tirade dripping with condescension? Really?
...
thing I find comical about power gamers is they can rarely ever have a civil conversation without accusing those that question the practice of all sorts of nasty things. The piece of drek Stormwind Fallacy is a common defense from power gamers that read it with complete bias and drooled over their keyboards because they found "evidence" that they're doing a great thing.
The piece of drek Stormwind Fallacy...
But what is powergaming?That is a question with no clear answer :)
But what is powergaming?That is a question with no clear answer :)
It's the same as obscenity: "I know it when I see it."But what is powergaming?That is a question with no clear answer :)
But in this forum we cannot assume houserules and with RAW a character with a lot of 4 in his skills is progressing very slowly.
Gamemasters have the freedom to set up pay as they see fit, but these optional guidelines can help make that task easier while also building consistency from game to game. Note also that rewards may be supplemented by bonus equipment allowances as the gamemaster sees fit.
But in this forum we cannot assume houserules and with RAW a character with a lot of 4 in his skills is progressing very slowly.
Point of contention; mission rewards are not house rules. There are no rules for run rewards, only guidelines, and the book itself even specifically points this out (emphasis mine):Quote from: SR5 p. 371Gamemasters have the freedom to set up pay as they see fit, but these optional guidelines can help make that task easier while also building consistency from game to game. Note also that rewards may be supplemented by bonus equipment allowances as the gamemaster sees fit.
It's the same as obscenity: "I know it when I see it."But what is powergaming?That is a question with no clear answer :)
For me, clearly I like what I'll simply call higher dice pool builds but stuff like the 4e pornomancer or 40 soak cyberlimb stuff--what most people just call cheese--that's beyond my tolerance limit because it's gone from "effective at your job" to "it's pointless to roll against this because it just steamrolls anything doing this opposed check without any risk at all." That stuff is basically the SR equivalent to Pun-Pun for me.
Herr Brackhaus, good catch. I don't know you too well but I'm really liking the posts you're making here :) I bet you'd be a really fun person to game with.
Well, that was excessive.
the priority system being a power gamers wet dreamLeaving aside the fact that prio is a much weaker optimization system than 4e's BP, what point are you trying to make now exactly, beyond "I'm right and the rest of you should feel bad," because that's basically the implication of every post you've made for at least a page, no matter how much you keep denying that that is your intent.
You are right! But from reward threads you can see that the players here really use those rules.That's their problem, not mine, quite honestly. I reward my players handsomely if that's the kind of game they are after, or hardly at all if we're playing up the dystopia of the setting. The rules are all just guidelines; it's up to the table, not just the GM, to make the game fun for everyone ;)
Just keep in mind who you're supporting and agreeing with Herr B. Hate filled ignorance has a way of spreading sadly.No matter how hard I try to live by the Dao, Marcus, I can't make someone else's Dharma for them. *shrugs*
But what is powergaming? 20+ dices in your attack pool? If you select the following:No not even close Elf Cyber Arm Max out Agi (9) customize limb +3 Sync +1 after the first round of combat Automatics 6 Machine/SMG/Assault Rifles Specialization 2 adept with improved ability 3 or a hacker adept with 6 computer matrix perception specialization hacking 6 hack on the fly 2 soft nanohive 3 used with limbic and neocortical adept with improved ability hacking 3 and computers with cereberal booster 2 and cerebelum booster 1
Automatics 6
Assault rifles specialization 2
Agility 7 (elf)
Muscle augmentation 2
Smart link 2
Total 19. Is this powergaming?
It is a very real thing. I've spoken to people that told me I should never take Performance or Artisan under any circumstances and then he went on to bash me quite a bit.
the priority system being a power gamers wet dreamLeaving aside the fact that prio is a much weaker optimization system than 4e's BP, what point are you trying to make now exactly, beyond "I'm right and the rest of you should feel bad," because that's basically the implication of every post you've made for at least a page, no matter how much you keep denying that that is your intent.
I mean, feel free to go ahead and deny it again, IMO there's no credibility to those denials given statements like this.
the priority system being a power gamers wet dreamLeaving aside the fact that prio is a much weaker optimization system than 4e's BP, what point are you trying to make now exactly, beyond "I'm right and the rest of you should feel bad," because that's basically the implication of every post you've made for at least a page, no matter how much you keep denying that that is your intent.
I mean, feel free to go ahead and deny it again, IMO there's no credibility to those denials given statements like this.
But what is powergaming? 20+ dices in your attack pool? If you select the following:No not even close Elf Cyber Arm Max out Agi (9) customize limb +3 Sync +1 after the first round of combat Automatics 6 Machine/SMG/Assault Rifles Specialization 2 adept with improved ability 3 or a hacker adept with 6 computer matrix perception specialization hacking 6 hack on the fly 2 soft nanohive 3 used with limbic and neocortical adept with improved ability hacking 3 and computers with cereberal booster 2 and cerebelum booster 1
Automatics 6
Assault rifles specialization 2
Agility 7 (elf)
Muscle augmentation 2
Smart link 2
Total 19. Is this powergaming?
I said that power gamers are usually less experienced in the hobbyNot my experience. Mine is that players move towards systems they enjoy, and that if they enjoy both powergaming and roleplaying they'll do both.
I said that power gamers are usually less experienced in the hobby
I started playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) in 1977- heck had the 1974 rules just never played them, just read em. By 1979 I was playing the monstrosty of a miniatures rules WRG 5th edition. It's over 35 years later.
I've played with a lot of guys over the decades.
Power gaming has nothing to do with how long they've played.
On the top of the list are Alpha males cause they don't want to be second at anything.
But even Secondary Alpha and Beta-males can be power gamers and a few Alphas are not.
There are no absolutes, just generalizations.
I've seen some guys change modes- but most that I knew as power gamers are still power gamers and most who weren't still aren't.
I said that power gamers are usually less experienced in the hobbyNot my experience. Mine is that players move towards systems they enjoy, and that if they enjoy both powergaming and roleplaying they'll do both.
As it happens, in the campaign I am running, there is what you may think a very powergamed character (and it is), using Transhuman Prototype to great advantage in a spellcaster. However, as the character has so little real world experience, their interactions with the others have led to much of the entertainment, and in some sessions even dominated on time.
The biggest issues with gaming and optimisation are that players should be at a similar level of effectiveness at a table, and want roughly the same from the game. If some want realism and others escapism, you'll have an issue.
The biggest issues with forums such as these is that people post without context, without the clarity that comes from being face to face, from different backgrounds, and some do not bring the politeness (or otherwise) that the reader/responder is used to. We all live in a wide variety of worlds, with different attitudes, and will bump up against each other in a way that happens far less often in the real world, where we are more likely to be of similar background.
Tune into any rpg stream on Twitch any chances are very high that you'll be watching a group that uses minimal description, rolls a lot of dice, and has a table full of powerful characters. That is the normal group these days. Tuning into a channel with actual roleplaying is much more rare, especially with the less established (and presumably less experienced) channelsTuning into a Twitch channel implies you're looking at a bunch of attention seekers (or people looking to change the world to their way of thinking by example, which isn't much different). I highly doubt a normal group is broadcasting on Twitch.
Again, and I should not have to repeat myself so often but I feel that I have no choice, I am not saying that power gamers are poor roleplayers I am saying that they *tend* to be less experienced. You may consider this to be a generalization but whatever it is, it is a statement that is backed by logic, experience and typical human behavior.If it were true, then you would have far more people agreeing with you. Age is not much of a panacea, other than that you'll typically appreciate people of similar age more. Typically you'll find older people less tolerant and more racist, and younger people impatient and badly behaved. It doesn't mean you won't become the former or that you weren't the latter.
the priority system being a power gamers wet dreamLeaving aside the fact that prio is a much weaker optimization system than 4e's BP, what point are you trying to make now exactly, beyond "I'm right and the rest of you should feel bad," because that's basically the implication of every post you've made for at least a page, no matter how much you keep denying that that is your intent.
I mean, feel free to go ahead and deny it again, IMO there's no credibility to those denials given statements like this.
I'll say one thing to you, maybe you'll listen, maybe not. I knew coming in that there was going to be controversy. It doesn't matter how these threads start out, the arguments are misconstrued over and over. If you don't believe me you should try taking a look around the net, this discussion has popped up many times and spans across many systems. The way it usually goes is this.
1. Non power gamer makes a criticism about power gaming. This may be for any number of reasons, some noble, some disruptive.
2. Power gamers reply fiercely, often jumping to conclusions OR responding to offensive suggestions
3. There is a lot of confusion on both sides, points are not articulated well or are ignored completely
4. Tensions rise
5. The original poster is accused of being pretentious, holier-than-though, a jackass, etc
That's pretty much how it goes. Many posters in this thread responded appropriately by challenging my point of view, sharing it or providing their own insight. That is essentially what I wanted. Some posters took my statements as an attack, which it was not intended to be. I have repeated myself on many occasions in an attempt to prove that my intentions were not malicious and that I respect different playstyles, I even said that I've tried them myself. However, I have always found this particular sub forum to be very discouraging. The faces change and while things were much more viscious in the past, power gaming is the norm here. I try to advocate a different approach, one that does not bash character concepts. Each group plays differently and I am not trying to change that. I'm simply stating that I think many people here are overlooking some diamonds in the rough and perhaps they would enjoy the game more if they gave these things some thought. I'm not forcing you to do anything, by all means, play the game you want, but be open minded about the possibilities within the system and refrain from making absolute statements with regards to character creation.
I remember when I was about 15 years old I was DMing a DnD campaign. I was much more power game oriented at the time, if I saw a way to make my character "better" I'd probably do it. I didn't consider all the subtle elements of the game, I was too inexperienced. My Brother was 9 years old and played a Paladin. He selected the Running Feat, whatever it was called. I told him that it was no good and that he should take a useful feat like Weapon Focus because it was always useful in combat. Naturally, he followed my advice. At the time I thought nothing of it, but many years later I realized that I had done a bad thing. I looked at the thing he selected because he thought it was cool and I told him that it wasn't cool and encouraged him to remove it. I still feel a bit bad about that for some reason. That is the sort of activity I see here all the time. When you create your character you should be allowed to create it the way you see fit. If you ask for advice and others are willing to provide it, great! But when giving advice please do not destroy the fun for the player.
ZeldaBravo, that may be true.
That's why I was very particular in using Whiskeyack for my example.I did :) just didn't have a specific response to it
I assumed, given all the posts of his he wrote and I have read, that he would actually read the whole post and not just jump down my throat accusing me of being negative towards him.
I laughed at this. And I am thankful I am not the only one who thinks as such.Tune into any rpg stream on Twitch any chances are very high that you'll be watching a group that uses minimal description, rolls a lot of dice, and has a table full of powerful characters. That is the normal group these days. Tuning into a channel with actual roleplaying is much more rare, especially with the less established (and presumably less experienced) channelsTuning into a Twitch channel implies you're looking at a bunch of attention seekers (or people looking to change the world to their way of thinking by example, which isn't much different). I highly doubt a normal group is broadcasting on Twitch.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
Thus you prove your ignorance.Ad Hominem attack-fallacious, Which I might add caused the subsequent comment that you felt insulted enough to report. Action/Reaction; Newton' Law; Hillel's commentary on the Torah-Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself... any of that sink in. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically.Again fallacious argument- the onus is not on Shadowjack to disprove that something is a Stormwind's Fallacy- the onus is on proving that something does in fact fall into that falacy. Saying 'it is', in and of itself, isn't logical proof. But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves.
I do feel bad for you having spent so much time reading and having failed to understand it all. Again-Ad hominem.
