Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Katrex on <12-13-11/2236:44>
-
Good luck getting your gm to run it.
The base prinicple of this charecter is the genetic heratage/genecrafted feats, using the animal features rule of trangenics to buy all bioware at 40% discount, and taking synaptic boosters as you free genetic augmentation.
Advantages: lots of bioware very cheap
Disadvantages: cant get alphagrade or higher, can't upgrade it.
Clearly on a highpowered game where charecters get access to delta clinics and so forth it will inevitably fall behind other build. However from a one shot perspective, other than the Mind over matter logic adept build this is probably the most points efficient build to a charecter.
Note: I've flavoured the build to be what i call a quintisential shadowruner. i've given the charecter skills i think he should have if he were born and raised in to the running buisness. Thus lots of skills groups at rank 1 which would be half as expensive to buy with karma, but likewise a charecter desinged without karma in mind. For similar reasons i've not given him negative qualities like distinctive style, or anything that would make him stand out.
He's a brutal fighter, unarmed and ranged, Athletic, hard to kill, resistant to spells, very stealthy, not a total social retard, and with decent logic and intuition has lots of knowlege skills.
Without further adu, meet John Smith
Agility 7(10-12)
Body 4(5)
Reactions 3(7-9)
Stremgth 2(5-7)
Charisma 4
Intuition 5
Logic 3
Willpower 3(5)
Edge 1
essence 0.06
Positive qualities.
Surge III (Biocompatibility, Spellresistance 4)
Genecrafted
Genetic heritage
Restricted gear
Negative
Surge III(sensitive system or cool stuff if you rather)
In debt 30
Weakened Immune system
Skill groups
Electronics 1
Influence 1
Outdoors 1
Athletics 1
Stealth 4
Skills
unarmed 5
pistols 5
perception 1
first aid 1
Bioware + geneware (note most of these need new names, dolphin neo cortex, catlike muscleture, insect nervous system and so on)
Adrenaline pump 2
Cerebral boosters
enhanced articulation
Muscle augmentation
Muscle toner
platlet factories
superthyroid
synaptic boosters 3, if you think three Ip's is overkill, reduce the synaptic boosters to 2, take adrenaline pump 3 Instead, freeing up 30-40 Bp, I just love that extra Ip for when I have to full dodge every round and then want to smack the boss in the face.
Also genetic heratige makes no mention on limits by availability. If you disagree fair enough it frees up 0.45 essence hapily spent on other geneware, like Pushed and qualia - or lose one rank in surge(spell resist 4 -> 2 obviously) for restricted gear works too.
synthocardium (restricted gear)
Reakt
Synch
Genetic optimisation agility.
Total 215k
I wont detail further items there's another 65k to spend, I'm sure most of you know what kind of things it would be spent on.
2bp contact
Her'es some dicepools for you,
Normal dodge 11(12)
Full defense 16(17)
melee block 18(19)
Full defense block 25(26) Not can't be done at same time to range full defense due to gymnastics over dodge.
Any smartgun pistol 20
Hardliner gloves 19 (5P damage)
Infiltrate, gymnastics, palming 15
First aid 12
Perception Climbing swiming running 10
diguise shadowing 9
Social skills 5
Electronics 6
And don't forget drugs for when this just doesn't cut it.
Anyway comments much apreciated, Obviously if I wasn't giving him his theme, i'd drop his charisma electronics influence and outdoors and put his edge to 5. But i'm sure you get the gist, It's not about the specifics of the build more a demonstration of what transgenetics can do RaW.
-
"Good luck getting your gm to run it."
No kidding
-
I'm sorry, It says
"Such an inheritance means the character can start play with one genetic modification (see p. 72) for free."
And "Most of the functional changes available through biotech (p. 61) are also possible through transgenic alteration for comparable Essence and nuyen costs but longer treatment times (typically several months)."
Its arguable if you can get something over the availability, which I adressed as an option that can be fixed, it doesn't change the build that much.
Edit, Huh the reply changed. Well i'll leave the rules there to prevent this becoming a massive rules discusion.
Oh and yes I could have given him cyberware but that would ruin much of the elagance of it.
-
And then he's hit by toxins/diseases
-
And "Most of the functional changes available through biotech (p. 61) are also possible through transgenic alteration for comparable Essence and nuyen costs but longer treatment times (typically several months)."
