Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Triggvi on <04-05-11/1433:29>
-
1) rule of thumb I use for characters is always have a high edge 4-6. Edge keeps you alive and it allows you a more 4 color approach to play.
2) Cyber stacks with Cyber, Bio with bio, adept powers with adept powers. There are exeptions, but if follow this you will not problems.
3) Come up with a concept then plug in numbers and make it work. The character is person, not a archetype.
Does any one else have simple rules (rule of thumb) you go by for making characters?
-
I usually come up with an idea or concept and then see how well I can make it work. Often having to go back and tweek and rethink the concept until I get something playable, fun, and with a good background/story that will allow me to have fun and a reasonable chance to succeed at what I am trying to do.
(for some reason I seem to be tending towards magically active in fourth edition where I was more a cyber guy in previous incarnations. Also I have for the first time ever been able to make a mystic adept that I felt was a viable character.)
-
Does any one else have simple rules (rule of thumb) you go by for making characters?
Only one: make a character that you'll have fun playing. If you don't, get the hell away from my table.
-
I think you make characters like you would tailor a suit. It has to fit and if done right reflects taste and style of the owner. So going with that you just give a PC the horn they will naturally want to play so to speak, a good story of how they came to be this way, and somewhat importantly a understanding of what they suck at. If you are on target with the character it feels and plays like the PC plays the game or wishes to. There is a history and you know what the character is fighting for now and what they mastered doing that fighting. Lastly what they avoid and in some cases fear. In a nutshell that is how I make characters.
-
I think you make characters like you would tailor a suit. It has to fit and if done right reflects taste and style of the owner. So going with that you just give a PC the horn they will naturally want to play so to speak, a good story of how they came to be this way, and somewhat importantly a understanding of what they suck at. If you are on target with the character it feels and plays like the PC plays the game or wishes to. There is a history and you know what the character is fighting for now and what they mastered doing that fighting. Lastly what they avoid and in some cases fear. In a nutshell that is how I make characters.
I agree with almost everything you said here.
-
Know what the campaign will be like before making a character. Or at the least make sure you're not making something that doesn't fit.
When I run I tend to make the games geared towards the PCs, but some people have specific stories in mind that they'd like to tell. If you're in the latter sort of campaign and you brought a race car driving hacker to a campaign in the deep jungle you've given yourself lots of unnecessary headaches.
-
A good rule of thumb is to come up with a general concept, rough it out a bit, then fill in the sheet and the background together. A lot of people seem to run into trouble because they flesh out this complete backstory, then find out that they can't translate it into a set of stats and numbers that matches their background. Ground your character's background in hard numbers, so that what is on the sheet matches what is in the background. Realize that not every character idea that you have is one that would be viable for this particular rule set.
Be aware of what the game itself encourages, and discourages. Shadowrun is a game of magic and high tech, so those two things give characters cheap, powerful boosts in ability. Shadowrunners are teams of hyper-specialists who do incredibly dangerous work, but they are also mavericks. It is unsurprising that it is far easier to make a specialist than a generalist in the game, and points are also tight enough to encourage making flawed characters - dump stats, negative qualities, these are part of the game design.
I agree with James McMurray that above and beyond the game system, also keep the campaign in mind. Don't bring your troubled runaway corporate kid who can do a bit of hacking, into a game of stony-faced cold professionals. Don't bring your stony-faced cold professional, with his move-by-wire and Ares Alpha, into a game of street punks surviving in the Barrens.
Shadowrun is an open build system, which allows an incredible variety of characters. The flaw, though, is that it is very easy to botch it up. The system encourages specialization, but don't make a character who is only good at one thing. You'll be bored the rest of the time, when you don't have anything you can do. On the other hand, don't overgeneralize to the point of uselessness. It can vary from campaign to campaign, but have a dice pool that you have a good chance to succeed with. Taking some lower stats in a few areas, or some negative qualities, can help you flesh out your character, but be careful. You want disadvantages that are fun to roleplay, not ones that are crippling. Remember the point about magic and technology - if you don't take advantage of either, your character will likely be very weak compared to those of other players.
-
One of my Rules of Thumps is:
Don't fall for the Stormwind Fallacies
(and : Synergy is your friend)
He who Dances with aFriend
Medicineman
-
One of my Rules of Thumps is:
Don't fall for the Stormwind Fallacies
(and : Synergy is your friend)
He who Dances with aFriend
Medicineman
so you are saying use karmagen instead of BP to make better more rounded character?
-
nohhh
That were General Rules ! Not only for SR but for any RPG
And @Karma vs BP
I Like them both
with a general Dance
Medicineman
-
Focus of the character comes up in creation. I put it to them that you can be a katana, a survival knife, or a swiss army knife. The first does one thing really well but tends not to find function elsewhere and is never really meant to. So if your a katana character you are like the kensai and seek mastery of one thing and live life in that pursuit. Survival knives have a group of related skills toward a specific purpose, like most characters. The Swiss are so busy trying to do everything they barely do anything. I use the comparison to illustrate proper character balance to any I am building characters with.
-
Focus of the character comes up in creation. I put it to them that you can be a katana, a survival knife, or a swiss army knife. The first does one thing really well but tends not to find function elsewhere and is never really meant to. So if your a katana character you are like the kensai and seek mastery of one thing and live life in that pursuit. Survival knives have a group of related skills toward a specific purpose, like most characters. The Swiss are so busy trying to do everything they barely do anything. I use the comparison to illustrate proper character balance to any I am building characters with.
Your posts are "right on" about character creation. You sound like someone that would be fun to game with, you get it.
-
I always come with some concept in mind, and when choosing Qualities and skills, I`m shaping this concept out. Standing on those numbers, I see what parts of mz concept is viable and what I should left out. I dont like the characters that have a story of beeing some seasoned profesional, and then generally lack skills and abilities to prove it. Last think I do is a background story.
As fo exact contrary to the first post, I never build characters with high Edge :) I always feel that like the last resort. Well, I should try it some time, it may be fun also :)
-
I always come with some concept in mind, and when choosing Qualities and skills, I`m shaping this concept out. Standing on those numbers, I see what parts of mz concept is viable and what I should left out. I dont like the characters that have a story of beeing some seasoned profesional, and then generally lack skills and abilities to prove it. Last think I do is a background story.
As fo exact contrary to the first post, I never build characters with high Edge :) I always feel that like the last resort. Well, I should try it some time, it may be fun also :)
When I started playing edge never really occurred to me to be of much use, until I started using it. Edge is a very powerful stat.
Edge of 5 can be used 5 times and adds 5 dice to the roll with the rule of 6.
Edge can also be used to go first in a round.
Get an extra IP for one turn.
Re-roll all the dice that failed and a lot of other things.
-
Yup and there is a lot of posibilities for the GM and player to balance the game when ragaining edge...I mean, that using edge doesnt necessarily mean loosing it. That is quite nice motivation system.
-
One of my Rules of Thumps is:
Don't fall for the Stormwind Fallacies
(and : Synergy is your friend)
He who Dances with aFriend
Medicineman
so you are saying use karmagen instead of BP to make better more rounded character?
The Stormwind Fallacy is the belief that a character optimized for combat or built by someone trying to tweak as much use as humanly possible out of the game mechanics is somehow a poorly-designed or poorly-roleplayed character. What he's saying is don't buy into this.
Plenty of people who are fantastic with numbers and/or have an intuitive grasp for mechanical processes are fully capable of crafting a complex, well-planned character personality around the framework of numbers they have already created. The character personality does not need to come before the numbers; having the numbers or an optimized game mechanic come first is an equally valid method of character creation.
-
I am all for optimizing, it is the min/maxing that is the trap. One way to avoid the trap is to start with the concept and an understanding of the character before you start so you don't fall in to the bp trap that ends up with a nim/maxed unplayable character.
-
One way I've gotten around the min-max trap is to encourage all of my players to add an 'oddball' skill to their Active Skill selection, something that runs completely counter to their role, but isn't useless either. Even if it's something that rarely comes into play, there's bound to be a point where it turns into one of those butt-saving items (potentially earning the "right place/right time" Karma award).