But the point of your posts are attempting to say power gaming is bad, and that will now and forever be untrue. Nothing you say will change that fact. Again fallacious. The statement "Powergaming is good" and the statement "Powergaming is bad." is an opinion and not a fact.I agree that role playing is as important a part of gaming as the system is, and yes like system master it's a skill that takes time to develop. But sadly it's not something that can be developed as much in forums, you can teach tropes and strategies, but it's not a skill that can communicated clear in the forums. To be a true master of table top you must master both role playing and the system, to master one without the other will leave you deficient in the other.
But back to the topic of your ignorance, you showed it in several places, your generalization of power gamers as quick to anger when called in question is frankly just another example of your prejudicial stereotyping. Notice that no one has come back at you with any of usual RP obsesses silliness. Your statement that you think the example character are a good model is another example, if you know the rules well then you know they are built incorrectly.
Finally, what this forum does is help teach people to build better character at their request (Often their first or second character), as well as discussing implementation of certain concepts, and of course there is some level rules discussion that occurs. Yes sometimes we do suggest scrapping a mechanical approach, but only when such a thing cannot be executed in the system in a way that would work at a table, or given the constraints the player has already listed. Not all things are possible in the system or under stated preferences. Nothing in that is about indoctrinating new posters into power gamers. Plenty of times folks myself included have posted suggestions on how to role play a concept, or given advice on how to deal with the many communication issues that arise at the table.
In closing I respectfully suggest you correct your ignorance. You have much to gain, and nothing to lose by doing so.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
Thus you prove your ignorance.Ad Hominem attack-fallacious, Which I might add caused the subsequent comment that you felt insulted enough to report. Action/Reaction; Newton' Law; Hillel's commentary on the Torah-Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself... any of that sink in. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically.Again fallacious argument- the onus is not on Shadowjack to disprove that something is a Stormwind's Fallacy- the onus is on proving that something does in fact fall into that falacy. Saying 'it is', in and of itself, isn't logical proof. But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves.
I do feel bad for you having spent so much time reading and having failed to understand it all. Again-Ad hominem.
But the point of your posts are attempting to say power gaming is bad, and that will now and forever be untrue. Nothing you say will change that fact. Again fallacious. The statement "Powergaming is good" and the statement "Powergaming is bad." is an opinion and not a fact.I agree that role playing is as important a part of gaming as the system is, and yes like system master it's a skill that takes time to develop. But sadly it's not something that can be developed as much in forums, you can teach tropes and strategies, but it's not a skill that can communicated clear in the forums. To be a true master of table top you must master both role playing and the system, to master one without the other will leave you deficient in the other.
But back to the topic of your ignorance, you showed it in several places, your generalization of power gamers as quick to anger when called in question is frankly just another example of your prejudicial stereotyping. Notice that no one has come back at you with any of usual RP obsesses silliness. Your statement that you think the example character are a good model is another example, if you know the rules well then you know they are built incorrectly.
Finally, what this forum does is help teach people to build better character at their request (Often their first or second character), as well as discussing implementation of certain concepts, and of course there is some level rules discussion that occurs. Yes sometimes we do suggest scrapping a mechanical approach, but only when such a thing cannot be executed in the system in a way that would work at a table, or given the constraints the player has already listed. Not all things are possible in the system or under stated preferences. Nothing in that is about indoctrinating new posters into power gamers. Plenty of times folks myself included have posted suggestions on how to role play a concept, or given advice on how to deal with the many communication issues that arise at the table.
In closing I respectfully suggest you correct your ignorance. You have much to gain, and nothing to lose by doing so.
Comments in red are, of course, mine.
There are other things I could point but I think what I pointed out is enough.
Lastly, your comment to Shadowjack:If you think that was or this is rude please by all means report me. I reported you, so it's only fair. I wholeheartedly endorse this.
<snipped>
You are right, of course, gradivus. I was wrong to lash back but I have obsessive compulsive disorder and I do not respond well to posts like Marcus'. This is something I have struggled with for all of my life and I have made great improvements but something that is difficult to nullify.
The one thing I do agree with Shadowjack on is that sometimes posters who are evaluating characters can be a bit dogmatic with their advice. Although I think it is hypocritical to decry this while dismissing and straw-manning character optimization.
| Skill Level | Example |
| 0 | Untrained: Has some basic knowledge of anatomy, but nothing more |
| 1 | Beginner: Person who took a CPR course or learned some first aid as a Boy Scout or something |
| 2 | Novice: Med student, new hospital orderly |
| 3 | Competent: Good student, but not up to advanced coursework yet |
| 4 | Proficient: Intern, certified nurse’s assistant |
| 5 | Skilled: Resident, licensed practical nurse |
| 6 | Professional: Doctor or registered nurse in practice for less than five years |
| 7 | Veteran: Doctor or registered nurse in practice for five years or more |
| 8 | Expert: Leader and/or supervisor in a practice or hospital |
| 9 | Exceptional: Award-winning practitioner, recognized in trade magazines as one of the best in their field |
| 10 | Elite: Top-flight practitioner at elite facility or university, sought after by wealthy clientele |
| 11 | Legendary: Pioneer of new, cutting-edge medical techniques |
| 12-13 | Apex: The absolute tops—CEOs of the megacorps fight each other to see these people |
<znp>Well shit sucks. *
OCD
<znp>Wtll shit sucks.
OCD
"This is a list of what the skill Ratings mean, so that you can get beyond the numbers and see where your character falls in the general scheme of metahumanity.
NO RATING: UNAWARE This is something other than having no ranks in a skill—this is a special level of ignorance. You haven’t the first clue about this skill. This level can only be achieved through a quality (like the Incompetent negative quality, p. 81), or maybe a character history explaining the deficiency. You can’t default the skill, and it never really occurs to you to even use it to solve your problems.
RATING 0: UNTRAINED The default level of knowledge obtained through interaction with society and the Matrix. Though untrained, you have a general awareness of the skill, and occasionally may even be able to fake it.
RATING 1: BEGINNER You have a little training about how it works, but not always why it works.
About skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.
About skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.
"This is a list of what the skill Ratings mean, so that you can get beyond the numbers and see where your character falls in the general scheme of metahumanity.
NO RATING: UNAWARE This is something other than having no ranks in a skill—this is a special level of ignorance. You haven’t the first clue about this skill. This level can only be achieved through a quality (like the Incompetent negative quality, p. 81), or maybe a character history explaining the deficiency. You can’t default the skill, and it never really occurs to you to even use it to solve your problems.
RATING 0: UNTRAINED The default level of knowledge obtained through interaction with society and the Matrix. Though untrained, you have a general awareness of the skill, and occasionally may even be able to fake it.
RATING 1: BEGINNER You have a little training about how it works, but not always why it works.
So what is the issue. Unaware "can only be achieved through a quality", Untrained "obtained through interaction with society and the Matix" skill 1 "have a little training..."
Untrained is the mythical "average person", Unaware is from a Negative Quality, and skill levels represent actual training. A typical Shadowrunner is "Untrained" and can do the things everyone else can unless they take a negative quality.
Usually what I see is folks arguing that "everyone" should have Computer and/or Etiquette. Look at the Season 5 contacts, even Computer and Etiquette aren't universal. Even one of the Fixers skips Etiquette (Simon), and Computer is skipped by like three of them. And these are characters with 60 to 80 skill points, compared to the 20 to 30 skill points most runners start with.
If you've got some character reason for taking a skill, go nuts, but there isn't any game world reason for characters to have certain skills. There are powerful mechanical reasons that drive skill selection, stealth, perception, combat skills, and whatever your character archetype is. But just by virtue of living in the Sixth world your character is able to get through high tech day to day life.
Hows this a thing? this isnt wind in the willows RPG or mouse guard you are hired mercs in a world where you can install cybernetics into your body you have magical threats dragons incarna spirits you can learn skills overnight with tutorsofts you can hook yourself up with skillwires and become as good as a trained professional you can walk into a streetdoc and go from an overweight slob to a chiseled bronzed (chromed) god you have to be good because your competition is good look at the availablities of milispec grade vehicles and gear thats your competition your lucky to get a steel lynx and a bull dog step vanSadly, you lack periods.
Hows this a thing? this isnt wind in the willows RPG or mouse guard you are hired mercs in a world where you can install cybernetics into your body you have magical threats dragons incarna spirits you can learn skills overnight with tutorsofts you can hook yourself up with skillwires and become as good as a trained professional you can walk into a streetdoc and go from an overweight slob to a chiseled bronzed (chromed) god you have to be good because your competition is good look at the availablities of milispec grade vehicles and gear thats your competition your lucky to get a steel lynx and a bull dog step van
Interesting points again. I find it to be immersion breaking to allocate my skills in the manner that you think is totally fine, it is a drastic difference of opinion. At least now I know what you guys are thinking with these builds :)
"Effective"
Interesting word.
Glyph, can you define it in the context of the Shadowrun mechanics.
Interesting points again. I find it to be immersion breaking to allocate my skills in the manner that you think is totally fine, it is a drastic difference of opinion. At least now I know what you guys are thinking with these builds :)
So if you were making, say, a street samurai, what skills would you give him, assuming the usual limited resources and hard choices of standard character creation? For me personally, my skills are not nothing but 1's and 6's, but 1's and 6's both have their place in a character build."Effective"
Interesting word.
Glyph, can you define it in the context of the Shadowrun mechanics.
I define effective as the character being able to have a reasonable chance of success at their specialty, which can vary a lot depending on that specialty. Some archetypes, such as street samurai or deckers, need higher dice pools for this - they face more difficult tasks, are often rolling opposed dice contests, are often facing negative modifiers, and the consequences for failure are more severe.
I think character creation is a balance between making a character good enough at something to be hired to do it, and making a character who could have plausibly existed before being plunked onto a team of shadowrunners. This usually means some basic utility skills, but not always - the character could come from a more limited or sheltered background (troll who was dumb muscle, decker who used to be a sheltered corporate citizen), or I might deliberately give the character a weakness - but I won't neglect something I consider necessary just to squeeze another couple of dice onto my specialty. I think people tend to have very different opinions on this second category of skills, which is why builds that seem fine to some people might seem drastically bare-bones to other people.
There is also the fact that teamwork is very important in this game. The team shouldn't be a bunch of people who can pretty much do everything themselves (otherwise why be on a team rather than a solo operator?), but rather it should be a team of highly specialized individuals who can get through most situations together but probably wouldn't do so hot on most jobs alone.
It is, however, a fact that anything that requires an opposed test needs a higher dice pool for a good chance of success than a threshold test. Since most specialties (notably Decker, Combatant and Face) face more opposed tests than otherwise, they need to specialize (necessary to reach those higher pools, in general) or they'll end up seeing an, at best, 50/50 shot of success. Probably around 16 in one's specialty would probably be a good point for a starting character.And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels. My last campaign had all players start with dice pools less than 12, and they did just fine because I don't put them up against PR5 opponents until much later.
It is, however, a fact that anything that requires an opposed test needs a higher dice pool for a good chance of success than a threshold test. Since most specialties (notably Decker, Combatant and Face) face more opposed tests than otherwise, they need to specialize (necessary to reach those higher pools, in general) or they'll end up seeing an, at best, 50/50 shot of success. Probably around 16 in one's specialty would probably be a good point for a starting character.And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels. My last campaign had all players start with dice pools less than 12, and they did just fine because I don't put them up against PR5 opponents until much later.
In fact, statements like that is, I believe, precisely why Shadowjack started this whole thread, and in this case I very much agree with him. Present your opinion as your opinion based on your experiences, that's fine. But please don't try to pass opinions off as facts, because they aren't.