Yes, but this still prefers to animal features(like Quils, cat eyes etc.) not all bioware.
So yeah good luck finding a sucker that lets you use that build, it's really isn't an example of whats possible RAW, but an example of what you can get with severe rukles mangling.
-
^^^ that's what my first reply basically said, I was half drunk so I decided to censor myself and I changed it to something more benign. But yeah, that's how I feel too.
-
I just can't get that excited by the build. For all of the convincing you'll have to do, you end up with a guy who's not much better than Umaro's Ghost. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J5-Z04bXEhuylLRumDT7tUA36rsNq0sWRdIHnQFDFxg/edit?hl=en_US) +1 IP, some extra strength, Reakt, and 2 social dice isn't that huge of a difference. If you nuke the IP and move the saved points elsewhere, you might be able to end up being an alright face which is neat and actually noteworthy.
I'll also drop the Adrenaline Pump. You're already going to be walking around at your augmented max for agility and reaction. +2 strength is meh. +2 willpower is nice, but for the amount of essence, cash (even with a -40% discount), and unresisted stun damage, I don't see it being worth it.
-
Did you get a +1 to hit because you gave up your ability to blink? (http://www.goblinscomic.com/)
-
Builds like this make me love one of my table rules as a GM:
I powergame as a GM, as much as the player who powergames the most at my tables.
Its led to an interesting dynamic in terms of character creation. 8)
-
And that, nakano, is a rule every GM should live by. +1 to you, sir.
-
LOL...
First experience with that particular table rule was in L5R. The players that had been at the table the longest were very insistant that folks not screw up the balance of power. They had all been gaming long enough to appreciate that it only takes 1 totally overpowered character to impact everyone's enjoyment.
It got funny enough that one of the players stole my red sharpie of justice and began to pre-approve characters.
I guess that is what you get for running the shadows etc with a variety of former larpers.
-
Yes, but this still prefers to animal features(like Quils, cat eyes etc.) not all bioware.
So yeah good luck finding a sucker that lets you use that build, it's really isn't an example of whats possible RAW, but an example of what you can get with severe rukles mangling.
To expand on this I'd like to first point out the relevant bits that these builds always ignore:
Most
and
Animal Features
.
Now, tell me what animals are smarter than humans, because cerebral boosters are increasing your human Logic?
What animal is the Synaptic Booster 3 coming from (Cats get 2 IPs (equivalent of a 1) due to their lightning speed)?
As a GM I know I sure as hell wouldn't let animal features be taken for anything other than...you know...animal features. Like the ones that Max was suggesting. This is pretty blatant attempting to exploit a loophole that isn't really there.
-
I just can't get that excited by the build. For all of the convincing you'll have to do, you end up with a guy who's not much better than Umaro's Ghost. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J5-Z04bXEhuylLRumDT7tUA36rsNq0sWRdIHnQFDFxg/edit?hl=en_US) +1 IP, some extra strength, Reakt, and 2 social dice isn't that huge of a difference. If you nuke the IP and move the saved points elsewhere, you might be able to end up being an alright face which is neat and actually noteworthy.
I'll also drop the Adrenaline Pump. You're already going to be walking around at your augmented max for agility and reaction. +2 strength is meh. +2 willpower is nice, but for the amount of essence, cash (even with a -40% discount), and unresisted stun damage, I don't see it being worth it.
Actually you'll find the adrenaline pump increases his agility from 10 to 12, Also consider its like 1 stun damage for one round... how many fights last more than 4 or 8 initiative passes. When you have more ip's adrenaline pump becomes a worthwhile investment.
Also like I said i could make the build better but i was themeing it.
For and for those wondering about react and synch, it lets you dodge without declaring if you need to.
Also this character has a higher dodge pool, a higher logic , better athletics, better spell resistance, higher body, oh and is actualy very good at unarmed. Further since entirely biowared will not come up on sensors and is a lot harder to assense. He can walk in to a secure location and kill the person with his fists if need be.
And don't forget it was not an optimum build that I made it was just an example.
Also at no point did I suggest you try to run it. But it makes for a good character for a gm to use. Also note the only reason i didn't put his guns dice pool higher is in a lot of games you're capped at 20 dice. Otherwise he could happily get 25 dice.