F'rinstance, my group's melee-oriented cyber-sam has the Outdoor group, so he knows a bit of wilderness survival. He's had a bit of fun combining his Navigation skill with his plethora of mapsofts, planning routes for the team. (He also bought a maxed-out general-knowledge soft, I titled it "Encyclopedia Generica".)
I also encouraged them to do the oddball route on their knowledge skills, picking out one or two things that aren't immediately relevant, but might be fun to have. The Catholic mage in the party is fluent in Hebrew, just 'cause.
-
I am all for optimizing, it is the min/maxing that is the trap. One way to avoid the trap is to start with the concept and an understanding of the character before you start so you don't fall in to the bp trap that ends up with a nim/maxed unplayable character.
I prefer the challenge of roleplaying a character according to his stats. It's more satisfying to me to create a recipe of a person and try to move into the role than it is to say "I wanna play [Character] from [Movie/show]," which is the other mode I often see.
-
I normally start with a one-line concept, something like ex-intelligence agency B&E adept, or something simular. With that I start doing the numbers and while I'm working on those (it can take a while in Shadowrun) I'm thinking up a more detailed background, taking into account the skills I'm taking. When finished with the numbers part, I write out the complete background (often 2-3 pages, I like writing backgrounds). Often I go back to the skills and stats and tweak them a little bit, based on ideas I had while writing the background. That way you have a character with a good background and stats that are in line with it.
-
1) rule of thumb I use for characters is always have a high edge 4-6. Edge keeps you alive and it allows you a more 4 color approach to play.
2) Cyber stacks with Cyber, Bio with bio, adept powers with adept powers. There are exeptions, but if follow this you will not problems.
3) Come up with a concept then plug in numbers and make it work. The character is person, not a archetype.
Does any one else have simple rules (rule of thumb) you go by for making characters?
bio and magic can stack in social situations.
-
I have learned from experience that every character needs perception, dodge, etiquette, at least one if not 2 skills that involve weapons or combat. Otherwise I try to imagine who the character is as I go along, sort of like I'm feeling them out as they come to life. :D That's my style anyway. :P
-
One of my Rules of Thumps is:
Don't fall for the Stormwind Fallacies
(and : Synergy is your friend)
He who Dances with aFriend
Medicineman
so you are saying use karmagen instead of BP to make better more rounded character?
The Stormwind Fallacy is the belief that a character optimized for combat or built by someone trying to tweak as much use as humanly possible out of the game mechanics is somehow a poorly-designed or poorly-roleplayed character. What he's saying is don't buy into this.
Plenty of people who are fantastic with numbers and/or have an intuitive grasp for mechanical processes are fully capable of crafting a complex, well-planned character personality around the framework of numbers they have already created. The character personality does not need to come before the numbers; having the numbers or an optimized game mechanic come first is an equally valid method of character creation.
This approach to characters works mostly against them in my experience. Making a new character yields a playable diverse individual able to manipulate the genre they are in. Stacking a character, know as Frankensteining, munchkin making, etc., to max out in combat is self defeating in that the story will shift to accomodate the character playing the adventure. IE if your shadowrun team has a Ninja who stays in improved invis at all times as a mystic adept with spell lock and has physical adept powers to ginsu all that live the GM will find a anti magic zone, evil or good twin ninja, etc to correct the imbalance. GM will challenge the group. Unbalanced characters just have one option, all in or bust. More balanced characters when they hit obstacles will divert around, try a different tact, get some teamwork going, trickery, or some other scheme. Just saying you get more out of the game when your not a one trick pony. Many uber combatants will stress that they are not, they can kill swiftly and brutally in many different ways of loud and quiet. This always makes me think of that clockwork Nazi from Hellboy and while he is handful to dance with unless river of death is your game why would you want to play that out as your only move everytime something happens. I am weird in that I always felt sad for the old clockwork nazi killing machine. He could only never lose as I don't see what he was ever really winning.
-
Just wanted to reiterate that my style of play is just that, mine. Different strokes for one and all, etc. Did not want the last post to be argumentative as much as a useful counterpoint point of view. It came across a different than I thought on the reread.
-
I agree that a one trick pony not of much use. A character should be able to take on several roles some better than others.
A street sam that has no social skills is a big problem. A face that can't use a weapon to save there his life is a problem as well. Balance is needed.
People need to remember that characters are people not invincible killing robots from the future.
-
Just wanted to reiterate that my style of play is just that, mine. Different strokes for one and all, etc. Did not want the last post to be argumentative as much as a useful counterpoint point of view. It came across a different than I thought on the reread.
It's all good, counterpoint is always appreciated. :)
"Optimized" does not mean creating a one-trick pony character. It means understanding the mechanics on an intuitive level to squeeze as much performance out of the character for a particular game. In most games, that means you need to be able to cover yourself for a wide variety of rolls and be a functional character. Assuming that someone optimizing a character is building a monodimensional character or one-trick pony is also buying into the Stormwind Fallacy. It's a bad assumption to make.
Also, I disagree that a GM will shift a story to accomodate the player's special little trick. Your typical shadowrun game has a huge variety of challenges, and the one-trick pony will have enough trouble from his lack of diversity without the GM needing to throw special challenges at him or cater the game to one character. A one-trick pony is like a Maginot Line; a smart GM goes around it and carries on with business as usual.
EDIT: Actually, the smartest thing a GM can do is to let the player know the one-trick pony won't really operate well in the campaign, and work with the player to help him build a well-rounded character that fits the player's concept and gets the most out of the rules while doing it. Everyone wins, fun all around.
Also, this drifted a bit from the OP so my basic rules of thumb for character creation:
- Ask the GM about the campaign to figure out what will and will not work well with the group.
- Always have some sort of melee defense and ranged defense. This either means a good Dodge skill, or a good melee combat skill and Gymnastics for ranged defense. Riggers or drivers who want to risk being weaker themselves can rely on pumped Piloting skills to use evasive driving for ranged defense... that's a definite gamble.
- If you're relying on Gymnastics for ranged defense, pick up a synthacardium 3. Essence cost of 0.3 and 6bp worth of nuyen for +3 dice to the entire Athletics skill group is huge.
- Never skimp on Charisma or social skills... you want a bare minimum of 4 base dice for these tests. That means either Cha 5+ or 10bp into the Influence skill group (depending on how your GM operates... if they don't use social skills a lot, you can get away with just picking up Etiquette). Your character will suffer greatly in the long run if it can't string a sentence together without glitching... you can't just have the group's face handle all your conversations for you.
- Perception is one of the most important skills in the game. If you're making any sort of augmented character, you almost always want to get an attention coprocesser 3. It's ridiculously cheap in both essence and nuyen considering it gives you +3 dice to Perception tests.
- Everything else is situational, but remember the first bulletpoint. Knowing the GM and the group is the most important part of your character being effective, fitting in, and being as much fun for everyone else as it is for you.
-
That was well said. I think you summed things up nicely.
-
- Never skimp on Charisma or social skills... you want a bare minimum of 4 base dice for these tests. That means either Cha 5+ or 10bp into the Influence skill group (depending on how your GM operates... if they don't use social skills a lot, you can get away with just picking up Etiquette). Your character will suffer greatly in the long run if it can't string a sentence together without glitching... you can't just have the group's face handle all your conversations for you.
Not necessary for every PC, but as long as a few have decent influence skills it should be okay for one or two to have none. (Example: I'm currently playing an Uncouth (-1 to all social interactions) hacker and we have a really nosy, flamboyant Face that butts into everyone's interactions.)
-
- Never skimp on Charisma or social skills... you want a bare minimum of 4 base dice for these tests. That means either Cha 5+ or 10bp into the Influence skill group (depending on how your GM operates... if they don't use social skills a lot, you can get away with just picking up Etiquette). Your character will suffer greatly in the long run if it can't string a sentence together without glitching... you can't just have the group's face handle all your conversations for you.
Not necessary for every PC, but as long as a few have decent influence skills it should be okay for one or two to have none. (Example: I'm currently playing an Uncouth (-1 to all social interactions) hacker and we have a really nosy, flamboyant Face that butts into everyone's interactions.)