Another interesting topic is how do you interpret the situations in which you do not need a test.IOW, situations in which you are not time pressed, in danger, using limited resources, or the outcome is considered unimportant.
How do you roleplay a character in shop buying food? Do you use:#1 to define your natural range of results, and #2 to define your training and expertise.
1: Your charisma,
2: a suitable skill (here maybe etiquette) or
3. both
to define your skill level.
So, technically cha1 etiquette 6 character is as good in the shop as cha 6 etiquette 1 or cha 3 etiquette 4 characters. That's why we can use low skills or low attributes because only the final result (the number of dices in your dicepool) matters! YMMV.You seem to be forgetting limits on tests, or boiling down to dice pools and some unspoken ratio of bought hits for situations without tests.
QuoteAnother interesting topic is how do you interpret the situations in which you do not need a test.IOW, situations in which you are not time pressed, in danger, using limited resources, or the outcome is considered unimportant.QuoteHow do you roleplay a character in shop buying food? Do you use:#1 to define your natural range of results, and #2 to define your training and expertise.
1: Your charisma,
2: a suitable skill (here maybe etiquette) or
3. both
to define your skill level.QuoteSo, technically cha1 etiquette 6 character is as good in the shop as cha 6 etiquette 1 or cha 3 etiquette 4 characters. That's why we can use low skills or low attributes because only the final result (the number of dices in your dicepool) matters! YMMV.You seem to be forgetting limits on tests, or boiling down to dice pools and some unspoken ratio of bought hits for situations without tests.
Why would either of your cha or etiquette matter? Is there a dress code the character doesn't meet and he is trying to smooth things over? You could be a big smelly trog with no social skills and still order a soy-rito from stuffer shack. Probably happens all the time, in fact.
Unless there is some reason that this would be complicated (the owner is trying to chase him out with a broomstick for scaring off the customers), why roll? Unless said character is acting as if he were an elf rock star, who cares?
For that matter, high charisma doesn't mean everyone loves you instantly. It may mean that you are impressive or demand attention that others don't, but doesn't guarantee that the guy behind the counter will react in a way you like.
Why would either of your cha or etiquette matter? Is there a dress code the character doesn't meet and he is trying to smooth things over? You could be a big smelly trog with no social skills and still order a soy-rito from stuffer shack. Probably happens all the time, in fact.
Unless there is some reason that this would be complicated (the owner is trying to chase him out with a broomstick for scaring off the customers), why roll? Unless said character is acting as if he were an elf rock star, who cares?
For that matter, high charisma doesn't mean everyone loves you instantly. It may mean that you are impressive or demand attention that others don't, but doesn't guarantee that the guy behind the counter will react in a way you like.
Hmm, I think that I said: No test needed. So, why are you speaking about rolling?
#1 to define your natural range of results, and #2 to define your training and expertise.
My bad, reading... So hard. >.>
I honestly don't need to know someone's stats or skills to role play. Play it out. I might need a roll if a faux pas came up, other than that they will react based on what you do. Just because you can walk into a room and own it doesn't mean you do that every time.
Nothing is quite so painful or boring than watching a person who won't talk try to play a face. You have to at least try. It's called roleplaying, not "dice generated world simulator" playing.
What do you do if a player rolls tactics and scores a bunch of hits? Tell him how to win the encounter? Seems kinda pointless, since that is the fun of the game.
Limits. They are almost never a problem. My character have at least 4 in all limits always. And it's more than enough.Do they have Cha 1?
Limits. They are almost never a problem. My character have at least 4 in all limits always. And it's more than enough.Do they have Cha 1?
You could... You'd be an asshole and the GM might start calling on checks to have you back up that swagger you shouldn't have. Not really any different than trying to get away with picking a troll off the ground with STR/body 1.
Some game designers think that logic, intelligence, or cha shouldn't be game stats because they aren't able to be role played well (you don't become a genius because your character is, nor do you become less socially ackward for having a high cha).
Security tactics is often seen as a skill. Knowledge skills also aren't drawn from a set list.
But back to original topic: I think that in different tables players play differently. That's why you can never give a one size fits all answers to anyone. But still we can give several guidelines if we assume something.
I think that build comments in this forum are based on the following setup:
1. No houserules allowed
2. Karma and money rewards are same as guidelines in the corebook.
3. Stay strictly in RAW and RAI (difficult sometimes)
4. Normal level (not prime runner or street levels)
5. Sum to 11 or higher sums are not possible.
6. A typical enemy in first run is at least an archetype character from corebook or even better.
7. There are variation between the interpretation about the attributes. Especially about the value 1.
And if you look at these points, I think that the typical comments on this subforum looks sensible. Because this list forces you to optimize at least slightly.
So if a newcomer asks help, he should compare this list at his table and if he disagree in some points, the commentators should take into account it in their answers.
And if the gm is also new to the game, I think that the previous list is most common setup for new gms. My new gm needs enemies, what to do? First answer: Use ready archetypes.
I suspect this will come down to a difference of opinions and but if you have a 1 Charisma it doesn't matter what your dice pool is, people are not going to like you. You will do things that rub them the wrong way and they generally won't want to have you around. However, you may still be very socially aware and able to fit in many social situations unless you are discriminated against, which would actually happen a lot. If you actually get someone to listen you might be able to outdo them in a negotiation. If shit hits the fan they might listen to you because even though they don't like you, you have a strong presence and leadership skills. If someone plays this in such a way that the fact the character has 1 Charisma doesn't matter, only the dice pool matters, I would consider that to be very bad roleplaying and completely un-immersive.
Arbitrary rules like "never take priority B in skills" or "always have maxed out combat skills with perception and sneaking at lower ratings". There is no polite way to address how I feel about such rules but let's just say that I don't agree with them. As a general rule in life it is a very bad idea to place restrictions on creativity, it's bettter to keep all the doors open than to keep half of them closed.
Glyph echoes my opinion on how social skills should be treated. Only roll when it's important, ordinary tasks should be left to roleplaying but as I said before, if the character in question has a very poor Charisma score other characters are likely to treat them worse than someone with an 8 Charisma. In the real world when you encounter a person who is extremely uncharismatic you will often feel less safe around them, less inclined to approach them or ask them for help, and will probably avoid them altogether give the chance.
Regarding the topic of "dump stats" I have a bit of a different take, one which you might find ironic. There are no true dump stats, there is only a GM that doesn't know how to handle low attribtues appropriately. The player should emulate his character's attributes within reason, if he fails to do so the GM can and should intervene. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are in real life, if your character has a 1 Logic he is unintelligent and should be roleplayed as such. In another game I played a character who was brain damaged as a result of a head wound from years past. For the entire campaign I spoke in poor English and omitted the bulk of my vocabulary. The character was still appropriate and very fun to play, but he had a serious disadvantage and I honored it. Even if some of his linked skills had high ratings I would still roleplaying him as being "slow" because he very much was.
Charisma is considered a dump stat in tons of games and the GM lets the players get away with it all the time until someone in the group gets pissd off and says "Alright, nobody is allowed to have 1 Charisma any more." Some groups insist on 3+. A good GM will teach the player the consequences of attempting to power game in this manner BUT intentionally taking poor attributes can be a very fun road to travel and the consequences can be really immersive and enjoyable.
But back to original topic: I think that in different tables players play differently. That's why you can never give a one size fits all answers to anyone. But still we can give several guidelines if we assume something.
I think that build comments in this forum are based on the following setup:
1. No houserules allowed
2. Karma and money rewards are same as guidelines in the corebook.
3. Stay strictly in RAW and RAI (difficult sometimes)
4. Normal level (not prime runner or street levels)
5. Sum to 11 or higher sums are not possible.
6. A typical enemy in first run is at least an archetype character from corebook or even better.
7. There are variation between the interpretation about the attributes. Especially about the value 1.
And if you look at these points, I think that the typical comments on this subforum looks sensible. Because this list forces you to optimize at least slightly.
So if a newcomer asks help, he should compare this list at his table and if he disagree in some points, the commentators should take into account it in their answers.
And if the gm is also new to the game, I think that the previous list is most common setup for new gms. My new gm needs enemies, what to do? First answer: Use ready archetypes.
Yeah... Seems you are missing the point by making a default assumption. Some of them seem sensible (assumption of no house rules unless told otherwise), but others had me go "huh?" (Assuming that a first run enemy is equal to an archetype). The best advice we could give these people in my mind would be to work with their GM instead of asking random people online.
All that said, your approach could be useful in missions (not sure if it is all true of missions since I don't play in them).
It is, however, a fact that anything that requires an opposed test needs a higher dice pool for a good chance of success than a threshold test. Since most specialties (notably Decker, Combatant and Face) face more opposed tests than otherwise, they need to specialize (necessary to reach those higher pools, in general) or they'll end up seeing an, at best, 50/50 shot of success. Probably around 16 in one's specialty would probably be a good point for a starting character.And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels. My last campaign had all players start with dice pools less than 12, and they did just fine because I don't put them up against PR5 opponents until much later.
In fact, statements like that is, I believe, precisely why Shadowjack started this whole thread, and in this case I very much agree with him. Present your opinion as your opinion based on your experiences, that's fine. But please don't try to pass opinions off as facts, because they aren't.
It's appropriate for opposition with dice pools of 10. The PCs should always have higher pools than the opposition, so if the PCs' pools are in the 12 range, the opponents should have around 6 to 8. This is because there are more NPC rolls made than PC rolls, so this gives the NPCs a higher chance of getting a lucky roll and the higher pool gives the PC more chances to succeed on theirs.I'll just repeat myself one last time, because I honestly have given up hope that you'll actually understand the difference between a personal opinion and a fact that is generally accepted.
And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels.And with that, I'm out.
I suspect this will come down to a difference of opinions and but if you have a 1 Charisma it doesn't matter what your dice pool is, people are not going to like you.
You have yet to explain how this actually mattersAbout skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.
Again, it seems like you are refusing to accept the truth here. It doesn't matter how skills work in combination with attributes, the fact is that your skill rating represents how good you are a a skill, the attribute only enhances it. A stealth expert should never have rating 1 Sneaking, even if he has a very high agility. That is someone who is agile and not skilled at the fine points of stealth. You are trying to do what is convenient during character creation but not accepting the way things actually work.
You have yet to explain how this actually mattersAbout skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.
Again, it seems like you are refusing to accept the truth here. It doesn't matter how skills work in combination with attributes, the fact is that your skill rating represents how good you are a a skill, the attribute only enhances it. A stealth expert should never have rating 1 Sneaking, even if he has a very high agility. That is someone who is agile and not skilled at the fine points of stealth. You are trying to do what is convenient during character creation but not accepting the way things actually work.
It seems to me that he's saying "the skill rating is the important part, on a narrative level, as this description narratively assesses a scale of professional-level facility with doing things covered by the skill."You have yet to explain how this actually mattersAbout skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.
Again, it seems like you are refusing to accept the truth here. It doesn't matter how skills work in combination with attributes, the fact is that your skill rating represents how good you are a a skill, the attribute only enhances it. A stealth expert should never have rating 1 Sneaking, even if he has a very high agility. That is someone who is agile and not skilled at the fine points of stealth. You are trying to do what is convenient during character creation but not accepting the way things actually work.
I agree if you're going to say it's the truth repeatedly, then how does the skill matter more, when the total pool average is going to determine the regular outcome.
I have a very hard time imagining a shadow runner who has to show certificates to a Johnson ;DI'm totally stealing that idea.