Edit Oh, and actualy the cerebral booster was bought normally incase you want to upgrade it. But its been shown that dolphins have a higher evolved neo cortex capable of much greater processing power, some insect nervous systems have much more efficient neural pathways, cats have much more elastic muscles and so forth. And that's just today, who knows what the awakened world, and the UGE could have concocted.
Also what's up with all the negative votes I'm not actually suggesting you run it, it's just a mental excersise.
-
Actually you'll find the adrenaline pump increases his agility from 10 to 12, Also consider its like 1 stun damage for one round... how many fights last more than 4 or 8 initiative passes. When you have more ip's adrenaline pump becomes a worthwhile investment.
Also like I said i could make the build better but i was themeing it.
Is he an elf or human? If he's human, then 10 is his augmented max and Adrenaline Pump cannot increase it any further than that. If he's elf...well...I don't see any mention of it, but that would allow him to get to 12 with the Genetic Opt. Personally I still wouldn't go with the adrenaline booster and I'd just pick up a couple more levels of Muscle Toner in game after it starts.
Surge III (Biocompatibility, Spellresistance 4)
When did Biocompatability and Magic Resistance become Metagenic Qualities?
Edit Oh, and actualy the cerebral booster was bought normally incase you want to upgrade it. But its been shown that dolphins have a higher evolved neo cortex capable of much greater processing power, some insect nervous systems have much more efficient neural pathways, cats have much more elastic muscles and so forth. And that's just today, who knows what the awakened world, and the UGE could have concocted.
In SR they have and LOG and INT of 4. That may be good enough to warrant ONE level of cerebral booster, but I wouldn't even allow that as a GM. The point of animal feature is to gain things that animals have that humans don't. Humans can get intelligence higher than that. Humans don't have Cat's Eyes, Gills, Quills, Echolocation, Gecko Hands, etc. That is what Animal Feature is blatantly intended for. Ignoring it isn't a clever loophole, its the same kind of blatant disregard for the rules as "forgetting" to take wound penalties.
Also what's up with all the negative votes I'm not actually suggesting you run it, it's just a mental excersise.
It's not a new build, it's been around a while, and it's not really a "build" since it disregards the rules. Claiming a GM can be talked into allowing it is the same as me proposing a build in which my character has Thor Shots loaded into his cyberarms...but the GM can be talked into allowing it. Talking a GM into allowing a build like this usually involves taking a new GM and not explaining the build very well to them.
-
Actually you'll find the adrenaline pump increases his agility from 10 to 12, Also consider its like 1 stun damage for one round... how many fights last more than 4 or 8 initiative passes. When you have more ip's adrenaline pump becomes a worthwhile investment.
Also like I said i could make the build better but i was themeing it.
For and for those wondering about react and synch, it lets you dodge without declaring if you need to.
Also this character has a higher dodge pool, a higher logic , better athletics, better spell resistance, higher body, oh and is actualy very good at unarmed. Further since entirely biowared will not come up on sensors and is a lot harder to assense. He can walk in to a secure location and kill the person with his fists if need be.
And don't forget it was not an optimum build that I made it was just an example.
I have him as an elf with genetic optimization (agility), giving him an natural max of 8 and an augmented max of 12. With muscle toner 4 (you are giving him those right?), superthyroid, and a base agility of 7, that's a 12 agility and he's capped.
The adrenaline pump can't be turned off once activated (SR4A 345). So you have your 1 turn combat and then sitting around waiting for the hangover.
He's better than the ghost, but not that much better. Reakt and Synch don't do anything for your dodge per se. They're a passive boost to your defense roll. They're nice, but they're not exactly hard to get. Athletics rolls are basically there to stop the GM from getting pissy at you. As for unarmed combat, the ghost simply didn't choose to be unarmed. Change his heavy weapons skill to unarmed and a shock glove and the Ghost is nearly as good at melee. No cyberware is nice in theory, but fetishizing that just leads to Magicrun.
The whole point of this exercise is to see how crazy of a dude you can make with no avail restrictions and a -40% discount on bioware. This isn't NPC fodder since NPCs don't care about avail and cost as much as PCs.
When did Biocompatability and Magic Resistance become Metagenic Qualities?
He's looking at the "Other Metagenetic Qualities" section in Runner's Companion page 110 which lists them as possible metagenetic qualities.