Every Character needs some social skills. They are used when you are interacting with contacts and others. There are special cases, but usually these special cases have no contacts or with loose them quickly through being exactly what was mentioned above uncouth.
-
I find Uncouth and its sister flaws (Infirm, Uneducated) to be too crippling for my personal taste. But I imagine the game designers thought Uncouth characters could be shadowrunners, or it would not be an option in the game. Not to mention that three of the archetypes have it. Looking at them, the bounty hunter and the enforcer are probably antisocial and prone to resorting to violence with little provocation, while the hacker is likelier to be an antisocial, slightly paranoid tech geek. But they still have some basic contacts, and seem to be able to function in their roles (or at least it seems to be assumed that they do).
-
I find Uncouth and its sister flaws (Infirm, Uneducated) to be too crippling for my personal taste. But I imagine the game designers thought Uncouth characters could be shadowrunners, or it would not be an option in the game. Not to mention that three of the archetypes have it. Looking at them, the bounty hunter and the enforcer are probably antisocial and prone to resorting to violence with little provocation, while the hacker is likelier to be an antisocial, slightly paranoid tech geek. But they still have some basic contacts, and seem to be able to function in their roles (or at least it seems to be assumed that they do).
All I am saying is that a runner needs social skills, they don't have to be very high. An uncouth character with no social skills with piss off a great many people. He may never know why he does it. Taking uncouth as a role-playing aspect is cool with me. Taking it as a way to get free BP with no down side, I am not ok with. I go out of my way to have characters with some social skill, 5 or 6 dice is pretty inexpensive. a Socially inept character can be a shadowrunner, but the player needs to figure out how the runner handles that in regards to his contacts. Neg qualities should never be just free BP, they are ment to be role-play aspects of the character.
-
Every time I see this thread I think we're talking about hitting people! I'll shamelessly link this other thread (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=3177.0) that relates to the topic at hand...
-
Every time I see this thread I think we're talking about hitting people! I'll shamelessly link this other thread (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=3177.0) that relates to the topic at hand...
Rules of thumb differs from mandatory skills; it's much more wide. Things like "always take the maximum BP possible with negative qualities" or "always have more than one fake SIN" or "have at least two lifestyles; one for you to show the team and the other to be your safe house."
Both threads are valid, man, but the one you linked is too focused on skills only.
-
I'm aware this is a more broadly focused thread but I thought it would be appropriate to link the other thread since it is related.
Uh...
I know Rule of Thumb is used, among others, to mean using the appropriate set of rules for a given situation, but it has so many negative connotations that it's generally avoided in polite conversation in this P.C. society (e.g. the 18th century English Law that said you were allowed to hit your wife with with a stick no wider than your thumb). I'm not a P.C. person by any means, hence my hitting people comment... I thought I'd pass along that tidbit to fulfill my habit of random posts late at night.
-
I'm aware this is a more broadly focused thread but I thought it would be appropriate to link the other thread since it is related.
Uh...
I know Rule of Thumb is used, among others, to mean using the appropriate set of rules for a given situation, but it has so many negative connotations that it's generally avoided in polite conversation in this P.C. society (e.g. the 18th century English Law that said you were allowed to hit your wife with with a stick no wider than your thumb). I'm not a P.C. person by any means, hence my hitting people comment... I thought I'd pass along that tidbit to fulfill my habit of random posts late at night.
Fair enough. My bad.
-
I agree that Uncouth should not be free build points - in fact, generally it is worse than most negative qualities. Legwork is about a third of the game, so you're really cutting yourself off at the knees by taking this flaw. Plus, player characters can be affected by social skills, so being defenseless in that area is really not wise.
-
I think it's important to keep in mind the concept of trivial tasks and the fact that NPCs should have interests of their own when you consider what a socially inept character can and cannot do in a given situation. For example, most days someone with a low Charisma and no skills shouldn't have problems picking up a burrito at the Stuffer Shack because the people there are already inclined to sell him one. Think of it not as a socially inept character managing to fit in but rather the NPCs making a successful sale. Now, if the guy behind the counter would rather keep chatting up some cutie rather than keep the line moving, Mr. Uncouth will be stuck waiting until the guy's good and ready since any roll he tries to make is at best going to be ineffectual. It's really not a small drawback at all, because as a shadowrunner it's likely that sooner or later you'll run into a situation in which people will want to kick your teeth in and there's simply not much you can do about it other than fight back or turn tail.
-
All I am saying is that a runner needs social skills, they don't have to be very high. An uncouth character with no social skills with piss off a great many people. He may never know why he does it. Taking uncouth as a role-playing aspect is cool with me. Taking it as a way to get free BP with no down side, I am not ok with. I go out of my way to have characters with some social skill, 5 or 6 dice is pretty inexpensive. a Socially inept character can be a shadowrunner, but the player needs to figure out how the runner handles that in regards to his contacts. Neg qualities should never be just free BP, they are ment to be role-play aspects of the character.
Well, I do like a bit of social skills, but I wouldn't say they're mandatory. Someone with no social skills won't be able to do certain things, but that's part of why they have team mates. There is a difference between being bad at something and being unaware of it.
So, without Charisma and Social skills, a character isn't going to:
1) Con - Lie convincingly or tell when they're being lied to. (Judge Intentions tests could let them know if a person is hostile or over-eager, just not why.)
2) Etiquette - Convince people to like them better or not be drawn in by someone else's likability.
3) Intimidation - Scare people into being nicer to them, though, with Willpower opposed, they might still be able to stand up to a threat, but, otherwise, deference is the order of the day.
4) Leadership - Convince people to follow their orders or advice, though, again, Willpower can still keep them from being a toady.
5) Negotiation - Argue for a better position on something or keep an advantage which they can't justify.
Those are the weapons of the Social character. They're powerful, but so is an Ares Alpha. Not everyone needs to tote an Ares Alpha.
For the Uncouth though, it's a real problem because they're so clueless that they don't know how bad they are at these things. Then you get the Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), where their complete lack of ability doesn't afford them the perspective to see just how terrible they are at it.
As a counter example, a hacker I'm playing in the Road to Redmond PbP game has a Charisma of 2 and no social skills but is well aware of his effects on others (dp of 10 for judge intentions,) and is no pushover (Willpower of 6.) He has a tendency to like and trust charismatic people so long as they're acing reasonable, and he'll do things like tell them a lot more than he should and defer to their judgment on what's fair. He doesn't lie, except by staying quiet about something. He doesn't try to bargain, because he trusts reasonable people to work something out... or to be unreasonable and get their ass shot. He's very logical (effective logic of 11,) but takes it in stride when people disregard his logic. He doesn't bother with threats, because, as a Gnome, he's used to being dismissed. He knows better than to try to win people's confidence, so, being a clever bastard, when he talks to someone (and he talks a lot) he antagonizes them in such a was as to draw responses out of them.
-
Effective logic 11? What the :o ???
Ive read that char, it has logic 7. What do yyou mean by the word "effective"?
No offense, just currious
-
All I am saying is that a runner needs social skills, they don't have to be very high. An uncouth character with no social skills with piss off a great many people. He may never know why he does it. Taking uncouth as a role-playing aspect is cool with me. Taking it as a way to get free BP with no down side, I am not ok with. I go out of my way to have characters with some social skill, 5 or 6 dice is pretty inexpensive. a Socially inept character can be a shadowrunner, but the player needs to figure out how the runner handles that in regards to his contacts. Neg qualities should never be just free BP, they are ment to be role-play aspects of the character.
Well, I do like a bit of social skills, but I wouldn't say they're mandatory. Someone with no social skills won't be able to do certain things, but that's part of why they have team mates. There is a difference between being bad at something and being unaware of it.
So, without Charisma and Social skills, a character isn't going to:
1) Con - Lie convincingly or tell when they're being lied to. (Judge Intentions tests could let them know if a person is hostile or over-eager, just not why.)
2) Etiquette - Convince people to like them better or not be drawn in by someone else's likability.
3) Intimidation - Scare people into being nicer to them, though, with Willpower opposed, they might still be able to stand up to a threat, but, otherwise, deference is the order of the day.