I have a very hard time imagining a shadow runner who has to show certificates to a Johnson ;DI'm totally stealing that idea.
Mr. Johnson: "Well, your team comes highly recommended, but I need a certified EMT, a matrix security expert with a network and communications degree, and lastly, a bonded bounty hunter. Oh, and everyone should have legal licenses for all gear."
Face: "Uh, what?"
Mr. Johnson: "Oh, I forgot to tell you, didn't I. This isn't a... what do you people call it again... ah, yes. "Shadowrun". No, this is a legitimate retrieval of an escaped inmate. Under no circumstance should you break the law."
It is an irrefutable fact that Pistols 0 and AGI 6 gives the same DP as Pistols 5 and AGI 1.
And all the various combination that give you a 6 DP.
<snip>
Example: If you're only sitting at 12 dice to shoot a pistol or SMG, there's a good chance that you'll only be 2 dice ahead of the opponent's defense test, thus having 16 dice as a combat specialist will very much be preferred to have a decent chance of success.
Better to actually have a good dice pool as a combat specialist than to rely on full-auto, which is basically a waste of ammunition. Not to mention that I just can't justify someone with a non-military background being trained in Automatics or for those with that background to not be trained in Pistols and Longarms as well.
Regardless, A4BG for the purposes of the game, there is nothing wrong with building around using burst or FA Fire. It's legit, preference will vary, builds will vary, but the option is there and it's valid systematically.
Better to actually have a good dice pool as a combat specialist than to rely on full-auto, which is basically a waste of ammunition. Not to mention that I just can't justify someone with a non-military background being trained in Automatics or for those with that background to not be trained in Pistols and Longarms as well.
Regardless, A4BG for the purposes of the game, there is nothing wrong with building around using burst or FA Fire. It's legit, preference will vary, builds will vary, but the option is there and it's valid systematically. Of course having a good die pool is better and having all the above is better still.
Gradivus, I don't think I'm following your point. Can you spell it out more clearly please.
Regardless, A4BG for the purposes of the game, there is nothing wrong with building around using burst or FA Fire. It's legit, preference will vary, builds will vary, but the option is there and it's valid systematically.
Actually, there is something wrong with it. Payouts, at a base, are low enough as-is considering how much upgrading implants costs, so wasting ammunition on full-auto is bad because it further slows saving enough for those upgrades.
Which comment...
Regardless, A4BG for the purposes of the game, there is nothing wrong with building around using burst or FA Fire. It's legit, preference will vary, builds will vary, but the option is there and it's valid systematically.
Actually, there is something wrong with it. Payouts, at a base, are low enough as-is considering how much upgrading implants costs, so wasting ammunition on full-auto is bad because it further slows saving enough for those upgrades.
I agree it very inefficient, but that doesn't mean it won't work from the stand point of character building.
How low is your payout and how much fighting are you doing? Even when you are firing 3 whole clips from an Ares Alpha for 1 run, the ammunition costs (regular ammo) only add up to 132 Nuyen. At least nearly negligible in my books.Regardless, A4BG for the purposes of the game, there is nothing wrong with building around using burst or FA Fire. It's legit, preference will vary, builds will vary, but the option is there and it's valid systematically.
Actually, there is something wrong with it. Payouts, at a base, are low enough as-is considering how much upgrading implants costs, so wasting ammunition on full-auto is bad because it further slows saving enough for those upgrades.
I agree it very inefficient, but that doesn't mean it won't work from the stand point of character building.
I just find it so very strange that the ones that tout Karma efficiency so much give people a suggestion that is so inefficient when it comes to being able to save up cash for upgrades once play starts. If one is going to talk efficiency, they should be going for it with both sides of that coin.
Regardless, A4BG for the purposes of the game, there is nothing wrong with building around using burst or FA Fire. It's legit, preference will vary, builds will vary, but the option is there and it's valid systematically.
Actually, there is something wrong with it. Payouts, at a base, are low enough as-is considering how much upgrading implants costs, so wasting ammunition on full-auto is bad because it further slows saving enough for those upgrades.
I agree it very inefficient, but that doesn't mean it won't work from the stand point of character building.
I just find it so very strange that the ones that tout Karma efficiency so much give people a suggestion that is so inefficient when it comes to being able to save up cash for upgrades once play starts. If one is going to talk efficiency, they should be going for it with both sides of that coin.
Some interesting points there ZAP. Though I hope a guy with a pool of 8 will know better to to divide up 8 dice into two attacks.
Example time! I love example time.As do I!
Pass 1:
Runner on 18 spends a simple action and swaps to burst fire mode on her Ares Crusader II. A second simple action and she quick draws with a pool of 9. She uses a simple action to make this into a multiple attack, placing 2 shots on the first target and 1 on the last. She totals up her dice pool getting 5 Agility + 4 Automatics + 1 for wireless non-implanted smartgun for a total of 10. 5 dice each with no defense test is on average 1, almost 2, net hits. That's 8P each which they can resist with Body 4 + armor 12. 16 dice each cuts an average of 3 damage off while the armor converts the damage to stun. Both goons are now taking a -1 to their initiative, meaning our goon with 1 init doesn't get to go this turn. Poor luck chummer.
Some interesting points there ZAP. Though I hope a guy with a pool of 8 will know better to to divide up 8 dice into two attacks.
Some interesting points there ZAP. Though I hope a guy with a pool of 8 will know better to to divide up 8 dice into two attacks.
I'm on the road with no rules, but assuming two different 1-handed FA weapons
Can you multi attack and lay down suppressive fire in two different arcs?
If its possible, then that's the only way I'd split an 8 dice pool.
Of course I rule that the PCs/NPCs in suppressive fire or adjacent that don't have cover have to decide before the actual roll whether to drop prone or not. YMMV
Example time! I love example time.As do I!Pass 1:
Runner on 18 spends a simple action and swaps to burst fire mode on her Ares Crusader II. A second simple action and she quick draws with a pool of 9. She uses a simple action to make this into a multiple attack, placing 2 shots on the first target and 1 on the last. She totals up her dice pool getting 5 Agility + 4 Automatics + 1 for wireless non-implanted smartgun for a total of 10. 5 dice each with no defense test is on average 1, almost 2, net hits. That's 8P each which they can resist with Body 4 + armor 12. 16 dice each cuts an average of 3 damage off while the armor converts the damage to stun. Both goons are now taking a -1 to their initiative, meaning our goon with 1 init doesn't get to go this turn. Poor luck chummer.
This is a great example, but you miss worded a couple things, namely the free actions, adjust a linked weapon is a free action not a simple, next Multiple Attack is also a free action that must attached to attack action. Clearly this just a miss wording because you get it right everywhere else in the example. But as this is a great example I do think it's worth mentioning, for the sake of the readers. Of course under normal rules you're limited to a 1 free action per action phase and of course 2 simple actions, so you need your gm to agree to let all that happen. But given that our runner was waiting in ambush, I don't see any trouble with it. (For those interested see core 192 for a nice table on action category, and 196 for multi-attack, though I think run and gun may explain it more clearly in some way.) Thank you for writing it.
Some interesting points there ZAP. Though I hope a guy with a pool of 8 will know better to to divide up 8 dice into two attacks.
I'm on the road with no rules, but assuming two different 1-handed FA weapons
Can you multi attack and lay down suppressive fire in two different arcs?
If its possible, then that's the only way I'd split an 8 dice pool.
Of course I rule that the PCs/NPCs in suppressive fire or adjacent that don't have cover have to decide before the actual roll whether to drop prone or not. YMMV
For two arcs I doubt it, but I'd need to dig some to know for sure.
To be fair suppression fire isn't one of the things that I tend to mess with. Last time I was dealing with it a lot was back in 4th, mainly lots of assault weapons.
ZBA there is one more thing 16 (4 body+12 armor) soak dice averages to 5 damage removed not 3.
What should we say to him? Go and ask for your gm? This character contains lot of errors, useless spells and skills, overlapping, odd attribute values and so on. He has 11 spells, more skill points than originally possible. It is unclear, where he has put his 25 karma points.Start by pointing out the obvious mistakes that actually break the rules, and ask for clarification on anything that may not make sense to you, including asking about table specific rules instead of just applying blanket template "You should have this many dice in X".
Despite the fact that how we interpret the attributes and skills, astral combat and artificing are still bad skills. If we ask him about the table in which he plays, he says that the gm uses archetype characters and karma levels are same as guildelines in the corebook. What should we do?
Maximum number of spells/rituals/preparations known at Character Creation equals Magic Rating x 2
ZBA there is one more thing 16 (4 body+12 armor) soak dice averages to 5 damage removed not 3.
You are correct. I'm sure that's what I was thinking, but not what I wrote. I have to step away from my writing to look at it with fresh eyes to see these things for myself... or get someone else to point them out. Not conducive to a quick paced forum discussion, unfortunately.
I think I also forgot a modifier for shooting in melee at the end. I'm going to do some revision.
[Edit] And done! Don't worry, our weapons specialist still comes out on top.
If you want a fun take on the same combat, get two tasers with quick draw holsters and see how much faster you can drop them dual wielding defiance EX-Shockers or even a stun baton.
"...provide positive feedback..."
What do you mean "useless spells and skills"? Can you prove that they're useless? Afaik they are all useless, perhaps you just don't like them for a particular reason? Astral Combat may be in an odd state but I think it is fine to take it anyway and a friend of mine did just that on his new character. Artificing seems fine to me. It may be an unusual choice for a shadowrunner but I think it can be fun and I've used it myself. Any skill or spell is a good choice if the player finds it entertaining.
I think it would be ideal if this person had a form to fill out so we would all know what type of help he is seeking. I think it would help a lot if we knew where he put his karma, as you said. What I would suggest is to tell him that you like his character and give him encouraging feedback. If you think something doesn't add up, tell him, but I would avoid making absolute statements about the value of any particular item, spells, attribute, etc because it is highly subjective.The only skill that strike me as fairly odd is Medicine, I'd probably inquire about that instead of telling him to remove it. The attributes don't really bother me either. I think the best approach is to point out areas where he broke the rules and provide positive feedback, then ask what kind of help he would like.
What do you mean "useless spells and skills"? Can you prove that they're useless? Afaik they are all useless, perhaps you just don't like them for a particular reason? Astral Combat may be in an odd state but I think it is fine to take it anyway and a friend of mine did just that on his new character. Artificing seems fine to me. It may be an unusual choice for a shadowrunner but I think it can be fun and I've used it myself. Any skill or spell is a good choice if the player finds it entertaining.
What do you mean "useless spells and skills"? Can you prove that they're useless? Afaik they are all useless, perhaps you just don't like them for a particular reason? Astral Combat may be in an odd state but I think it is fine to take it anyway and a friend of mine did just that on his new character. Artificing seems fine to me. It may be an unusual choice for a shadowrunner but I think it can be fun and I've used it myself. Any skill or spell is a good choice if the player finds it entertaining.
I think it would be ideal if this person had a form to fill out so we would all know what type of help he is seeking. I think it would help a lot if we knew where he put his karma, as you said. What I would suggest is to tell him that you like his character and give him encouraging feedback. If you think something doesn't add up, tell him, but I would avoid making absolute statements about the value of any particular item, spells, attribute, etc because it is highly subjective.The only skill that strike me as fairly odd is Medicine, I'd probably inquire about that instead of telling him to remove it. The attributes don't really bother me either. I think the best approach is to point out areas where he broke the rules and provide positive feedback, then ask what kind of help he would like.Yeah if something is bad or unlikely to play out as the newbie thinks I don't see a benefit in sugar coating it.