-
The adrenaline pump can't be turned off once activated (SR4A 345). So you have your 1 turn combat and then sitting around waiting for the hangover.
Man, what a hangover. I was looking at the adrenaline pump as a potential way for mundanes to juice up their magic resistance, but the side effects are a real kick in the teeth. If you have a rating 3 pump and roll a 6, which is eventually going to happen, you're looking at eating 18S unresisted stun damage. Not worth it, though it's an awesome sort of irony to win a fight with the aid of your trusty adrenaline pump, and then it wears off and instantly kills you.
-
Now, tell me what animals are smarter than humans, because cerebral boosters are increasing your human Logic?
What animal is the Synaptic Booster 3 coming from (Cats get 2 IPs (equivalent of a 1) due to their lightning speed)?
It's not about them being smarter, which is a function of complex neural structuring, so much as their neurons being able to tick over faster.
-
Also what's up with all the negative votes I'm not actually suggesting you run it, it's just a mental excersise.
Might be the fact that "mental excersises"(and i use that term very lightly) in rules breaking like this one is are worse then useless(as they might make some one believe its RAW and cause a lot of crief to that persons GM)
-
It's not about them being smarter, which is a function of complex neural structuring, so much as their neurons being able to tick over faster.
Which I would point to INT for rather than logic. INT is for processing fast and LOG is for memorizing fast. Cerebral Boosters improve brain function, it never says they speed it up any. Unfortunately, I haven't found any INT boosters aside from drugs.
-
It's not about them being smarter, which is a function of complex neural structuring, so much as their neurons being able to tick over faster.
Which I would point to INT for rather than logic. INT is for processing fast and LOG is for memorizing fast. Cerebral Boosters improve brain function, it never says they speed it up any. Unfortunately, I haven't found any INT boosters aside from drugs.
Okay, I may have phrased that wrong. An animal with a tiny brain may, in fact, be using what it has car better than a human does, but it doesn't act smarter because it's brain is the size of a pea.
-
Cerebral Booster doesn't do that though, it adds more brain. There isn't any increase in efficiency, there is an increase in what's there. Animal Features doesn't say that is allows for stat changes to be the same, but for the function to be the same.
-
Also what's up with all the negative votes I'm not actually suggesting you run it, it's just a mental excersise.
Didn't give you a negative; but I'm guessing some people might have a problem with the claim that this is the "best".
It's a minmax build, sure, but the best, that's a pretty big claim.
Personally I don't really mind the theoretical mathematical exercises; though using optional rules and stuff that needs GM permission shouldn't be part of it.
-
Hmm. Annoying I have to repeat this but I didn't suggest you actually try to run the build. the "good luck getting your gm to let you run it" was a joke.
Anyway no, he only has muscle toner 2, and I didn't ignore availability limits, I bought restricted gear for the super thyroid. The only thing I did ignore availability limits was the synaptic booster, which as I addressed in the first post could be happily changed if you or your gm had a problem with that interpretation of the rules.
Also I did say Possibly the best, not definitely the best. 40% off is very strong no matter how you look at it. So is being able to dumpstat agility with mind over matter, and so is playing a pixie. Those are in my mind the best builds from a min maxers point of view, and also about equally broken (imho)
the reason this one might well be "better" is because you don't stand out like a sore thumb, you don't have foci to carry around that cant go through wards, you're not a flying rare pixie, you're just an ordinary guy with no cyberware
-
what about the mage with a Force 4 power focus and a Force 5 health sustaining focus at creation, with magic 6 and spellcasting 6, who binds some good Force combat spirits as soon as the game starts? Stunbolt/ball all over the place with 4 IPs and 16+ dice!
-
A legal starting character, assuming restricted gear x 2. There are lots of legitimate ways to make powerful characters, although ones that don't fit the power level of the GM's campaign still might not get ratified by him.
The rules exploit exercises, to me, are useful, because they show the GM things to watch out for. Plus, when the build's dodgy rules interpretations and flaws get pointed out, the GM can use that to reign in a player that tries something similar.
-
I made an unarmed sleath char that had much better combat ability I remeber punching a spirit for 27 dmg once before armor. He was also getting about 20 dice on stealth rolls. I knew he would never everrr pass a con roll so I pumped up his initimdate for any social interactions. His main weakness was once spotted he was kinda of noticable. Something I didn't think would be a problem for an infiltration expert with unarmed combat.