4) Leadership - Convince people to follow their orders or advice, though, again, Willpower can still keep them from being a toady.
5) Negotiation - Argue for a better position on something or keep an advantage which they can't justify.
Those are the weapons of the Social character. They're powerful, but so is an Ares Alpha. Not everyone needs to tote an Ares Alpha.
For the Uncouth though, it's a real problem because they're so clueless that they don't know how bad they are at these things. Then you get the Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), where their complete lack of ability doesn't afford them the perspective to see just how terrible they are at it.
As a counter example, a hacker I'm playing in the Road to Redmond PbP game has a Charisma of 2 and no social skills but is well aware of his effects on others (dp of 10 for judge intentions,) and is no pushover (Willpower of 6.) He has a tendency to like and trust charismatic people so long as they're acing reasonable, and he'll do things like tell them a lot more than he should and defer to their judgment on what's fair. He doesn't lie, except by staying quiet about something. He doesn't try to bargain, because he trusts reasonable people to work something out... or to be unreasonable and get their ass shot. He's very logical (effective logic of 11,) but takes it in stride when people disregard his logic. He doesn't bother with threats, because, as a Gnome, he's used to being dismissed. He knows better than to try to win people's confidence, so, being a clever bastard, when he talks to someone (and he talks a lot) he antagonizes them in such a was as to draw responses out of them.
Just to point out the problem of a charisma 2 and no skill. You are rolling default, that means 1 out of 6 rolls is a critical glitch. 1 out of 6 times you call your contacts you critically glitch. All the judge intentions rolls in the world will not undo a critical glitch. The face doesn't handle your contacts you do. I would never say that social skills are mandatory, just a real good idea. Etiquette 1 would help make it less likely you critically glitch. (3 dice instead of 1 Die). A with it Gm would make you roll the dice everytime you called your contacts.
I can understand the role playing aspects of the character. Not offense intended, but It seems like you are rationalizing the min-maxing of your Gnome hacker. Smart player can rationalized anything. (grin)
-
Being Uncouth is real fun. And When combined with Hung Out to dry, You only need to thing out really good reason how to get your character in the game, and no glitches on the Horizon :)
-
Being Uncouth is real fun. And When combined with Hung Out to dry, You only need to thing out really good reason how to get your character in the game, and no glitches on the Horizon :)
I have played my share of less than sociable characters. I know how much fun it can be.
There is a time to let your uncouth character at the people you really are trying to piss off. You don't tell him that, you tell him to go in there and make friends.
-
Being Uncouth is real fun. And When combined with Hung Out to dry, You only need to thing out really good reason how to get your character in the game, and no glitches on the Horizon :)
I have played my share of less than sociable characters. I know how much fun it can be.
There is a time to let your uncouth character at the people you really are trying to piss off. You don't tell him that, you tell him to go in there and make friends.
LOL
-
Just to point out the problem of a charisma 2 and no skill. You are rolling default, that means 1 out of 6 rolls is a critical glitch. 1 out of 6 times you call your contacts you critically glitch. All the judge intentions rolls in the world will not undo a critical glitch. The face doesn't handle your contacts you do. I would never say that social skills are mandatory, just a real good idea. Etiquette 1 would help make it less likely you critically glitch. (3 dice instead of 1 Die). A with it Gm would make you roll the dice everytime you called your contacts.
I don't think that socials work like you think that they work.
As I understand them, using social skills is a conscious act of manipulation, not a default mode of interaction.
For example, you don't need to have etiquette to not act like a jerk. You need it to convince a guy, who thinks you're a jerk, that you are not a jerk. It's used to change people's opinion of you. So, if you're calling a contact, the only time you'd use etiquette is if you're trying to improve your relationship. Just like you would only use Negotiation to convince them to do you a favor above their loyalty rating.
Effective logic 11? What the :o ???
Ive read that char, it has logic 7. What do yyou mean by the word "effective"?
No offense, just currious
Logic of 7, +4 to logic-linked skills. Basically a logic of 11.
-
I don't think that socials work like you think that they work.
As I understand them, using social skills is a conscious act of manipulation, not a default mode of interaction.
For example, you don't need to have etiquette to not act like a jerk. You need it to convince a guy, who thinks you're a jerk, that you are not a jerk. It's used to change people's opinion of you. So, if you're calling a contact, the only time you'd use etiquette is if you're trying to improve your relationship. Just like you would only use Negotiation to convince them to do you a favor above their loyalty rating.
using etiquette
The Etiquette skill allows a character to fit in. More than just the knowledge of customs, rituals, and proper behavior patterns, it represents a character’s ability to talk the talk and walk
the walk without stepping on anyone’s toes. (SR4A book pg 133)
-
@Kontact: Got it..
@Trigvi: Still, it is intentional use of the skill (oh, a poetic coincidence), normaly people are able to live in their neighborhood, visit bars, finding partners and even raise a children without etiquette, seducing and instruction skill...
-
Real people have some social skills. they don't have the skills negotiate a high level deal, but buy a drink and know to tip the bartender. (default or level 1 depending)
It is not unreasonable to have a character make an etiquette role to see what kind of impression he makes in a situation. I would not make a character roll sitting at his favorite hang out, but sitting in strange bar in a social level he is not familiar with, you bet.
Social rolls are not not just action, but reaction to the character.
-
Well, I understand all the benefits that you can gain from social skills. I just think that it is not necessary to have them to accomplish the daily routine. Even Uncouth character is viable...Im sure we know IRL examples from our surroundings. We have specialists for this skill set in our teams, I think..And uncouth hacker or assasin is not something I cannot imagine.
-
Just because a character is uncouth doesn't mean he has no social graces, he has a problem makes him less socially acceptable. The socially inept do not have any social graces.
My only point in all this is that making a well rounded character should include social skills, even if they are low level. Just because a character has the influence group at one doesn't make him a face, not by a long shot.
Having the street sam that knows that walking into a yakuza hangout and whipping out and peeing on the floor is not very endearing. If he is going to piss them off, it should be because he wants too.
I am not mandating social skills, but saying they are a good idea.
-
Understood. Well, not having this skills, or become Uncouth, is more the Roleplay than a Tactical choice...
-
Understood. Well, not having this skills, or become Uncouth, is more the Roleplay than a Tactical choice...
When it comes right down to it, Shadowrun is suppose to be role-playing game. A spec ops type role-playing, but role-playing game none the less.
-
Yoeah. I wander about that Karma built system,, somebody said before thet it allows more universal built then BP build..well I didnt tried that yet...
-
For Karmagen, the RC has errata which has not yet made it to the English printing.
p.41 Karma Character Generation Table
The Karma Cost for Metatype (shapeshifter type, etc.) should be “As BP*.”
The Karma Cost for improving an attribute by 1 should be “New rating x 5.”
p.42 Step 1: Choose Your Metatype or Other Character Race Option
The first paragraph should read:
“First you must choose metatype or other alternative character concept (i.e. shapeshifter, AI, sasquatch, etc.); there Karma cost for metatype or race is equal to the BP cost for that metatype or option (i.e. if a race costs 10 BP, in Karmagen it costs 10 Karma); the BP cost should be noted as it is important for Step 3. The Metatype Attribute Table (see p. 70 and p.73, SR4) or the relevant table in the section describing the new character races in this book provide your character’s starting and maximum attribute ratings.”
p.42 Step 5: Convert Your Karma to Nuyen
The second line should read:
“A maximum of 100 Karma may be converted to nuyen in this fashion, or 120 if the character has the Born Rich quality (p.96).”
p.43 Focus Bonding Table
The Karma Cost for weapon foci should be “3 x Force.”
Source: RPG.net, [Shadowrun 4e] Comparing Karmagen and BP (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?543683-Shadowrun-4e-Comparing-Karmagen-and-BP&p=13008310#post13008310)
-
Ten-Hex brought it up earlier, but a lot of people seem to use the term "min-max" inappropriately. Min-maxing is the art of maximizing your advantages while minimizing your disadvantages. A true min-maxer would never take the Uncouth quality. He would take a Charisma of 2 and the influence skill group at 1, to be functional in basic social interactions. The only people taking uncouth would be naive new players, munchkins who play the game like a first-person shooter, and role-players who are genuinely interested in playing someone who has problems with social interactions.