This is a different approach to skills from "my char is an ex-marine who did HALO drops for UCAS so he should have free fall." And the mechanics will let down a character like that, because someone who should have Free Fall 6 based on their backstory is likely to get anywhere from little to no return on that investment in actual play in a typical game. Just like the mechanics let down someone trying to represent the huge variety of skills provided by military basic training, in prio, because you wind up with a lot of redundancies where 1-2 will do.
Body 5, Agility 4, Reaction 4(5), Strength 3, Charisma 3, Intuition 4, Logic 2, Willpower 3
Skills: Athletics Skill group 3, Close Combat Skill group 3,
Dodge 3, Etiquette (Military) 2 (+2), Firearms Skill group 4, First
Aid 2, Gunnery 1, Heavy Weapons 3, Infiltration 2, Intimidation
1, Parachuting 2, Perception 1, Survival 2, Throwing Weapons 2
Augmentations: Smartlink (alphaware), Wired Reflexes 1
(alphaware)
Gear: Light military armor, military helmet, Singularity Battle
Buddy Basic, Tacsoft 2, medkit (Rating 6)
Weapons:
Ares Alpha [Assault rifle, DV 6P, AP –1, SA/BF/FA, RC 2, 38
(c); grenade launcher [AP —, SS, RC —, 6(c)]]
Blade Bayonet [Blade, Reach 2, DV (STR/2+2)P, AP –1]
Ares Predator IV [Heavy pistol, DV 5P, AP –1, SA, RC —,
15(c)]
Fragmentation grenade [DV 12P(f ), AP +5, Blast
A character using that as a starting point and modified from there isn't hobbled. He may not be getting the absolute maximum possible pools, but he can still be quite effective.
"Former Special Forces" is common too, but that doesn't change that no character right out of generation is going to be good enough to actually fit that mold.
First Aid is really messed up this edition. AFAIK it's the only skill with a results limitation tied to skill rank, on top of applying a Limit to hits, on top of you needing to beat a threshold for any positive effect at all. It drastically devalues the skill, IMO.Agreed. It's super weird. You have a Limit, an effective limit and a threshold. So if your skill is 6, you need to have a Limit of 8 to get the maximum healing you can out of it.
A character using that as a starting point and modified from there isn't hobbled. He may not be getting the absolute maximum possible pools, but he can still be quite effective.
"Former Special Forces" is common too, but that doesn't change that no character right out of generation is going to be good enough to actually fit that mold.
As far as skill vs attribute...
SR should not have bothered with defining the skills since the mechanics they have chosen to use doesn't support the definitions.
It is an irrefutable fact thatPistols 0 and AGI 6Pistol 3 and AGI 3 gives the same DP as Pistols 5 and AGI 1. And all the various combination that give you a 6 DP. (Thanks A4BG)
In real life having a high AGI ha nothing to do with having an aptitude for shooting- otherwise every professional figure skater ever is going to be a decent shot.. and we all know that cannot hold true.
DND doesn't give artificial names to the ranks in a skill. If you have 5 ranks plus you attribute modifier is +5, it's simply a +10 to a d20 roll. Same as 8 ranks plus 2 modifier is a +10. Mechanically it's the +10 that matters.
Same holds true in SR, a DP of 12 is a DP of 12 and are mechanically equal no matter how you got to it.
The problem of trying to view the skill in isolation to the DP is the way Character Generation and Character advancement work. The highest possible starting skill is 8 (and only with life modules and having picked the Aptitude quality) but realistically, most builds are capped at 6 plus a specialization. However, starting attributes can be double digits. The way that karma is earned and the expense in raising skills beyond 6 means you don't see many players with double digit skills. It's hard justifying spending 50 Karma on one skill when you character has skill holes that need to be filled (and most characters do have skill holes). The system is purposely built this way to encourage diversification after character generation.
I am well aware of how the system works and what skills are wonky and should have came with better rules, etc. The difference between you and I is that I have no problem whatsoever with playing "bad" characters. I don't really care that Stunbolt is better than Astral Combat, I will choose whichever one I think is going to be more fun. I am not trying to beat the game, I just want to enjoy the game. I enjoy winning and losing. I enjoy having flaws, even serious flaws. Having a very poor dodge pool is a big problem but I will still play such characters. I got away from playing super safe with character builds a long time ago, I find it very interesting to explore weaknesses and what you may consider to be flawed designs. Just because I don't agree with your mentality does not mean I don't understand the rules.
Hobbes, when I say "positive feedback" I am talking about telling him his character is cool and getting him pumped up to play it. I would not say "Neat idea but you have too many bad skills and your attributes are really sub-optimal for your role, scrap 1/3 of it and play the character I suggest." And I have seen that happen a LOT of times over the years. I rarely check this sub forum because of the bad history it has.
I should note that I prefer a DEEP level of immersion and many of my views are based on that. I like to take every aspect of my background and character sheet to produce the most powerful roleplaying experience I can bring to the table. If something makes sense for the character but it is "useless" I will still take it and sometimes it does come into play. I also feel that a crucial GM skill is to make players feel good about the choices they made, not punishing them because they didn't fully optimize. If one of my players took Rating 7 Performance and his background said he was a musician in Aztlan for 10 years, I would probably look for a way to work that into a run or at least a session, or maybe more than one, it could even become important to the campaign as a whole. When a player invests a ton of karma into something and the GM doesn't have it come into play ever, that just encourages him to not spend his karma on things like that again. But if the GM understands that the player purchased it because he thought it was very cool and rewards him for it at some point, the player will be very happy and continue to build characters how he likes. It's things like this that lead players to avoid certain skills because they feel useless, and with a GM who hasn't learned this valuable skill, they probably are useless.The same is true for knowledge and language skills. Many people won't invest actual karma into them, they just take the freebies. Such skills rarely, if ever come up in quite a few groups. But if the GM makes the skills worthwhile they go from useless to amazingly fun.
I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn't always take Stunbolt over Astral Combat because it's not how I visualize my character fighting spirits. I also don't like to take certain spells, guns, vehicles, ware, etc every time because they are the best or most useful. I think changing it up is a lot of fun.
I agree that part of a GM's role is working with players to put together campaign elements that help make playing at the table feel resonant and fun. I don't think this is so in question though. It's no fun for a player or GM to have campaigns/runs that are not suited or interesting to players. If a table doesn't have a magician, campaigns probably shouldn't involve frequent astral quests. If no one can do Matrix work, having deep data steals is going to be frustrating. GMs should also be open to players working in their strengths in creative ways, especially when they might not have expected it.
I am well aware of how the system works and what skills are wonky and should have came with better rules, etc. The difference between you and I is that I have no problem whatsoever with playing "bad" characters. I don't really care that Stunbolt is better than Astral Combat, I will choose whichever one I think is going to be more fun. I am not trying to beat the game, I just want to enjoy the game. I enjoy winning and losing. I enjoy having flaws, even serious flaws. Having a very poor dodge pool is a big problem but I will still play such characters. I got away from playing super safe with character builds a long time ago, I find it very interesting to explore weaknesses and what you may consider to be flawed designs. Just because I don't agree with your mentality does not mean I don't understand the rules.
Hobbes, when I say "positive feedback" I am talking about telling him his character is cool and getting him pumped up to play it. I would not say "Neat idea but you have too many bad skills and your attributes are really sub-optimal for your role, scrap 1/3 of it and play the character I suggest." And I have seen that happen a LOT of times over the years. I rarely check this sub forum because of the bad history it has.
I should note that I prefer a DEEP level of immersion and many of my views are based on that. I like to take every aspect of my background and character sheet to produce the most powerful roleplaying experience I can bring to the table. If something makes sense for the character but it is "useless" I will still take it and sometimes it does come into play. I also feel that a crucial GM skill is to make players feel good about the choices they made, not punishing them because they didn't fully optimize. If one of my players took Rating 7 Performance and his background said he was a musician in Aztlan for 10 years, I would probably look for a way to work that into a run or at least a session, or maybe more than one, it could even become important to the campaign as a whole. When a player invests a ton of karma into something and the GM doesn't have it come into play ever, that just encourages him to not spend his karma on things like that again. But if the GM understands that the player purchased it because he thought it was very cool and rewards him for it at some point, the player will be very happy and continue to build characters how he likes. It's things like this that lead players to avoid certain skills because they feel useless, and with a GM who hasn't learned this valuable skill, they probably are useless.The same is true for knowledge and language skills. Many people won't invest actual karma into them, they just take the freebies. Such skills rarely, if ever come up in quite a few groups. But if the GM makes the skills worthwhile they go from useless to amazingly fun.
I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn't always take Stunbolt over Astral Combat because it's not how I visualize my character fighting spirits. I also don't like to take certain spells, guns, vehicles, ware, etc every time because they are the best or most useful. I think changing it up is a lot of fun.
I don't usually submit my characters for review to forums because I am confident in them. Recently I decided to get involved with runnerhub to scratch my SR itch. I had to submit a character. I came up with a pretty cool idea for a face and had worked it all out.
Along the way I had a sheet reviewer tell me to get rid of my standard ammo because it is "crap". My knee jerk was so strong I withdrew the character. I have standard ammo for every character I make. It is legal and makes you look like an armed citizen, which isn't abnormal in shadowrun. It is also effective on drones (unlike Gel), cheaper than stick and shock while providing more knock down power (in addition to allowing you to shoot through barriers, which I can't imagine stick and shock does so well). I'd be shooting hollow points in a heart beat if they weren't illegal and priced way too high. All that aside, standard ammo is standard for a reason. 9/10 guns are probably loaded with it.
The entire interaction, as innocuous as it might look revealed the character of that moderator (if not the community they represent). It was such a turn off to know that non-power gamers need not apply. APDS or go home. Well, I took my ball and went home.
I have had long absences from these forums because of posters that I consider to be trolls and extremely abusive to the point where I no longer had any fun, and a lot of them used to post in this sub forum, all of whom were power gamers.If someone is being abusive or a troll you have recourse. Flag the post.
Having any kind of discussion about the topic seems to always get power gamers fired up, as it did in this thread and many others.You keep saying that you're NOT saying that some people are Doing It Wrong, then you say something like this. It's not a discussion when you imply people are Doing It Wrong by continually insist that you're not saying that even though it's clear to everyone what you're implying.
Power gamers tend to have very narrow opinions and make a ton of declaritive statements about particular aspects of the gameSaid without a shred of irony. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," says man speaking in absolutes.
The fact is that not everyone wants to use the 'best' pistol or omit 'crap' skills or 'useless' spells, etc. Anything in the books is open game and we can only decide the value we place on it personally.Something something we don't know their context of posting etc etc I have no reason to believe you're arguing in good faith at this point.
"All extremes are bad. Except this one." :DPower gamers tend to have very narrow opinions and make a ton of declaritive statements about particular aspects of the gameSaid without a shred of irony. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," says man speaking in absolutes.
That may work out fine for you, but do you really think it is the same attitude that someone posting to this subforum will have? Someone who is okay with playing a character with suboptimal choices made for roleplaying reasons has no reason to post that character here. People post characters here to see if they mechanically work - although I have seen a few pure concept posts along the line of "How would you make this concept in the system?" We are here to look at the nuts and bolts, not to give out warm fuzzies. I think "Neat idea but...", followed by some solid advice on how to actually implement a concept, is being helpful, not trampling on a delicate snowflake.
You can create very interesting backstory and that's why select low dodge pool and wonky skills. You put a lot of effort to the backstory and that's why your character is not the best character in the fight. And the first ork street samurai from the corebook kills him with a single shot with an assault rifle... It's time to create a new character.