Turns out everything normal thing I did. Go home, get on an airplane, meet up with the running group I always had problems because of how noticable I was. The gm was always hacking my comlink or coning me whenever the face wasn't around.
Point is, you can min-max a char to be good at 2-3 things but if the GM thinks its too good, he is gonna find where your character is horrible at and put it in those situtations. So there is "never" a best.
-
I made an unarmed sleath char that had much better combat ability I remeber punching a spirit for 27 dmg once before armor. He was also getting about 20 dice on stealth rolls. I knew he would never everrr pass a con roll so I pumped up his initimdate for any social interactions. His main weakness was once spotted he was kinda of noticable. Something I didn't think would be a problem for an infiltration expert with unarmed combat.
Turns out everything normal thing I did. Go home, get on an airplane, meet up with the running group I always had problems because of how noticable I was. The gm was always hacking my comlink or coning me whenever the face wasn't around.
Point is, you can min-max a char to be good at 2-3 things but if the GM thinks its too good, he is gonna find where your character is horrible at and put it in those situtations. So there is "never" a best.
If the GM is constantly throwing you into a whole lot of stuff that the character isn't meant for, then he/she is a very poor GM in my opinion. Sure, do it occasionally, but not any more than once every fifth or sixth session. More than that and it's just looking to screw the player over.
-
If the GM is constantly throwing you into a whole lot of stuff that the character isn't meant for, then he/she is a very poor GM in my opinion. Sure, do it occasionally, but not any more than once every fifth or sixth session. More than that and it's just looking to screw the player over.
How does this work? 5/6 of the time everything is supposed to be a glorified cakewalk, then you may or may not come up against something that is more than the typical self love fest?
As a GM I have better things to do with my time then watch Some Guy roll buckets o'dicepool but whines and bitches if something happens that his buckets o'dicepool can't stop.
-
No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.
-
No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.
This is all I was saying. Oh, and whoever did the -1, thanks, I guess I could've used a bit of levelling out on that scale.
-
No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.
If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.
It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission. Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor? It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.
-
I don't think he's saying it's bad, just that it gets contrived when characters get hit in their weak area(s) all the time. There's a difference between the street samurai with no computer skills and a cheap commlink getting hacked every once in a while, and that same street samurai getting hacked every single session. It's fine if it is plausible, but excessive metagaming can be just as bad when the GM does it.
A lot of it depends on what the character is good at, and what the character is bad at. An awesome sniper or close combat specialist might still find that his specialty is a niche role, while someone who is uncouth might be extremely crippled if it is a campaign with a lot of subtle social engineering going on. But part of GM ratification should be warning the player if a particular combination is going to bring him a lot of grief.
-
Honestly it depends on how big the weak spots are, and how many of them there are. If you build Captain I Suck at Everything in Life But Punching People, then odds are you are gonna possibly get screwed by those weaknesses everytime you are doing something other then punching people.
The more holes in a character, the more flaws they have, the more situations that they will be exposed.
All that being said, honestly, to dog a character for flaws in it constantly is no fun. As a GM if I had so many issues with a character that I was exploiting its flaws every single session, there is no way that I would have allowed it in my game. Not only is exposing the one dimensional character no fun for the player of that character, but while you are working over that character you tend to be ignoring the other players at the table.
Ultimately while a player may ask to play a concept that a GM does not like, the GM has final say over the concept. Why the hell waste time in game punishing a player for a character you don't like, when could could have just bit the bullet and said NO in the first place, or worked with the player to make the character viable in your world.
-
No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.
If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.
It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission. Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor? It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.
What you seem to be missing is that you can challenge people with challenges to things they are good at.
-
If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.
It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission. Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor? It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.
I have to disagree here. It is at least partially the fault of the GM that the team/party is flawed. The GM approves the characters. The GM creates the world and the challenges within. The GM educates the players about the way that their world works. If the players are set up to fail from the get go, based on horribly flawed, one dimensional builds and no party cohesion, that is partially their fault, but the GM let it happen.
-
No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.
If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.
It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission. Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor? It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.
What you seem to be missing is that you can challenge people with challenges to things they are good at.