On Karmagen:
It tends to create weaker awakened characters (which might be a plus for GMs who feel they are too powerful). Special Attributes in karmagen fall under the maximum allowable points allocation (in other words, a human can only spend 375 points on all Attributes, including Edge and Magic or Resonance). Also, the limit of one maxed-out Attribute includes the special Attributes in karmagen. So for example, a human couldn't have a Willpower of 6 and Magic of 6.
It flounders with Metatypes at the end of high Attributes for things like trolls, and is not really suitable for things like AI's, free spirits, or infected.
Where it shines is dice pools. Higher skills and Attributes increase at an exponential rate, instead of a flat one, making high dice pools more expensive. This is a good thing, because high dice pools are worth more. Karmagen does not force weaker characters. You can still make an optimized character, and will generally come out ahead, with a few extra points for skills or contacts. But generalists suddenly become more viable. In build points, if you make someone with average Attributes and skills, you've simply spread yourself too thin. In karmagen, you will find that this makes your character cheap, cost-wise, letting you spread out and get lots of those low-rated skills. A specialist converted back to build points will be a bit over 400 points most of the time, but a generalist converted back to build points will be way over. But that's all right, because the generalist is not overpowering. His low dice pools should be less costly than high dice pools.
-
Even being a special attribute archetype isn't all bad under karmagen either. Now, if you wanted to be the type of Magician that can routinely rack up 3-4 successes per cast and routinely laugh off all the drain, then yeah, you'll have a trickier time of your build. But if your concept is more of a general practitioner who can avoid attacks on the astral, prepare his own binding materials or design his own spells, you'll have a much, much easier time of incorporating some minor talent in these areas. Beyond that, it's also worth considering that in-game Karma is a bit more valuable to Magicians, Adepts and TMs given that they have progression options that simply are not available at standard character generation. Spending karma on all the specialties you passed up on in BP gen is still a great way to score some cheap dice, but every time you do so your putting off another initiate grade that much further. By contrast with Karmagen you're not really paying any opportunity cost premium when you pick up two ranks of Dodge and the Ranged specialization.
-
[quote author=Glyph link=topic=3343.msg40950#msg40950 date=1303578902
On Karmagen:
It tends to create weaker awakened characters (which might be a plus for GMs who feel they are too powerful). Special Attributes in karmagen fall under the maximum allowable points allocation (in other words, a human can only spend 375 points on all Attributes, including Edge and Magic or Resonance). Also, the limit of one maxed-out Attribute includes the special Attributes in karmagen. So for example, a human couldn't have a Willpower of 6 and Magic of 6.
[/quote]
The attribute limit doesn't include special attributes.
-
Unfortunately, special Attributes do fall under the limits I mentioned in karmagen. They don't in build points. Read karmagen - Step 3, purchasing Attributes, has the special Attributes included. I didn't notice this at first, either, because I went in assuming that they were handled the same way they were with build points.
-
they language is a little vague. No one has ever played it that way. It is something that needs to be cleared up.
It says that attribute (including special attribute) are bought fro the formula of the same table. After that is goes into explaining about limits for attributes.
-
I would probably house rule that the limit doesn't apply to special Attributes, myself, mainly because that limitation hits humans more than any other metatype. Just pointing out what the RAW is (although it could just as easily be poor editing).
-
I don't think that socials work like you think that they work.
As I understand them, using social skills is a conscious act of manipulation, not a default mode of interaction.
For example, you don't need to have etiquette to not act like a jerk. You need it to convince a guy, who thinks you're a jerk, that you are not a jerk. It's used to change people's opinion of you. So, if you're calling a contact, the only time you'd use etiquette is if you're trying to improve your relationship. Just like you would only use Negotiation to convince them to do you a favor above their loyalty rating.
using etiquette
The Etiquette skill allows a character to fit in. More than just the knowledge of customs, rituals, and proper behavior patterns, it represents a character’s ability to talk the talk and walk
the walk without stepping on anyone’s toes. (SR4A book pg 133)
You stopped reading a little early, eh? continued below with emphasis on the actual mechanical uses of the skill.
...Because of the sheer variety of subcultures, social
customs, and mores in the mid-twenty-first century, the Etiquette skill also encompasses
a character’s ingrained ability to feel a situation out, to instinctively
know what is proper or what will get the character what she wants.
Etiquette can be used to put people at ease, convince someone
that you belong, manipulate conversations to get information out
of people, judge people’s attitudes, and ease their suspicions. Unlike
Negotiation, which involves giving and taking, making a deal or ex-
change, or convincing people to do or allow something, Etiquette in-
volves getting by because you look, act, and feel like you belong.
When using Etiquette to ease someone’s suspicions, make an
Opposed Test between the character’s Etiquette + Charisma vs. the
target’s Perception + Charisma. If the character wins, each net hit
reduces the level of hostility/suspicion by one step (from Enemy to
Hostile, Hostile to Prejudiced, and so on). If the target wins, no reduc-
tion takes place.
Etiquette can also be used to negate a gaffe made by the player that
the character is unlikely to have made. In this case, the player makes an
Etiquette Test against a Threshold equal to the severity of the gaff (1
minor, 2 medium, 3 severe, 4 disastrous). If successful, the gamemaster
should treat the mistake as if it never happened, or as if the character
was clever enough to conceal it before anyone noticed.
When using Etiquette against a group of characters, use the dice
pool of the leader, the most vocal group member, or simply the largest
dice pool among the targets with a +1 for each extra person (max +5).
If there's a part in there that leads you to believe that you need etiquette to not call your contact a dickwad and spit in his face, I didn't see it. As far as I can tell, you either use it to negate a player gaffe (which, is up to the GM) or to improve your social dice modifiers.
Just like you don't need the Running skill to move faster than your walk rate, you don't need social skills just to speak without pissing off everyone you meet. Just don't do things like walk into a Stiletto bar wearing a business suit and you're alright.
-
Note that is says you can be used... (Gm's discretion) in most of everything you quoted. The point I make is that is is up to the GM as to where and when it is used. The use of the skill is dependent on the situation and the GM.
It hints at it, but never really says that etiquette can be used as a general reaction roll from a set group or sub culture. You do well, they think of you are one of there own (bonus dice). You do poorly and you are an outsider(no bonus or minor penalty, Glitch or worse an you may start a fight or get asked to leave. As GM that set the mood for the situation.
Etiquette can be used preemptively as well.
Walking in a biker bar in a business suit is time for a an etiquette check. I would normally have you roll before you make the mistake. Fail it and I say nothing about the sh-storm you are about to walk into.
Walking into an ork hang out acting like a over feminized Elf might be a really bad thing (unless you are looking to start a fight).
Even Raw expects GM to use there judgment.
I would never mandate social skills, but I think they are a good idea.
-
It should really be the face's job to socially protect people from their ignorance, just like it's the hacker's job to digitally protect people.
I've never heard it said that everyone should take a little hacking and cybercombat... :D
-
It should really be the face's job to socially protect people from their ignorance, just like it's the hacker's job to digitally protect people.
I've never heard it said that everyone should take a little hacking and cybercombat... :D
No, but you do hear it recommended that everyone take a little computer and data search. ;)
Social situations occur more frequently than hostile hacking attempts. The face is not always around to babysit every other character, and even when the face is there some situations don't allow him/her to do all the talking. Look at the season 2-3 SRM campaigns for example... Denver and Manhattan are two places I would not want to play an uncouth character, unless I was playing a really low-grade bottom feeder runner.
-
Have you worked or even gamed with uncouth people before? Aside from really funny people who can go Uncouth for comedic or even dramatic effect, Jayne on Firefly or Tackleberry from Police Academy, it can really suck. Characters picking it up for a quick point grab on character creation have to realize what they are doing. They are changing for the worse how everyone views your character every time you speak in game. All neg qualities are drawbacks but you just picked up Social Gremlins and there are more than a few people out there. So unless your going into every situation guns up or with one PC locked in a van you are just hamstrung. Hope you have a good gameplan for that.