You can create very interesting backstory and that's why select low dodge pool and wonky skills. You put a lot of effort to the backstory and that's why your character is not the best character in the fight. And the first ork street samurai from the corebook kills him with a single shot with an assault rifle... It's time to create a new character.
5th Edition Shadowrun is moderately lethal game if your GM doesn't pull punches. Most of the modules and missions out there have critical skill tests that presume you're capable of getting 4 hits in your chosen specialty. If a poster comes here looking for advice, they're going to get advice to have a character that can survive and defeat standard enemies and succeed at the common difficulties you see in modules and missions.
I have absolutely no idea why the exact same interesting backstory can't be used for a character with a good chance of success at moderate levels of difficulty.
I have had long absences from these forums because of posters that I consider to be trolls and extremely abusive to the point where I no longer had any fun, and a lot of them used to post in this sub forum, all of whom were power gamers.If someone is being abusive or a troll you have recourse. Flag the post.Having any kind of discussion about the topic seems to always get power gamers fired up, as it did in this thread and many others.You keep saying that you're NOT saying that some people are Doing It Wrong, then you say something like this. It's not a discussion when you imply people are Doing It Wrong by continually insist that you're not saying that even though it's clear to everyone what you're implying.Power gamers tend to have very narrow opinions and make a ton of declaritive statements about particular aspects of the gameSaid without a shred of irony. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," says man speaking in absolutes.The fact is that not everyone wants to use the 'best' pistol or omit 'crap' skills or 'useless' spells, etc. Anything in the books is open game and we can only decide the value we place on it personally.Something something we don't know their context of posting etc etc I have no reason to believe you're arguing in good faith at this point.
On another note, personally, I consider Perception to be the most 'wonky' skill. Being tied to the Mental limit, it is quite likely that a good chunk of skilled stealthers are going to be getting more hits than the 'defender's' Mental limit, thus making it impossible for them to spot him--don't really even need to go much into the double digits to pull that off.To spin off topic momentarily - I've considered removing Perception as a skill and making it an Intuition + Logic check. Qualities/Gear/Abilities that improve Perception checks would still do so, but the base would be Intuition + Logic.
You can create very interesting backstory and that's why select low dodge pool and wonky skills. You put a lot of effort to the backstory and that's why your character is not the best character in the fight. And the first ork street samurai from the corebook kills him with a single shot with an assault rifle... It's time to create a new character.
5th Edition Shadowrun is moderately lethal game if your GM doesn't pull punches. Most of the modules and missions out there have critical skill tests that presume you're capable of getting 4 hits in your chosen specialty. If a poster comes here looking for advice, they're going to get advice to have a character that can survive and defeat standard enemies and succeed at the common difficulties you see in modules and missions.
I have absolutely no idea why the exact same interesting backstory can't be used for a character with a good chance of success at moderate levels of difficulty.
Again, not trying to force my perspective on anyone, just like I think powergamers should exercise some caution when they give advice.
On another note, personally, I consider Perception to be the most 'wonky' skill. Being tied to the Mental limit, it is quite likely that a good chunk of skilled stealthers are going to be getting more hits than the 'defender's' Mental limit, thus making it impossible for them to spot him--don't really even need to go much into the double digits to pull that off.To spin off topic momentarily - I've considered removing Perception as a skill and making it an Intuition + Logic check. Qualities/Gear/Abilities that improve Perception checks would still do so, but the base would be Intuition + Logic.
On another note, personally, I consider Perception to be the most 'wonky' skill. Being tied to the Mental limit, it is quite likely that a good chunk of skilled stealthers are going to be getting more hits than the 'defender's' Mental limit, thus making it impossible for them to spot him--don't really even need to go much into the double digits to pull that off.To spin off topic momentarily - I've considered removing Perception as a skill and making it an Intuition + Logic check. Qualities/Gear/Abilities that improve Perception checks would still do so, but the base would be Intuition + Logic.
You can create very interesting backstory and that's why select low dodge pool and wonky skills. You put a lot of effort to the backstory and that's why your character is not the best character in the fight. And the first ork street samurai from the corebook kills him with a single shot with an assault rifle... It's time to create a new character.
5th Edition Shadowrun is moderately lethal game if your GM doesn't pull punches. Most of the modules and missions out there have critical skill tests that presume you're capable of getting 4 hits in your chosen specialty. If a poster comes here looking for advice, they're going to get advice to have a character that can survive and defeat standard enemies and succeed at the common difficulties you see in modules and missions.
I have absolutely no idea why the exact same interesting backstory can't be used for a character with a good chance of success at moderate levels of difficulty.
In this answer I assumed such kind of backstory that you
a) share your attributes such that for example rea and int are both low
b) share your skill points to wonky skills (free-fall, running, first aid, biotechnology and so on), such that your average pool in your primary skills are not higher (or are even lower) than the archetype characters' respective pools.
I think that this kind of character cannot survive at moderate levels of difficulty. And that's why I think that Shadowjack won't get what he want. We cannot assume that all tables use rules in which a corebook archetype character is a prime runner level enemy, and more common enemies are weaker. For example in our table our gm said: your character should be able to win archetype characters easily. This technically means, that a sam should be automatics 6 with specialization and agility 6 with ware. And a mage casting pool should be 14-16 in combat or area illusion spells and so on. I think that I later ask these questions from newcomers:
a) what are karma rewards of your table?
b) what is your typical enemy in the first run?
and base my comments to his answers to these questions. If the enemies are archetype characters, there is absolutely no room for at least many wonky skills and odd attributes. So, optimizing and powergaming will probably continue.
The archetypes in the book are what I would consider to be Prime Runners and do not represent normal opposition for the players.
I see you, Falar - Trying to justify that Narco'd Psyche addiction even more! ;-)Psyche is one of the best drugs in the game. Narco just makes it beautiful.
If you wanted better balance, you'd cost skills differently based on their expected frequency
The archetypes in the book are what I would consider to be Prime Runners and do not represent normal opposition for the players.
Wait, what?! Sorry, but no. A Prime Runner is one that is MUCH more skilled than that. Prime Runners are experienced to the point where characters on par with the Professional Rating 6 NPCs are going to have a hard time.
What if we were ok with the slow karma advancement, and recognize that the characters we start with may not have a lot of drastic tall attribute/skill growth over their career.
Oh that crud.
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that and will continue calling those simply "Important NPCs". A true Prime Runner would be what that would call supposedly 'superhuman' level.
For a good example of a True Prime Runner see Harlequin's entry in the SR4A Street Legends.
There are some people on here playing the same characters for over a decade. Those characters are very powerful. While I think that's awesome I cannot accept that as a normal play experience. The vast majority of games will fizzle out, not come to a climactic conclusion or continue indefinitely
- because a 5k payout minus lifestyle is not going to let you upgrade your WR to alpha or your Toner 3 to Toner 4.
1. I don't see the point really, there are people that have been here for many years trolling and being abusive and they haven't been banned.
2.I said that because it's true. Every time these discussions pop up a power gamer makes an abusive post. I don't see why I'm not allowed to point that out.
3.Read what I said again. I said "tend", that is not an absolute, clearly. Saying "Never take the Pistols skill because it is shit" is an absolute. There is a huge difference.
4.I don't see what isn't valid about what I said. I don't see why you need any context, either. All the skills, guns and spells are in the book for a reason, do you disagree? I don't like the idea of teaching new players that useful things are useless because all of these things could save your ass.
Again, not trying to force my perspective on anyone, just like I think powergamers should exercise some caution when they give advice.
I don't like game design that's basically "you get what you start with, so suck it." I think it's a crap design philosophy.
I don't like game design that's basically "you get what you start with, so suck it." I think it's a crap design philosophy.
If I prefer that sort go play some board games. There are plenty of them out there, and a good number are pretty good.
I don't like game design that's basically "you get what you start with, so suck it." I think it's a crap design philosophy.
If I prefer that sort go play some board games. There are plenty of them out there, and a good number are pretty good.
So you're saying that if someone wants their characters to be able to advance at a rate that they don't have to get extraordinarily lucky and have one that lasts a decade, they should "just play board games instead"? That's bunk, man.
I don't like game design that's basically "you get what you start with, so suck it." I think it's a crap design philosophy.
If I prefer that sort go play some board games. There are plenty of them out there, and a good number are pretty good.
So you're saying that if someone wants their characters to be able to advance at a rate that they don't have to get extraordinarily lucky and have one that lasts a decade, they should "just play board games instead"? That's bunk, man.
I'm saying if you want to play a game where you do not advance your character, you should give board games a try.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
Thus you prove your ignorance. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically. But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves.
I do feel bad for you having spent so much time reading and having failed to understand it all.
But the point of your posts are attempting to say power gaming is bad, and that will now and forever be untrue. Nothing you say will change that fact. I agree that role playing is as important a part of gaming as the system is, and yes like system master it's a skill that takes time to develop. But sadly it's not something that can be developed as much in forums, you can teach tropes and strategies, but it's not a skill that can communicated clear in the forums. To be a true master of table top you must master both role playing and the system, to master one without the other will leave you deficient in the other.
But back to the topic of your ignorance, you showed it in several places, your generalization of power gamers as quick to anger when called in question is frankly just another example of your prejudicial stereotyping. Notice that no one has come back at you with any of usual RP obsesses silliness. Your statement that you think the example character are a good model is another example, if you know the rules well then you know they are built incorrectly.
Finally, what this forum does is help teach people to build better character at their request (Often their first or second character), as well as discussing implementation of certain concepts, and of course there is some level rules discussion that occurs. Yes sometimes we do suggest scrapping a mechanical approach, but only when such a thing cannot be executed in the system in a way that would work at a table, or given the constraints the player has already listed. Not all things are possible in the system or under stated preferences. Nothing in that is about indoctrinating new posters into power gamers. Plenty of times folks myself included have posted suggestions on how to role play a concept, or given advice on how to deal with the many communication issues that arise at the table.
In closing I respectfully suggest you correct your ignorance. You have much to gain, and nothing to lose by doing so.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
Thus you prove your ignorance. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically. But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves.
I do feel bad for you having spent so much time reading and having failed to understand it all.
But the point of your posts are attempting to say power gaming is bad, and that will now and forever be untrue. Nothing you say will change that fact. I agree that role playing is as important a part of gaming as the system is, and yes like system master it's a skill that takes time to develop. But sadly it's not something that can be developed as much in forums, you can teach tropes and strategies, but it's not a skill that can communicated clear in the forums. To be a true master of table top you must master both role playing and the system, to master one without the other will leave you deficient in the other.
But back to the topic of your ignorance, you showed it in several places, your generalization of power gamers as quick to anger when called in question is frankly just another example of your prejudicial stereotyping. Notice that no one has come back at you with any of usual RP obsesses silliness. Your statement that you think the example character are a good model is another example, if you know the rules well then you know they are built incorrectly.
Finally, what this forum does is help teach people to build better character at their request (Often their first or second character), as well as discussing implementation of certain concepts, and of course there is some level rules discussion that occurs. Yes sometimes we do suggest scrapping a mechanical approach, but only when such a thing cannot be executed in the system in a way that would work at a table, or given the constraints the player has already listed. Not all things are possible in the system or under stated preferences. Nothing in that is about indoctrinating new posters into power gamers. Plenty of times folks myself included have posted suggestions on how to role play a concept, or given advice on how to deal with the many communication issues that arise at the table.
In closing I respectfully suggest you correct your ignorance. You have much to gain, and nothing to lose by doing so.