Are the players doing that same thing or are they trying to exploit weaknesses? I've never seen a group say "Okay our gunbunny is going to take on your gunbunny, our hacker against yours, face against face, mage vs mage" That comes down to 'let's see how hot your dice are'
I'd rather have the group work as a group to shore up their deficiencies as much as possible. It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate, that was player choice to make that character. Why should I applaud your optimization skillz? Is the Face going to look over the group with a critical eye, "hmm I see a suave looking fella over there and a bib wearing ork with a golfbag full of automatic weapons, which one can I manipulate the easiest...Oh I know that suave guy he looks like a likely target"
-
If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.
It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission. Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor? It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.
I have to disagree here. It is at least partially the fault of the GM that the team/party is flawed. The GM approves the characters. The GM creates the world and the challenges within. The GM educates the players about the way that their world works. If the players are set up to fail from the get go, based on horribly flawed, one dimensional builds and no party cohesion, that is partially their fault, but the GM let it happen.
That's a slippery slope for the GM.
Does the GM force the players to change the characters?
-
That's a slippery slope for the GM.
Does the GM force the players to change the characters?
Slippery slope? More slippery then punishing a player for a character that the GM approved?
I don't think so.
Communication and honesty through the character creation process really helps avoid most of this sort of nonsense. Over the years I have said NO to concepts that I felt were game breaking, or horribly flawed, issued cautions to players about the consequences in game of other characters, and never have I had a player walk away from my table for me oppressing them in character gen, or forcing them to play characters they don't want to play.
Working together with my players in the character creation process means that I don't have to deal with concepts that I would deem unplayable, and they don't have to be beaten down by me in game. More fun all the way around.
-
No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.
If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.
It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission. Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor? It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.
What you seem to be missing is that you can challenge people with challenges to things they are good at.
Are the players doing that same thing or are they trying to exploit weaknesses? I've never seen a group say "Okay our gunbunny is going to take on your gunbunny, our hacker against yours, face against face, mage vs mage" That comes down to 'let's see how hot your dice are'
I'd rather have the group work as a group to shore up their deficiencies as much as possible. It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate, that was player choice to make that character. Why should I applaud your optimization skillz? Is the Face going to look over the group with a critical eye, "hmm I see a suave looking fella over there and a bib wearing ork with a golfbag full of automatic weapons, which one can I manipulate the easiest...Oh I know that suave guy he looks like a likely target"
It is the GM's job to provide the setting and give challenges that the team can overcome with the skills that they have. The GM who puts his players into nothing but situations of social intrigue or magical investigation when all of the characters are combat types that aren't Awakened may have fun himself, but the players are not going to be having fun. If the players aren't having fun, then the GM has failed in his job. No, it shouldn't be a "cake walk", but I was not saying that it should be. I was merely saying that the skills of each team member should be showcased appropriately. Having a high-end NPC hacker constantly breaking into the mage's comm or a high-end NPC face constantly conning the street sam is just going to discourage--or even piss off--the players, and if the players leave your game, what are you going to do then?
-
It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate
Yes, it is your fault. If you don't want a particular character in your game, do not approve that character! Also, stop approaching GMing as a contest to beat the players.
-
It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate
Yes, it is your fault. If you don't want a particular character in your game, do not approve that character! Also, stop approaching GMing as a contest to beat the players.
+1 to you, Umaro.
-
That's a slippery slope for the GM.
Does the GM force the players to change the characters?
Slippery slope? More slippery then punishing a player for a character that the GM approved?
I don't think so.
Communication and honesty through the character creation process really helps avoid most of this sort of nonsense. Over the years I have said NO to concepts that I felt were game breaking, or horribly flawed, issued cautions to players about the consequences in game of other characters, and never have I had a player walk away from my table for me oppressing them in character gen, or forcing them to play characters they don't want to play.
Working together with my players in the character creation process means that I don't have to deal with concepts that I would deem unplayable, and they don't have to be beaten down by me in game. More fun all the way around.
I'm not punishing a player. To 'challenge' that special snowflake, that the group seemed fine with, don't I have to make sure they 'goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps'?
Self-policing is much preferable to me than having me being accused of a GM power trip and nixing someone's special snowflake.
-
I'm not punishing a player. To 'challenge' that special snowflake, that the group seemed fine with, don't I have to make sure they 'goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps'?
Self-policing is much preferable to me than having me being accused of a GM power trip and nixing someone's special snowflake.
ROFLMAO.