-
Riggers can sometimes get away with being Uncouth in my experience. Just leave them in the car and let them play with their bots. But they're really the only Uncouth characters that aren't a complete pain in the ass to deal with and they're still a bit of a hassle.
I always tell my players to avoid Uncouth, Infirm, or Combat Paralysis unless they realize exactly what the hell they're getting into and are serious about dealing with the ramifications of it. I've had to deal with too many dead weight characters and babysit too many players that went for the big BP without realizing how much of a burden it is.
-
hm. I dont like this kind of approach. Every viable character is an oportunity for great roleplay, Uncouth, infinrm, infected and whatever. Forbiding this to your players only means, that they didnt get the personal experience. Long time becore RC was out we had a list of qualities, I think from 3ed, with the Weirdness magnet quality. I had three of them in one team, and it leads to really beautifull and crazy LOLplay. It was difficult for me as a GM but i was able to sattisfy them. two of them are still alive and kicking, and the rest of the team used to blame them for everything strange that happens to team...but they are also enjoying the fun. There are some difficult RP qualities in SR4. Nut the gain is much more zthan 20BP. Experience and fun matters. Babysitting is for babies, not for runners :)
-
You misunderstand. I don't forbid them from taking it. I just warn them to avoid it unless they realize exactly what the Quality entails or are willing to endure my wrath should I end up having to play their character for them. I'm fine with difficult to handle PCs, it can be kind of fun at times. What I don't like are players that are blinded by the BP and end up whining about their "shitty" character once they start playing. Hence, the warning.
-
Understood. You are right, I really hate this...What happens to me once: man creates a character, Ive adapted the stroyline to be mutually influenced with his bio, we were sculpting this for some hours before the game starts...and then after two runs, he is kicked from his job and has time to read the rules there and back again, play with chargen. Then he came with something I call Exploit, character that was methematicaly perfect, but lacks any pieces of soul, and told me, thaat he dont want to play that character no.1 any more, but he wants to play this. Ive asked him why, argumenting that his character would develop with karma and if he dont like something right now, he may be able to change it in the future.
Then I saw 30 years old man behaving like a pure "egoistic child" archetyp:
NONONO I WANT THIS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.
I`ve let him finish his tea and then kicked him out of the doors, telling him to GTFO of my sight. Well, good way to get rid of a friend. But we slowly realized, that the way he was always trying to stay in the spotlight, he was blocking other players and their ideas, and that our runs are much more joy without him.
-
I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.
-
All posts to gravitate toward balancing the two concepts: Let me build whatever character I can and let it be mine & once you make it you better play it. If the PC cannot make it work but really tried that's part of working through characters and such. However, if the PC obviously sidesteps around all his shortcommings it is time for a abject lesson in game physics. Don't have enough gaming hours to let that go. Still, good boundaries make good games.
-
I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.
Oh for sure. I've seen players bite off a lot more than they can chew roleplay-wise.
"Really? Logic 1 and Uneducated? You realize that this character is barely sapient?"
-
And that's where the fundamental disconnect comes in. Many people simply assume that characters who are "barely sapient" aren't really part of the core build rules. At least not to the point where they're practically unplayable, at any rate.
-
I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.
Oh for sure. I've seen players bite off a lot more than they can chew roleplay-wise.
"Really? Logic 1 and Uneducated? You realize that this character is barely sapient?"
We have all seen player that bite off more than they can chew. Logic doesn't always make someone sapient. I have seen with my own eyes people that fit those qualities. They maybe skipping on the surface of the shallow end of the gene pool, but they do function just not logically.
-
One good rule of thumb is to be careful with any Attribute of one, or potentially severe flaw, because how debilitating they are can vary from game to game.
A Charisma of 1 is "undeveloped". It can be changed into a Charisma of 2 with 10 Karma. Obviously, it is a weakness, since you can't even default to social skills you don't have unless you have positive modifiers. But some GMs interpret a Charisma of 1 as "Your character doesn't know not to take a dump in the middle of the street." Similarly, some GMs will interpret the astral hazing negative quality as "Anyone who assenses you attacks you, and you eventually get sniped by a Lone Star guy who thinks you're a cyberzombie!"
So you can go into a game with a flaw that you think is challenging, but playable, only to find that your character might as well have put on a red shirt and beamed down with Captain Kirk. Try to avoid some of the more extreme flaws, until you are more sure how they will be treated in-game.
-
I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.
Oh for sure. I've seen players bite off a lot more than they can chew roleplay-wise.
"Really? Logic 1 and Uneducated? You realize that this character is barely sapient?"
We have all seen player that bite off more than they can chew. Logic doesn't always make someone sapient. I have seen with my own eyes people that fit those qualities. They maybe skipping on the surface of the shallow end of the gene pool, but they do function just not logically.
I know them too. Most of them are managers...
-
A Charisma of 1 is "undeveloped". It can be changed into a Charisma of 2 with 10 Karma. Obviously, it is a weakness, since you can't even default to social skills you don't have unless you have positive modifiers. But some GMs interpret a Charisma of 1 as "Your character doesn't know not to take a dump in the middle of the street."
For just a Charisma of 1, no I don't think I'd interpret it that way. Now if they had a Charisma of 1 and Uncouth, then yeah, it's turd in the street time. Of course with that one-two punch, you're basically either severely (and I mean severely) autistic or you were raised by wolves.
-
Focus of the character comes up in creation. I put it to them that you can be a katana, a survival knife, or a swiss army knife. The first does one thing really well but tends not to find function elsewhere and is never really meant to. So if your a katana character you are like the kensai and seek mastery of one thing and live life in that pursuit. Survival knives have a group of related skills toward a specific purpose, like most characters. The Swiss are so busy trying to do everything they barely do anything. I use the comparison to illustrate proper character balance to any I am building characters with.
A very nice succinct visual representation. I'll be using it for all of my future games during character creation.
-
I like that analogy myself, but it does assume players with equal levels of system mastery, making characters equally with (or against) the grain of the system. That isn't always the case. For example, someone using augmentations that give big bonuses to Attributes and dice pools can make a "survival knife" character that is both more effective than a new player's "katana" character, and more versatile than another new player's "Swiss army knife" character.
-
It is hard to balance a character out. The best thing you can do is try and give them a soul or style or something real to make them more than just numbers on a page. It is hard to do that when we go through the optimization process. It comes down to giving the Gm hooks that they can use to drawn out the character make him more that the sum of there karma.
-
It hard to balance characters out. The best thing you can do is try and give them a soul or style or something real to make them more than just numbers on a page. It is hard to do that when we go thought the optimization process. It comes down to giving the Gm hooks that they can use to drawn out the character make them more that the sum of there karma.
That's the thing exactly. Character efficiency is nice mathmatical exercise but I want to know more about a characters drives than his dice pools on creation.
-
I leave it up to the players themselves. Some people aren't at the level to play anything more than generic, others are min-maxers, others roll players (arguably the prior suggestions), others role players, and others are just along for the ride. I've found that shy of micromanaging you can't make everyone fall into line. It's much more sensible to hold an individual to what they are capable of playing and be flexible to the mood of the game and the desired result.
-
I leave it up to the players themselves. Some people aren't at the level to play anything more than generic, others are min-maxers, others roll players (arguably the prior suggestions), others role players, and others are just along for the ride. I've found that shy of micromanaging you can't make everyone fall into line. It's much more sensible to hold an individual to what they are capable of playing and be flexible to the mood of the game and the desired result.
We all are a mix of all of those qualities, but that doesn't mean we have to be pigeon holed by them. You can't force someone to role player, you can only give them inspiration and encourage them and hope they rise to the occasion. When we started role playing in games, where we the best or did we have to learn grow?
-
I like to have a chat with the character (mine or the ones my players make) before the character sheet being complete. Also before. Getting in character before the character is ready seems to me like a good way for the player to feel the way he is being built: always best to go for a test-drive to see if you'll be having some fun.
-
Uh...