Do you really believe this post was acceptable? It's by far the rudest post I've had directed at me in a long time and you got what you had coming. It's because of people like you that I routinely leave this forum for years at a time. Nobody in the world wants to be treated like that, if you don't understand that I think that is quite unusual and I do think that you should feel bad about it. No post of mine prior to that one was even close to what you wrote and you can expect a bad reaction like you got. You can consider your post in whatever way you wish but it definitely felt like a personal attack to me, not to mention that you are declaring a concept to be irrefutable when droves of players think it is rediculous. Just because I disagree with an idea you prescribe to does not give you the right to do what you did, no matter how strongly you believe in it.
I know that and I never said I like them. All I said is that according to the book they seem to be Prime Runners and I even said that I didn't think they were that interesting. The main point is that they're fleshed out while grunts are missing a lot of finer details.
I know that and I never said I like them. All I said is that according to the book they seem to be Prime Runners and I even said that I didn't think they were that interesting. The main point is that they're fleshed out while grunts are missing a lot of finer details.
Do you really believe this post was acceptable? It's by far the rudest post I've had directed at me in a long time and you got what you had coming. It's because of people like you that I routinely leave this forum for years at a time. Nobody in the world wants to be treated like that, if you don't understand that I think that is quite unusual and I do think that you should feel bad about it. No post of mine prior to that one was even close to what you wrote and you can expect a bad reaction like you got. You can consider your post in whatever way you wish but it definitely felt like a personal attack to me, not to mention that you are declaring a concept to be irrefutable when droves of players think it is rediculous. Just because I disagree with an idea you prescribe to does not give you the right to do what you did, no matter how strongly you believe in it.
I know that and I never said I like them. All I said is that according to the book they seem to be Prime Runners and I even said that I didn't think they were that interesting. The main point is that they're fleshed out while grunts are missing a lot of finer details.
You're putting way too much stock into the misuse of the term (a mistake in the text, IMO) from that one chapter. Whether you go as far as Harlequin or not, the fact remains that to be Prime requires a great deal more skill and experience than any PC should be facing off against until they've reached about the 200 karma point at least.
I know that and I never said I like them. All I said is that according to the book they seem to be Prime Runners and I even said that I didn't think they were that interesting. The main point is that they're fleshed out while grunts are missing a lot of finer details.
Why in the world would any GM want a grunt to have details? Any NPC that is going to get spotlight time by definition isn't a grunt.
The Mr. J that is going to send you on a complex series of runs that ends in a sudden twist of betrayal? Sure, stat him up, write a little short story for a decker or face to dig up. The bodyguards that'll never say a word? Er... why would a GM care? Give me the combat stats and some space in the margins to track the health bars. I really don't care if thing 1 has a Knowledge skill of Pastries and thing 2 is working out some abandonment issues in therapy. They're not the primary actors. If the PCs hatch some sceme and I need to make up some minor details I'll do it on the fly. Don't clutter up the books with page after page of backstory material that the PCs aren't ever going to discover or won't come up.
Yeah I wouldn't call Harlequin a Prime Runner. He's so far beyond even that. He's a force of nature like dragons and the known public heads of the megas. Slamm-O and Bull and Kane are Prime Runners. But even then the term is pretty broad and can encompass a lot of different characters with huge variation as to how good they actually are as well as time spent as a career runner. And even then Prime Runner chargen isn't going to get you to match them in all likelihood.
Some of those archetypes really aren't very good. I'm not even talking about the whole 'optimal' thing either, as there are some in the core book that flat don't follow the rules.
Some of those archetypes really aren't very good. I'm not even talking about the whole 'optimal' thing either, as there are some in the core book that flat don't follow the rules.
I heard somewhere once that they were actually made before character gen rules were completed, and thus it isn't possible that they could conform to them. Seems super lazy and shitty on the part of catalyst, but that seems to be their publishing MO. Bad editing is like a running bad joke with them.
Off topic-
Marcus: What is Logic used for in Astral Combat besides defense tests? The Logic = Agility conversion doesn't match the stated rules of Willpower + Astral combat being the combat test (instead of using Logic + Astral Combat to better simulate the more typical physical combat rules).
Off topic-I thought it was still agility Gemstar. So that's my bad. *shrug* To many editions, I'll go re-read that section and go see what that willpower was.
Marcus: What is Logic used for in Astral Combat besides defense tests? The Logic = Agility conversion doesn't match the stated rules of Willpower + Astral combat being the combat test (instead of using Logic + Astral Combat to better simulate the more typical physical combat rules).
I've been trying to make an astral samurai work and the table about converting physical stats to astral stats has confused me, as it doesn't seem to correspond much with the stated rules. The table says Agility = Logic and Reaction = Intuition. However, the combat rules are as you describe. I like that, as my usually psyched up characters get a nice bonus to defense tests without having to invest so much in Logic. I have another thread about this, but I really don't know what Agility tests one would do in astral space. You can move in any direction and basically limitless speed, you don't use agility for combat, there is gear to steal or plant nor you don't use standard sneaking tests to avoid detection. If people think of anything I do want to know.
It does make want to think up at last as McGuffins wholly astral gear (like perhaps stats for a shamanic mask that can only be found on the astral plane) or ways to make other kind of physical skill foci that aren't weapons nor qi foci (armor foci, lockpick/key foci for specific astral locks that also add dice to lockpicking in the physical, compass foci for when you lose your way in astral space that also help with navigation in the physical world, artisan foci for helping create astral art and a tool to help make physical art [magic paintbrush], etc.). Perhaps it moving magicians too much into adept territory, but it might make astral space a more appealing place to spend game time.
This thread is amazing.It's beautiful. It's everything I love about forums.
@Marcus: I have already made several statements contrary to your declaration that the Stormwind Fallacy is in effect. The thing I don't like about this concept is that every time someone brings it up they also seem to ignore any evidence against it. I have explicitly stated, even on multiple occasions, that an optimizer can be a good roleplayer. I have also stated that I can and will create very powerful characters if I choose to do so. I do not make my characters weak just to be different, in fact, I suspect some of them could trump highly optimized charact ers on the job. Your eyes have either passed over all such remarks of you have chosen to ignore them. The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fact, it is an opinion. I can quote different theories and declare them to be factual but you are still allowed to reject them. Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that I don't understand how to optimize and that I should broaden my awareness, again, I have already stated that I am capable of it and did it in my earlier years. I also think it's a fairly simple thing to do for anyone who takes a little time to learn the methods and players do it in all rpgs.Either you don't know what a fallacy is, or you don't know what the stormwind fallacy (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2i9aqg/the_stormwind_fallacy_repost/) is saying. It is not an opinion, nor can there be any evidence against it because it is a logical fallacy. You would have to disprove it, which would mean in this case to create a causal link between its negated statements.
@Marcus: I have already made several statements contrary to your declaration that the Stormwind Fallacy is in effect. The thing I don't like about this concept is that every time someone brings it up they also seem to ignore any evidence against it. I have explicitly stated, even on multiple occasions, that an optimizer can be a good roleplayer. I have also stated that I can and will create very powerful characters if I choose to do so. I do not make my characters weak just to be different, in fact, I suspect some of them could trump highly optimized charact ers on the job. Your eyes have either passed over all such remarks of you have chosen to ignore them. The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fact, it is an opinion. I can quote different theories and declare them to be factual but you are still allowed to reject them. Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that I don't understand how to optimize and that I should broaden my awareness, again, I have already stated that I am capable of it and did it in my earlier years. I also think it's a fairly simple thing to do for anyone who takes a little time to learn the methods and players do it in all rpgs.Either you don't know what a fallacy is, or you don't know what the stormwind fallacy (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2i9aqg/the_stormwind_fallacy_repost/) is saying. It is not an opinion, nor can there be any evidence against it because it is a logical fallacy. You would have to disprove it, which would mean in this case to create a causal link between its negated statements.
Either you don't know what a fallacy is, or you don't know what the stormwind fallacy (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2i9aqg/the_stormwind_fallacy_repost/) is saying. It is not an opinion, nor can there be any evidence against it because it is a logical fallacy. You would have to disprove it, which would mean in this case to create a causal link between its negated statements.Heh, made me chuckle. Somewhat ironically, this is a great example of a formal fallacy in and of itself. But keep trying; next you'll tell me Godwin's Law is an actual law.
Either you don't know what a fallacy is, or you don't know what the stormwind fallacy (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2i9aqg/the_stormwind_fallacy_repost/) is saying. It is not an opinion, nor can there be any evidence against it because it is a logical fallacy. You would have to disprove it, which would mean in this case to create a causal link between its negated statements.Heh, made me chuckle. Somewhat ironically, this is a great example of a formal fallacy in and of itself. But keep trying; next you'll tell me Godwin's Law is an actual law.
bring it up out of desperationMy, someone's certainly projecting.
bring it up out of desperationMy, someone's certainly projecting.
This is all completely subjective and impossible to factually prove. As are the unnecessary digs about wacky backstory, shallowness, hurt potential, what kind of depth is valuable depth etc, all of which are also completely subjective, which lead to a reasonable inference that youre claiming to know better than others about how a character "should" be built and "should" be played.
Sacrificing a plethora of thematic elements in favor of raw power does infringe upon roleplaying. Roleplaying a guy who can do nothing but try to kill people is a very shallow concept. Not only is it shallow, it's pretty damn basic and many would say, boring. You can come up with any wacky backstory to explain how he is how he is but the character isn't going to be as interesting as he could be. Take the same guy, a complete monster in combat but he also has a deep interest in goblin rock and knows how to perform classical jazz and ballet, he suddenly has a lot more depth. By refusing to even consider such options you are hurting your potential as a roleplayer.
When did I ever say that optimizers suck at roleplaying 100% of the time?
Sacrificing a plethora of thematic elements in favor of raw power does infringe upon roleplaying. Roleplaying a guy who can do nothing but try to kill people is a very shallow concept. Not only is it shallow, it's pretty damn basic and many would say, boring. You can come up with any wacky backstory to explain how he is how he is but the character isn't going to be as interesting as he could be. Take the same guy, a complete monster in combat but he also has a deep interest in goblin rock and knows how to perform classical jazz and ballet, he suddenly has a lot more depth. By refusing to even consider such options you are hurting your potential as a roleplayer.
This is all completely subjective and impossible to factually prove. As are the unnecessary digs about wacky backstory, shallowness, hurt potential, what kind of depth is valuable depth etc, all of which are also completely subjective, which lead to a reasonable inference that youre claiming to know better than others about how a character "should" be built and "should" be played.
Sacrificing a plethora of thematic elements in favor of raw power does infringe upon roleplaying. Roleplaying a guy who can do nothing but try to kill people is a very shallow concept. Not only is it shallow, it's pretty damn basic and many would say, boring. You can come up with any wacky backstory to explain how he is how he is but the character isn't going to be as interesting as he could be. Take the same guy, a complete monster in combat but he also has a deep interest in goblin rock and knows how to perform classical jazz and ballet, he suddenly has a lot more depth. By refusing to even consider such options you are hurting your potential as a roleplayer.
Have your preferences, nobody cares about that, but you're well beyond stating just your own preferences.
It's backhanded implications like this that make me say your actual statements as written, where you profess to not be knocking an entire group of people for playing how they enjoy, have no credibility. Because you're continually talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I've heard of some people playing the "how can I rationalize or make a story for this build" game. On the one hand there is nothing wrong with wanting to play a certain type of character and crafting backstory around it. I do it all the time. The trick is similar to spotting obscenity. You know a bad character when you see it. Once that point has been reached, no amount of rationalizing matters anymore. As emotional creatures, we've already made our decision and are unlikely to change it.