To each their own. I know what has worked for me in 20 years of gaming, but if what you are doing works at your table, so be it.
Let me simply add this. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability)
-
Yes, it is your fault. If you don't want a particular character in your game, do not approve that character! Also, stop approaching GMing as a contest to beat the players.
It has nothing to do with not wanting a particular character in the game, I don't care what you play. I will challenge people. The players have to decide if they want to run with a particular character. If the group decides to make a bunch of 'highly optimized' characters, I will make 'highly optimized' NPCs in order to challenge them in return.
It has nothing to do with me trying to win against the players. You make a character "main weakness was once spotted he was kinda of noticable. Something I didn't think would be a problem for an infiltration expert with unarmed combat. I knew he would never ever pass a con roll so I pumped up his initimdate for any social interactions." these are serious weaknesses in a character. IMO the player thought only one way and didn't look at it from the flip side. What does happen when I'm not infiltrating, what does happen if someone initiates the social interactions on me? Perhaps he wanted those flaws which is completely fine with me as well. However if he made these flaws and wanted no repercussions, well sorry that isn't the way I think the game should be played.
ROFLMAO.
To each their own. I know what has worked for me in 20 years of gaming, but if what you are doing works at your table, so be it.
I used to 'approve' all characters and limit characters(depending on what system we were playing at the time) and what not, I found when doing that some would get prune-faced about it because they 'just had to play this certain character'. So I switched my stance on it. I let the other players decide on if they want to play with what the other players make as characters.
Let me simply add this. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability)
Exactly. Accountability to the players. I'm all for it.
-
The point is, you should match the game to the abilities of the team. If there isn't a Face then there shouldn't be an over abundance of social intrigue style encounters. If there isn't a Mage there shouldn't be a lot going on that requires spells, spirits or going astral. Use some of those things, yeah, but seeing a "weak point" in a character and prodding at it almost exclusively--while trying to keep the character out of situations they are good in--is not a good way to handle running a game.
You may not think you're trying to "win" against your players, but looking at what you're doing objectively from the outside can sure give that impression.
-
I don't "keep the characters out of situations they are good in" I also don't "keep the characters only in situations they are good in"
I strive for Game Consistent Realitytm
Again I allow the players complete freedom to make whatever they want to make, if that means 3 PhysAds and a StreetSam who have no computer, social or magic skills, so be it.
Unfortunately computer, social and magic skills is Game Consistent Realitytm for Shadowrun and I will use them to keep the Game Consistent Realitytm
-
Nothing wrong with that approach, as long as you realize that "game consistent reality" is something that varies from GM to GM, so it is usually helpful for the GM to give players a rundown on his game world before play starts. A character can be normal in one GM's game, gamebreakingly effective in another GM's game, and too conspicuous to even be a viable character in a third GM's game.
One of the strengths of the game is that it can support a wide variety of tones and subgenres, and that it lets players craft characters of wide-ranging abilities and specialties. This strength can become a downfall, though, if everyone is not on the same page.
-
[quote/] Are the players doing that same thing or are they trying to exploit weaknesses? I've never seen a group say "Okay our gunbunny is going to take on your gunbunny, our hacker against yours, face against face, mage vs mage" That comes down to 'let's see how hot your dice are'
...Is the Face going to look over the group with a critical eye, "hmm I see a suave looking fella over there and a bib wearing ork with a golfbag full of automatic weapons, which one can I manipulate the easiest...Oh I know that suave guy he looks like a likely target."
[/quote]
I don't know how you havent run into this. What player doesnt want to prove he's the best at what he does by beating the best? Especially hackers and street samurai.
-
I thought it was kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Yes, of course PCs try to exploit enemy weaknesses - Shadowrun is a tactical game. That doesn't justify the GM excessively exploiting PC weaknesses. That's comparing in-game behavior to metagame behavior. The NPCs are the ones who should be exploiting PC weaknesses, and they should be limited to their own knowledge, not the GM's omnicient view. In other words, the enemy wage mage might look at two characters and cast his stunbolt at the troll with a Willpower of 5, instead of the hacker with a Willpower of 2, because he'll think "Hey, big dumb trog." Obviously, if the group makes a recurring enemy who knows about some of the group's weaknesses, or if a PC's weakness is well known or blatatly obvious, it's a different story.
-
Very very off topic. Why not set up this in general chat or something.