I know Rule of Thumb is used, among others, to mean using the appropriate set of rules for a given situation, but it has so many negative connotations that it's generally avoided in polite conversation in this P.C. society (e.g. the 18th century English Law that said you were allowed to hit your wife with with a stick no wider than your thumb). I'm not a P.C. person by any means, hence my hitting people comment... I thought I'd pass along that tidbit to fulfill my habit of random posts late at night.
Off-topic here, but...
This is a widespread belief, and not an unreasonable sounding backstory to the phrase. It's appeared in media, newspapers, even school textbooks, but so far there is little credible actual historical record to back it up. English common law at the time did allow for "correction" of a wife, but beating was specifically excluded in the permissible actions.
My own rule of thumb for characters: Make sure you have decent Legwork skills of SOME sort. I've been at tables where, when asked how the runners intend on gathering information, the GM is greeted with blank stares and, "Uh, I guess I can default".
It doesn't have to be a huge investment, but sitting there twiddling your thumbs for a large chunk of a mission is no fun.
-k
-
Uh...
I know Rule of Thumb is used, among others, to mean using the appropriate set of rules for a given situation, but it has so many negative connotations that it's generally avoided in polite conversation in this P.C. society (e.g. the 18th century English Law that said you were allowed to hit your wife with with a stick no wider than your thumb). I'm not a P.C. person by any means, hence my hitting people comment... I thought I'd pass along that tidbit to fulfill my habit of random posts late at night.
Off-topic here, but...
This is a widespread belief, and not an unreasonable sounding backstory to the phrase. It's appeared in media, newspapers, even school textbooks, but so far there is little credible actual historical record to back it up. English common law at the time did allow for "correction" of a wife, but beating was specifically excluded in the permissible actions.
My own rule of thumb for characters: Make sure you have decent Legwork skills of SOME sort. I've been at tables where, when asked how the runners intend on gathering information, the GM is greeted with blank stares and, "Uh, I guess I can default".
It doesn't have to be a huge investment, but sitting there twiddling your thumbs for a large chunk of a mission is no fun.
-k
Thanks for defending "the rule of thumb" tag.
I can be as big a power player as you have ever seen. Knowing that, I usually look at my character drafts and ask myself as a Gm "would I want to have to deal with this character?" If the answer is no, I start modifying until I can honestly say I would want that character in my game as a GM.
I am a believer that a character should be build with fun factor. Fun and laughs for everyone at the table including player and the GM.
-
Even from a purely selfish point of view, that's a good idea. From a numbers perspective, you can take things to an extreme level of effectiveness. From a metagaming point of view, you need to consider how the GM (and possibly the other players) are going to react to it. If you seem to be invincible, the GM will go out of his way to "challenge" you. All your extra dice have done is put a target on your head! So ask yourself which scenario is better:
A) The character rolls so many dice to soak damage that he is invulnerable to small arms fire, and can usually soak heavy weapons fire. The GM resorts to all kinds of methods to damage the character, becoming increasingly frustrated, as well as going out of his way to attack every other weakness that the character has. The other players are a bit upset, too, because the GM has been upping the difficulty of every encounter, and their characters are getting hurt a lot more.
B) The character rolls lots of dice to soak damage. Small arms fire can occasionally give him a light wound, and heavy weapons can potentially hurt him more. The GM is secure, because the character isn't totally invincible, and he could hit him with heavier stuff if he really needed to. So the character takes the occasional minor damage, but otherwise does quite well in his role. The other players like the character, because he is their big meat shield who draws the most fire while they do their own jobs.
Even though the character in A) is technically tougher, the character in B) has less problems. If you really want to optimize your character, a bit of metagaming is crucial. A pure number crunching exercise might have the most dice, but get targetted, if it is even allowed in the game.
-
Even from a purely selfish point of view, that's a good idea. From a numbers perspective, you can take things to an extreme level of effectiveness. From a metagaming point of view, you need to consider how the GM (and possibly the other players) are going to react to it. If you seem to be invincible, the GM will go out of his way to "challenge" you. All your extra dice have done is put a target on your head! So ask yourself which scenario is better:
A) The character rolls so many dice to soak damage that he is invulnerable to small arms fire, and can usually soak heavy weapons fire. The GM resorts to all kinds of methods to damage the character, becoming increasingly frustrated, as well as going out of his way to attack every other weakness that the character has. The other players are a bit upset, too, because the GM has been upping the difficulty of every encounter, and their characters are getting hurt a lot more.
B) The character rolls lots of dice to soak damage. Small arms fire can occasionally give him a light wound, and heavy weapons can potentially hurt him more. The GM is secure, because the character isn't totally invincible, and he could hit him with heavier stuff if he really needed to. So the character takes the occasional minor damage, but otherwise does quite well in his role. The other players like the character, because he is their big meat shield who draws the most fire while they do their own jobs.
Even though the character in A) is technically tougher, the character in B) has less problems. If you really want to optimize your character, a bit of metagaming is crucial. A pure number crunching exercise might have the most dice, but get targetted, if it is even allowed in the game.
Really think just working on characters with the GM at creation gets good balance doing up front. They can also be helpful on having skills and gear for your character type and his type of adventures. Only time GM's have issues with players is when they try and beat the GM and not the adventure. Don't play that game, no one wins that one.
-
Really think just working on characters with the GM at creation gets good balance doing up front. They can also be helpful on having skills and gear for your character type and his type of adventures. Only time GM's have issues with players is when they try and beat the GM and not the adventure. Don't play that game, no one wins that one.
I think you are right in that a Gm should be involved at all levels of character creation. Not building the character for the player, being there when the player starts to go over board. It is a lot easier to stop it then than when the character is totally build and the player in emotionally invested.
I have seen the reverse where the Gm is trying to beat the players instead of running the adventure.
-
What about character completeness from the get-go? I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished). Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)
I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.
-
What about character completeness from the get-go? I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished). Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)
I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.
You are Right, there is no such thing as perfect character. What we talking about is not perfection but play ability. You want a complete person when you are done with the character creation process. A character that fits well with a team and plays well with others. Growth potential is a great thing in a character i look for it in the characters I create.
-
What about character completeness from the get-go? I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished). Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)
I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.
You are Right, there is no such thing as perfect character. What we talking about is not perfection but play ability. You want a complete person when you are done with the character creation process. A character that fits well with a team and plays well with others. Growth potential is a great thing in a character i look for it in the characters I create.
It's just that I've known GMs (thankfully NOT for SR) who took the opposite view: that player characters should be totally complete and perfect from the beginning, and that anything else is Wrong and Evil and not to be tolerated. Admittedly they played their own characters like that as well . . . supremely irritating.
-
What about character completeness from the get-go? I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished). Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)
I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.
You are Right, there is no such thing as perfect character. What we talking about is not perfection but play ability. You want a complete person when you are done with the character creation process. A character that fits well with a team and plays well with others. Growth potential is a great thing in a character i look for it in the characters I create.
It's just that I've known GMs (thankfully NOT for SR) who took the opposite view: that player characters should be totally complete and perfect from the beginning, and that anything else is Wrong and Evil and not to be tolerated. Admittedly they played their own characters like that as well . . . supremely irritating.
Seriously how can a beginning character be perfect? lol. They can be good or great, but never perfect.
-
The way I think of character stats is that they are a snapshot of the character at this moment in time. To my way of thinking, the character should have been able to survive and make a living up to this point in time, so there should be no fatal flaws or things that are glaring lacks for a shadowrunner - at least not without a damn good reason in the character background.
At 400 build points, every character has room to potentially improve. A trap to watch out for is building a character without any motivation to improve.
-
The way I think of character stats is that they are a snapshot of the character at this moment in time. To my way of thinking, the character should have been able to survive and make a living up to this point in time, so there should be no fatal flaws or things that are glaring lacks for a shadowrunner - at least not without a damn good reason in the character background.
At 400 build points, every character has room to potentially improve. A trap to watch out for is building a character without any motivation to improve.
By definition a shadow runner has flaws or he wouldn't in the shadows. I see a lot of maverick qualities in shadow runners to along with heaping spoonfuls of paranoia.