All the promises in the world of good roleplaying mean nothing. I know most of these people fail and are disruptive. At that point I'm just waiting for the moment to say, "I told you so." That is if I wasn't able to bypass that all and force a rebuild previous. I'd rather avoid playing with that guy than be the cynical dick after the fact.
However, I must insist that my view is not ignorant, it is based on many years of visiting this message board.
I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.
I have explicitly stated, even on multiple occasions, that an optimizer can be a good roleplayer.So you believe you can Optimze and Roleplay? Or in short you DO believe in Stormwind's Fallacy.
I did not say that optimizers are incapable of roleplaying. In basketball, there is a common opinion that black players can jump much higher than white players. As a white person that played against many black players I found this to be very accurate, but every once in a while there was a black player who couldn't jump as high as me. That's how I look at "optimizers", they are usually much more focused on the game elements and pay little to no attention to the roleplaying side of the game.
Agreed. That's why I don't like the Stormwind Fallacy, powergamers bring it up out of desperation in every power gaming thread and gloss over details that should have indicated the original poster didn't even do what the "Fallacy" states. Trying to quote some idea and use it as irrefutable evidence is rediculous. It also makes no mention of how extreme the "optimization" is. I have stated that optimization can be important and that I do it to myself to a certain extent, but why bother acknowledging that when you can make baseless accusations? Playing a character with absolutely no thematic elements he should have is quite strange in my opinion (nice word, opinion).
What I would suggest is to tell him that you like his character and give him encouraging feedback.
The fact is that not everyone wants to use theYou have told us not to rely on the mods, even this thread show that they are doing their job.
1. I don't see the point really, there are people that have been here for many years trolling and being abusive and they haven't been banned.
2.I said that because it's true. Every time these discussions pop up a power gamer makes an abusive post. I don't see why I'm not allowed to point that out.
It really only takes less than 100 days, and that's without an instructor, to get to a skill rating of 6. So someone training in mechanical engineering can learn it to skill 6 part time in less than a year. It's not a great simulation...
Sacrificing a plethora of thematic elements in favor of raw power does infringe upon roleplaying. Roleplaying a guy who can do nothing but try to kill people is a very shallow concept. Not only is it shallow, it's pretty damn basic and many would say, boring. You can come up with any wacky backstory to explain how he is how he is but the character isn't going to be as interesting as he could be. Take the same guy, a complete monster in combat but he also has a deep interest in goblin rock and knows how to perform classical jazz and ballet, he suddenly has a lot more depth. By refusing to even consider such options you are hurting your potential as a roleplayer.
Sacrificing a plethora of thematic elements in favor of raw power does infringe upon roleplaying. Roleplaying a guy who can do nothing but try to kill people is a very shallow concept. Not only is it shallow, it's pretty damn basic and many would say, boring. You can come up with any wacky backstory to explain how he is how he is but the character isn't going to be as interesting as he could be. Take the same guy, a complete monster in combat but he also has a deep interest in goblin rock and knows how to perform classical jazz and ballet, he suddenly has a lot more depth. By refusing to even consider such options you are hurting your potential as a roleplayer.
See Jayne
Shallow merc gun nut with few other skills or redeeming qualities? Yet, at the same time a fun and fascinating character.
"I'll be in my bunk."
(http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003807/)
To me runners are Larger then Life, Heroes in dark days, facing overwhelming odds. But sticking to their Code. Compromising and forcing compromise where they can for the greater good of all people.... Wait. Shadowrunners are heroes? I always operated under the assumption that they were slightly different shades of grey in a world made of greys where there are no heroes and no villians. If anything, they tend towards amoral villians.
Depends on the runner and campaign along with your point of view.To me runners are Larger then Life, Heroes in dark days, facing overwhelming odds. But sticking to their Code. Compromising and forcing compromise where they can for the greater good of all people.... Wait. Shadowrunners are heroes? I always operated under the assumption that they were slightly different shades of grey in a world made of greys where there are no heroes and no villians. If anything, they tend towards amoral villians.
To me runners are Larger then Life, Heroes in dark days, facing overwhelming odds. But sticking to their Code. Compromising and forcing compromise where they can for the greater good of all people.... Wait. Shadowrunners are heroes? I always operated under the assumption that they were slightly different shades of grey in a world made of greys where there are no heroes and no villians. If anything, they tend towards amoral villians.
Sacrificing a plethora of thematic elements in favor of raw power does infringe upon roleplaying. Roleplaying a guy who can do nothing but try to kill people is a very shallow concept. Not only is it shallow, it's pretty damn basic and many would say, boring. You can come up with any wacky backstory to explain how he is how he is but the character isn't going to be as interesting as he could be. Take the same guy, a complete monster in combat but he also has a deep interest in goblin rock and knows how to perform classical jazz and ballet, he suddenly has a lot more depth. By refusing to even consider such options you are hurting your potential as a roleplayer.
See Jayne
Shallow merc gun nut with few other skills or redeeming qualities? Yet, at the same time a fun and fascinating character.
"I'll be in my bunk."
(http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003807/)
Perfect example disproving his premise.
Uhhh.. no? Jayne could play the guitar, had a family he cared about, etc. Seems like there is some depth there. Also, we only saw him for a single season/movie. Not the most time ever for character development.
We also don't see what thematic elements were sacrificed. We also know Jayne does more than try to kill people. By these loose definitions we could probably condemn every hero from a western.
As long as we're doing pictures:
(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/jack-burton.jpg)
This guy optimized his Throwing (Knife) skill at the cost of everything else. Best character ever.
As long as we're doing pictures:
(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/jack-burton.jpg)
This guy optimized his Throwing (Knife) skill at the cost of everything else. Best character ever.
he was saving his edgeAs long as we're doing pictures:
(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/jack-burton.jpg)
This guy optimized his Throwing (Knife) skill at the cost of everything else. Best character ever.
And yet he misses 7/8 throws.....
(But does make the only that really matters)
Powergaming is for chargen, when 1 point as a Skill going from 0 to 1 means 2 karma ... or going from 5 to 6 means 30. And if the GM is using that methodology, well, IMO that's fine; that's what you get, and you can use that with newbies and the like.
After that, use the karma generation system; build strong characters with a specialty (close combat, decking, spellcasting) but who have real interests, can do some basic things despite stress, etc. After character creation, spend your karma on things other than becoming ZOMG the best pistolero ever (which you won't, but have fun trying), because isn't it more fun to imagine your shadowrun team knocking down pins in a bowling alley once in a while - maybe part of a league!! - than it is always being at the same bar-cum-firing-range? And yes, right now I AM imagining a Pistolero firing a silenced light pistol loaded with gel rounds from inside the bag he's reaching into in order to nudge the wobbling 7 pin down so the decker doesn't have to try for a 7-10 split. ...
... which is more fun than putting a splat on a paper target, isn't it?
Point build doesn't eliminate power-gaming, but it does get rid of front-loading-for-karma-efficiency powergaming, and makes generalists a bit more viable by giving them the low end of exponentially rising costs. High dice pools are still desirable, though, because the game is still engineered around variable dice pools.
Still, one thing to keep in mind is that the default game is designed to create superhumans who do dangerous things for a living. Sometimes the complaints about powergaming seem like complaining that the PCs in a superhero game can fly or are bullet-proof.
Powergaming is for chargen, when 1 point as a Skill going from 0 to 1 means 2 karma ... or going from 5 to 6 means 30. And if the GM is using that methodology, well, IMO that's fine; that's what you get, and you can use that with newbies and the like.
After that, use the karma generation system; build strong characters with a specialty (close combat, decking, spellcasting) but who have real interests, can do some basic things despite stress, etc. After character creation, spend your karma on things other than becoming ZOMG the best pistolero ever (which you won't, but have fun trying)
Leverage is a TV show; their leads don't ever KILL people, so of course death to aALL OF THIS.PCmain character or primary supporting character isn't a real risk. And the people and corporations they go after, compared to those in SR, are frickin' tree-hugging total pacifists. Compared to your average Shadowrun, once they were made - and here's the thing, in Leverage they always get made - they would not have two or three guys going after Eliot with brass knuckles, they'd have a squad of 12 or 16 with suppressed SMGs and only if he's lucky and they want to question him would Eliot survive. Leverage has the presumption that even the worst bullshitter on the team (Hardison - yes, Parker is better) is more believable than common frickin' sense.
And that's when you hit them with the 'the Vory guy will only negotiate with the Russian rigger' problem. Make the difficulty their difficulty, and maybe they'll decide 'hey, spreading a few karma around to my other skills might be a good thing ...'That's when the face starts playing Cyrano de Bergerac from the van ;D
And that's when you hit them with the 'the Vory guy will only negotiate with the Russian rigger' problem. Make the difficulty their difficulty, and maybe they'll decide 'hey, spreading a few karma around to my other skills might be a good thing ...'That's when the face starts playing Cyrano de Bergerac from the van ;D
Leverage is a TV show; their leads don't ever KILL people, so of course death to aPCmain character or primary supporting character isn't a real risk.
Leverage is a TV show; their leads don't ever KILL people, so of course death to aPCmain character or primary supporting character isn't a real risk.
The characters are never at risk of being taken out. I use taken out in a FATE or Cortex+ interpretation. This means they are never really at risk of being removed from the story. They don't lose in a way where they don't come back. Sure, the stakes may be different, but that doesn't remove them from the category of competent bad-asses. Even with burning edge to survive death, the characters in a shadowrun game are not assured of the same. Runners feel like they are constantly running to stay on step ahead of a doom that is on their heels.
When I think superhuman I think of comic book super heroes. Powers or not, they are a cut above. Batman is not threatened by some punk with a gun. You need a villain to challenge him. In shadowrun a nameless goon can off you. Even spending edge to live doesn't really fix the disparity of power. I don't count the ability to see in the dark as some kind of miraculous super power. If I did than our modern military would be full of superhumans. Technological aids for guns already exist and they are nothing earth shattering either. A modern red dot sight is staggeringly good. Still not superhuman.
As for the magic... welcome to magerun. Its the aspect of the system I like the least by far. I don't disagree with the rest of what you say. My vision of shadowrun is perhaps darker. I like the fact that you don't need a super villain to challenge the players. The faceless, innumerable, grunts are enough to put the screws to a runner team. Sure, corp security might be taken down quickly, but their bullets are just as lethal and there are always more of them waiting to harry the runners. The question isn't if you will lose, but in how long. You race against that invisible timer, trying to get out before you are surrounded and out of options. You can't fight a stand up battle against a corp. You can't punch with the megas. So you suckerpunch them and try to get away clean before the behemoth can get up and crush you.
And magerun? Sure, mages are powerful - for a limited time, because all that power comes at the cost of drain. I cannot tell you how many times the non-magical-at-the-time Hawatari has eliminated an enemy mage - and at several junctures, the mage was a PC - without in her case breaking a sweat. Because of planning, and all the rest. In a stand-up fight, sure, magic is the trump card - but if you're going for stand-up fights in Shadowrun, you deserve all of the ass-kicking you're receiving.I agree with your whole post aside from this, there are trivially easy ways to mitigate Drain that make it a relative non-issue. But you're right about fighting a mage - if you're going toe-to-toe with them, pistols at dawn, out in the open, they will probably shred you even if they don't know a single Combat spell. But why are you fighting them that way to begin with, when it's common in-setting knowledge that any mage might be able to make you eat your own gun if they see you, if not fry you like a chicken dinner (and even if a given mage actually can't do that, you should assume they can and will, just to be safe).