My two cents on the matter is this. This is not an ordinary rpg, this is shadowrun, this world is deadly. You shouldn't be making npc's easier or harder for the players. If an npc flattens a party, regardless of better stats or not it flattened them because they wern't prepared for it, a team should only go in to a fight if they know they're going to win.
-
I don't know how you havent run into this. What player doesnt want to prove he's the best at what he does by beating the best? Especially hackers and street samurai.
Not every player wants to do that. I don't like to use exceptions to the norm as the norm.
I thought it was kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Yes, of course PCs try to exploit enemy weaknesses - Shadowrun is a tactical game. That doesn't justify the GM excessively exploiting PC weaknesses. That's comparing in-game behavior to metagame behavior. The NPCs are the ones who should be exploiting PC weaknesses, and they should be limited to their own knowledge, not the GM's omnicient view. In other words, the enemy wage mage might look at two characters and cast his stunbolt at the troll with a Willpower of 5, instead of the hacker with a Willpower of 2, because he'll think "Hey, big dumb trog." Obviously, if the group makes a recurring enemy who knows about some of the group's weaknesses, or if a PC's weakness is well known or blatatly obvious, it's a different story.
Sorry the players will excessively exlpoit NPC weaknesses. A GM unwilling to excessively exploit PC weaknesses is not playing Shadowrun as a tactical game. If a Gm is only willing to excessively exploit PC weaknesses 1/5 of the time. The players are not getting any better as a group, they are not learning different tactics to use, they are not going up against competent competition, etc.
hyperbole* I don't want to game with a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Kim Kardashians. I want the players to earn their reputations.
-
I don't know how you havent run into this. What player doesnt want to prove he's the best at what he does by beating the best? Especially hackers and street samurai.
Not every player wants to do that. I don't like to use exceptions to the norm as the norm.
I thought it was kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Yes, of course PCs try to exploit enemy weaknesses - Shadowrun is a tactical game. That doesn't justify the GM excessively exploiting PC weaknesses. That's comparing in-game behavior to metagame behavior. The NPCs are the ones who should be exploiting PC weaknesses, and they should be limited to their own knowledge, not the GM's omnicient view. In other words, the enemy wage mage might look at two characters and cast his stunbolt at the troll with a Willpower of 5, instead of the hacker with a Willpower of 2, because he'll think "Hey, big dumb trog." Obviously, if the group makes a recurring enemy who knows about some of the group's weaknesses, or if a PC's weakness is well known or blatatly obvious, it's a different story.
Sorry the players will excessively exlpoit NPC weaknesses. A GM unwilling to excessively exploit PC weaknesses is not playing Shadowrun as a tactical game. If a Gm is only willing to excessively exploit PC weaknesses 1/5 of the time. The players are not getting any better as a group, they are not learning different tactics to use, they are not going up against competent competition, etc.
hyperbole* I don't want to game with a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Kim Kardashians. I want the players to earn their reputations.
What he was saying was that the GM should be held to the same standard (higher in my opinion) as the players in that he should NOT ever use his own personal knowledge of the PC's stats to have the enemies target specific weaknesses--as was mentioned in the example as the mage targeting the troll with the stun bolt instead of the hacker. The mage would in setting generally think of the troll as having lower willpower even though in actuality the hacker had the lower stat in that area. If the GM targeted the hacker then he has proven that his priority is to be "against" the players rather than creating a fun game for everyone involved.
-
What he was saying was that the GM should be held to the same standard (higher in my opinion) as the players in that he should NOT ever use his own personal knowledge of the PC's stats to have the enemies target specific weaknesses--as was mentioned in the example as the mage targeting the troll with the stun bolt instead of the hacker. The mage would in setting generally think of the troll as having lower willpower even though in actuality the hacker had the lower stat in that area. If the GM targeted the hacker then he has proven that his priority is to be "against" the players rather than creating a fun game for everyone involved.
I know what he was saying and chose to ignore it because, people are purposing that the GM should use his own personal knowledge of the PC's stats to have the enemies NOT target specific weaknesses more often than Game Consistent Realitytm expects.
Or
Gm metagaming is fine if it helps the players.
That is something I do not buy into as a GM or player. As a player I want to experience the setting as much as possible taking the good with the bad. As a GM I'll let the players experience the setting as best I can.