-
Yes, shadowrunners should definitely have flaws, but by fatal flaws, I mean the kind of flaws that make you question how the character could have survived to reach this point. And even those can be acceptable, if there is a good reason for them. For example, maybe a character is starting out with no contacts at all, because he had to flee another sprawl and start over after choosing the wrong side in a war between two criminal factions.
-
there comes a point when the character flaws make the character unplayable or almost no chance of survival. I was just saying that a shadow runner is flawed, just not exactly fatally flawed.
-
there comes a point when the character flaws make the character unplayable or almost no chance of survival. I was just saying that a shadow runner is flawed, just not exactly fatally flawed.
Some flaws will make characters unplayable or unplayable without a complimentary teammate. If your running a character and he is got combat paralysis another character in the group can play big brother and cover him when the lead rain comes. Unplayable characters can force a team dynamic in some cases and a driving force in the groups relationships.
-
An example of Combat Paralysis is Kaylee in a Firefly episode.
-
An example of Combat Paralysis is Kaylee in a Firefly episode.
Exactly, she does what she can, and what no one else can even attempt as ships engineer but she is bad with confrontations of all sorts and cant point a shooter at someone to literally save her or their life, with the exception of the movie Serenity where it was implied that future sex was on the line. (I don't blame her as sex being on the line does seem to change many a persons perspective in life) Shepard and the Doctor had code against killing which also put them on the B team of ships defense force. It helped define their strengths and weaknesses and roles in the story. In a lot of ways understanding what your bad at is easily as important to understanding what your good at is when running your character or your life. Know thyself and to thine on self be true and all that jazz.
-
The good shepard Book was actually something of an asskicker. He chose not to kill people, he had the skills to lay someone out and leave them alive in the process, minus a knee cap or two. The Doctor, on the other hand, was willing to put some fire down a hallway, but his combat skills were generally of the spray and pray category. In the episode where they had to rescue Mal from the space station I think the Dr. was willing to kill someone, he just didn't have the ability/luck to pull it off.
-
The good shepard Book was actually something of an asskicker. He chose not to kill people, he had the skills to lay someone out and leave them alive in the process, minus a knee cap or two. The Doctor, on the other hand, was willing to put some fire down a hallway, but his combat skills were generally of the spray and pray category. In the episode where they had to rescue Mal from the space station I think the Dr. was willing to kill someone, he just didn't have the ability/luck to pull it off.
Doctor: "I've never killed a man, before."
Book: "I was there, son. I'm fair certain you still haven't."
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I have a vague memory of a Pacifist example character in film or TV, but I can't remember details. Anyone?
-
Well, which one? Kwai Chang Kane from Kung Fu off the top of my head.
-
IMO, Kwai Chung Kane AKA Grasshopper doesn't fit Pacifist - he just didn't look for trouble. That's different.
-
Can't really think of any pacifist action stars.
Well, I suppose there's Gandhi II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE).
And, it's kinda hard to tell when someone is a pacifist; it's easy to see when someone isn't, when they slot some chummer.
-
IMO, Kwai Chung Kane AKA Grasshopper doesn't fit Pacifist - he just didn't look for trouble. That's different.
Actually, the 5 pt Pacifist isn't a total pacifist either. If their life or well-being is threatened, they can act to defend themselves.
-
See, that always bothered me; I don't want to kill someone by accident, that would suck. But that Blood Mage over there? Totally going to accidentally on purpose kill him.
I suppose you could be like Batman "I don't have to save you." or Charles Bronson, where you go running into situations where you need to self-defense someone to death.
-
I suppose you could be like Batman "I don't have to save you."...
Grrrrr... That is the ONLY thing I disliked about that move. Yes, Batman DOES have to save him.
Anyway, back to the topic, Kane from Kung-Fu would be a 5 pt Pacifist. Simon Tam, Shepard Book and Kaylee Frye from Firefly would also be considered 5 pt Pacifists.
The only true 10 pt Pacifists I can think of are Ghandi, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau. The ONLY fictional pacifist I can think of is Johnny 5 from Short Circuit. And that fact makes me kinda sad.
-
Oh man, Johnny 5 is alive! +1
Yeah, Batman needed to save him. How can anyone go on, without Liam Neeson?
More Shadowrun-like, you totally need to save him or you're never going to find the body and Batman III is going to star a Cyberzombie Ra's al Ghul.
-
a 5 pt pacifist does start fights, he finishes them. Kane from kung-fu never started fights he finished them though.
Most of my character tend toward not killing people anyway. Dead bodies breed cops like tribbles on star trek
-
a 5 pt pacifist does start fights, he finishes them. Kane from kung-fu never started fights he finished them though.
Most of my character tend toward not killing people anyway. Dead bodies breed cops like tribbles on star trek
That's a useful way of putting it - thanks for that. 'Course, it means most of us Aussies are 5 pt Pacifists . . . . ::)
It's funny-strange, but every time that point about killing was made on Shadowland or (less often) Jackpoint, there were howls of protest about killing being necessary and anybody who didn't kill wasn't wanted on such-&-such a team.
-
a 5 pt pacifist does start fights, he finishes them. Kane from kung-fu never started fights he finished them though.
Most of my character tend toward not killing people anyway. Dead bodies breed cops like tribbles on star trek
That's a useful way of putting it - thanks for that. 'Course, it means most of us Aussies are 5 pt Pacifists . . . . ::)
It's funny-strange, but every time that point about killing was made on Shadowland or (less often) Jackpoint, there were howls of protest about killing being necessary and anybody who didn't kill wasn't wanted on such-&-such a team.
That sounds less like a shadow-running team and more like a gang initiation. I pride myself on low body count games.
Even my psycho-skater sammie rarely kills anyone. He has dropped a half dozen gangers with submachinguns without killing any of them. He skated through the gun fire nailed with shockhand.
-
On the subject of the Uncouth quality, here's another good time to take it. Some GMs insist on practically ignoring the existence of the Social Skills instead requiring a full "play it out" with every social interaction. Well, if a player is not very good themselves at such things, then because of their nature that player pretty much needs to sit out of that particular scene. Why not let them get some extra BP with Uncouth so the character can be better at something they can participate in?
-
On the subject of the Uncouth quality, here's another good time to take it. Some GMs insist on practically ignoring the existence of the Social Skills instead requiring a full "play it out" with every social interaction. Well, if a player is not very good themselves at such things, then because of their nature that player pretty much needs to sit out of that particular scene. Why not let them get some extra BP with Uncouth so the character can be better at something they can participate in?
I just have a issues with people taking major neg qualities that they never intend to play. Have you ever considered that maybe allowing your less than socially adept friend work at social stuff might make him better at it?
-
On the subject of the Uncouth quality, here's another good time to take it. Some GMs insist on practically ignoring the existence of the Social Skills instead requiring a full "play it out" with every social interaction. Well, if a player is not very good themselves at such things, then because of their nature that player pretty much needs to sit out of that particular scene. Why not let them get some extra BP with Uncouth so the character can be better at something they can participate in?
I just have a issues with people taking major neg qualities that they never intend to play. Have you ever considered that maybe allowing your less than socially adept friend work at social stuff might make him better at it?
Indeed. And...this is an RPG.
While the player's RP abilities should certainly impact the game, at the same time - someone who is personally uncouth could still play an Elf with ridiculous CHA and Social Skills.
Also, if I were GMing and someone took the Uncouth Negative Quality and tried to dodge out of it simply by not saying anything...well, let's just say that Uncouth is more than just putting your foot in your mouth. (Nothing clears out a ballroom like a flatulent Troll.)
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I actually can see both points.
@JoeNapalm: My point was really that the quality could give a few extra BP to a player who wouldn't be able to do much in the social aspect anyway. Some GMs just seem to have a strange aversion to letting a player who isn't a "social butterfly" themselves use Social Skills to back up their characters' negotiations and diplomacy.
-
I get that...I just wonder if they let the skinny guy at end of the table play a Troll?
Charisma is a strange thing - you could have an awkward dude that everyone just seems to like.
It's an RPG. If the guy wants to play a Face, I say let 'im try. You don't tell someone they can't play an Elf because they're too short, do ya?
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist