Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: baronspam on <01-04-12/1306:23>
-
It is generally well established that Orks are probably the most mechanically advantageous race among the standard metatypes, at least in terms of cost efficiency. That high body and strength for only 20 points is a deal, even for non combat characters. Orks make fine hackers, and as a Int based magician you are giving nothing up either.
Honestly, the only reason I don't pick an ork for every character I design is the RP fluff. Orks die of old age by 40. That drives me absolutely bats**t. Every time I make an ork I end up with a character who is obsessed with making enough money to pay for the life extension treatments they will need to ever have a retirement. Not only do you need a million in the bank for that high lifestyle retirement, you need another million for the extra 40 years of life extension to live as long as a human.
Anyone else bugged by this?
-
Not really, since a) most runners won't survive until they're 40 anyway, and b) the only time the lifespans were mentioned was in 1st Edition, and that was (propagandized!) supposition on the natural lifespan by "experts", and the "experts" were taking into account the skewed data that many orks died young due to the sub-standard living conditions of the ghettos and such.
For instance, if you compare the Life Expectancy between 1960-2011 (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=average+life+expectancy#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA:SOM&ifdim=country&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en) among the United States, Somalia and the overall world average, you see that US has been consistently about 15-20 years above the average, while Somalia has been 15-20 below the average. Now, in the sixth world, take a look at the young ork that grows up in a place like the Barrens, without consistent shelter, nutrition and medical assistance. Then compare him to the average corp rat born and raised in the safety of his "family". I'd say that's pretty near equivalent to difference between Somalia and the US.
-
Of course, that's how I run it. ;)
-
Well, there's actually a table on page 72, SR4A that has average height, weight, and lifespans for the various metatypes.
-
Not really, since a) most runners won't survive until they're 40 anyway, and b) the only time the lifespans were mentioned was in 1st Edition, and that was (propagandized!) supposition on the natural lifespan by "experts", and the "experts" were taking into account the skewed data that many orks died young due to the sub-standard living conditions of the ghettos and such.
For instance, if you compare the Life Expectancy between 1960-2011 (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=average+life+expectancy#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA:SOM&ifdim=country&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en) among the United States, Somalia and the overall world average, you see that US has been consistently about 15-20 years above the average, while Somalia has been 15-20 below the average. Now, in the sixth world, take a look at the young ork that grows up in a place like the Barrens, without consistent shelter, nutrition and medical assistance. Then compare him to the average corp rat born and raised in the safety of his "family". I'd say that's pretty near equivalent to difference between Somalia and the US.
Actually, the lifespan is right in SR4A in the "Metahuman Characteristic Tables" as 35-45 years. Under human it says 65(worldwide) but it does not give the same notation about orks. Certainly the worldwide levels of poverty in humans vs. orks isn't so disparate that it can account for a humans living on average a third longer? Trolls, who integrate into society even less well than orks do, and are thus more likely to be living in conditions of extreme stress, make it on average 55 years. It seems to me that orks are just doomed to pay into social security and never collect :).
Still, I suppose your argument means that an ork with a decent standard of living and access to medical care makes it to 55-60, which is a bit better, but you still better be saving your pennies if you ever want to retire in style.
-
It's all propaganda! Don't believe THE MAN!
-
Most of the people I've seen play orks have followed the Conan rule: when you know youre living on borrowed time, live life big and die in a blaze of glory. Orks as enforcer-types bother me; orks as adrenaline junkies, high-risk mages, or speed demons to me makes a lot of sense.
-
"Never Trust An Elf" wasn't propaganda, showing Kham's Mom and his Grandfather. Also, there is a scientific way of measuring a general lifetime with DNA threads (That's how they've estimated Dwarven and Elven lifetimes.).
So, yes, Orks live shorter lives, mostly due to poverty, but also due to genetics. Trolls are a bit better. Either way, Trogs just can't catch a break.
-
Yes, yes, I know... Just saying that if it bugs you, change it for your game.
-
Yes, yes, I know... Just saying that if it bugs you, change it for your game.
Rules are guidelines, not set in stone. Always remember that!
-
Isn't it just natural born orks that have a gimped life span? I remember reading somewhere that goblinized orks retain their normal human life expectancy. So if it really bugs you that much, just make your character one of them goblinized orks. :)
-
Isn't it just natural born orks that have a gimped life span? I remember reading somewhere that goblinized orks retain their normal human life expectancy. So if it really bugs you that much, just make your character one of them goblinized orks. :)
Only problem there is that your character is pretty old at this point. I mean just look at Bull. :P
-
Doesn't goblinization still happen though? I mean not on the scale it did when it first happened. I also thought there was a second major wave of Goblinization/ whatever they call it for elves and dwarves.
-
Doesn't goblinization still happen though? I mean not on the scale it did when it first happened. I also thought there was a second major wave of Goblinization/ whatever they call it for elves and dwarves.
I was under the impression that elves and dwarves just started being born for the most part and didn't goblinize.
-
Re orks: yeah, there are still orks that goblinize, it says in the book that 95% of humans born to ork mothers ork out when they hit puberty.
-
Goblinization is really rare, but it still happens.
Elves and dwarves are born, they don't goblinize. And they appeared before the Awakening, with UGE. Changelings SURGEd during the Year of the Comet, but since then the only times things like that happen are real local things, like when you get caught in a mana storm, you may SURGE. If the storm doesn't kill you, of course.
-
don't think of him in men years,think in orc years 10for orc=18-25 for men that the way i see it, they start runing yonger iirc they'r machur at that time allredy
-
Isn't it just natural born orks that have a gimped life span? I remember reading somewhere that goblinized orks retain their normal human life expectancy. So if it really bugs you that much, just make your character one of them goblinized orks. :)
Only problem there is that your character is pretty old at this point. I mean just look at Bull. :P
Bull Goblinized, and he's "Old" because of the mileage more than the years.
Had he been a Wageslave, he'd still be in pretty good shape.
But, being a 'runner, he's up on the porch with me, shooting at Life Insurance Pop-ups/unders.
-
Re orks: yeah, there are still orks that goblinize, it says in the book that 95% of humans born to ork mothers ork out when they hit puberty.
Heh, one of my characters is an Ork poser who is one of that other 5%, and is a Technomancer on top of that.
-
I think there was another phenomena that triggered the coming out of dwarves an elves : the EGI or IGE (?) syndrom, happening several years after the goblinization.
Re. ork advantages at creation, never forget that they are so ugly that the small attributes advantages is just a fair compensation from nature. ;)
-
Hey, orks don't have to be ugly. Check out the gunslinger adept for an example of an ork babe. And you know what they say about men with big tusks...
-
Hey, orks don't have to be ugly. Check out the gunslinger adept for an example of an ork babe. And you know what they say about men with big tusks...
Horrible. XD
-
Hey, orks don't have to be ugly. Check out the gunslinger adept for an example of an ork babe. And you know what they say about men with big tusks...
They're trolls?
-
Hey, orks don't have to be ugly. Check out the gunslinger adept for an example of an ork babe. And you know what they say about men with big tusks...
Shadowrun: Our orks are cuter! ;D
-
Hey, orks don't have to be ugly. Check out the gunslinger adept for an example of an ork babe. And you know what they say about men with big tusks...
They're trolls?
No, that's men with big horns.
-
Hey, orks don't have to be ugly. Check out the gunslinger adept for an example of an ork babe. And you know what they say about men with big tusks...
They're trolls?
No, that's men with big horns.
"Only two things come from Texas, and I have horns."
-
The way I see it: Orks have just the same amount of life as a human, they just spend it quicker!
So yeah, they're mostly adrenaline junks and testosteron bombs, they don't have the time to spend on feeling sorry for themselves.
-
It is generally well established that Orks are probably the most mechanically advantageous race among the standard metatypes, at least in terms of cost efficiency. That high body and strength for only 20 points is a deal, even for non combat characters. Orks make fine hackers, and as a Int based magician you are giving nothing up either.
Honestly, the only reason I don't pick an ork for every character I design is the RP fluff. Orks die of old age by 40. That drives me absolutely bats**t. Every time I make an ork I end up with a character who is obsessed with making enough money to pay for the life extension treatments they will need to ever have a retirement. Not only do you need a million in the bank for that high lifestyle retirement, you need another million for the extra 40 years of life extension to live as long as a human.
Anyone else bugged by this?
Honestly, no. Why? Because of game balance.
Orks, in terms of stats and bonus' are almost damn near optimised. And when you have anything that is optimised, why use anything else? It' like a peice of gear or a weapon that is sooo good, that you have no need to use anything else. As such, there should be, at least in my opinion, something to balance things out so that orks, or anything else, don't dominate the game. You said it yourself, that if not for the fluff on lifespan, you would play nothin but orks, and that is exactly the point I am trying to make. Everything has to have some price to it.
Also, it helps shape what and who orks are and is what helps motivate them, makes them unique. Without that drive to accomplish something during their shorter lifespan, they are nothing more than beefier humans with tusks.
-
Also, Orks make up the majority of Shadowrunners. Why? Large numbers of them that are SINless, that's why. Especially when you look at percentages.
-
Honestly, my opinion is that all the bitching about "balance" this and "balance" that needs to come to an end. From what I can tell this idea of "balance" stems from MMOs and is part of why D&D 4th became the PoS system that it is. When you have a system that is what MMO players call "balanced" (that is everything is completely equal), you end up with a flat, boring system that may be all right for your occasional diversion (like once every five or six years) but has little actual value of being played beyond that.
-
Honestly, my opinion is that all the bitching about "balance" this and "balance" that needs to come to an end. From what I can tell this idea of "balance" stems from MMOs and is part of why D&D 4th became the PoS system that it is. When you have a system that is what MMO players call "balanced" (that is everything is completely equal), you end up with a flat, boring system that may be all right for your occasional diversion (like once every five or six years) but has little actual value of being played beyond that.
You are really pissed they took Wish out of DnD, aren't you?
I have never understood anti-balance arguments. Lets assume you have a class based game system. How does having a game where one class has more to contribute than another make the game more enjoyable? And balanced games do not strive to make "everything completely equal". They strive to make sure the primary character options all have a role to play, and something to contribute to the party that will be of roughly equal value to the success of the group's in game goals. I would call a balanced game one where all characters had a meaningful way to regularly and consistently contribute to the success of the party. Things aren't "equal" Some characters are better at melee, some are better at ranged, some do more damage, some are more about status effects, some are about healing and support. But I think a good game gives everyone something to do most of the time (no long periods of time when you hide in back with your crossbow waiting for your one spell) and it does not let anyone get so powerful that others become irrelevant to success. Lets face it, if you ever played higher level 3rd ed DnD can you really tell me it didn't eventually become a game of keep the spell casters alive for a round so they can defeat the encounter? The fighter that was the star of the show at level 1 (not much fun for the wizard or druid) eventually became hitpoints with a name at later levels. (not much fun for the fighter). If you find the idea of everyone being busy and helpful to be "too MMO" then I guess I would rather plan the MMO.
-
The thing is, from what I can tell, most people who cry for "balance" and whine "imba! imba!" do not share your idea of "balance". I can understand your idea of it, but most arguments I've seen are claiming all characters should be equal in all ways, and I quite honestly believe that to be bull crap.
-
The thing is, from what I can tell, most people who cry for "balance" and whine "imba! imba!" do not share your idea of "balance". I can understand your idea of it, but most arguments I've seen are claiming all characters should be equal in all ways, and I quite honestly believe that to be bull crap.
Well, I won't call you a liar, but I don't think I have ever seen anyone on any message board say they want "all characters equal in all ways." We must move in very different gaming circles. I respect your right to hold your opinion, but I simply do not find that attitude in the people I game with or the websites I have frequented at various times. I have certainly seen people have disagreements over what constitutes a mechanical imbalance for a given system, and what might be overpowered or under powered, but as I said, "all characters equal in all ways", I have just never run into that.
-
Balance is never the system or players' fault. It's on the GM to concoct situations that each player will feel useful in. Its not just about the charsheet, player personality and tendencies contribute too.
-
Balance is never the system or players' fault. It's on the GM to concoct situations that each player will feel useful in. Its not just about the charsheet, player personality and tendencies contribute too.
I agree its not just about the charsheet, the players and gm have a major role, but rules matter to. If one character option is broadly powerful and useful, and another character option only contributes in niche situations, I don't think its reasonable for the GM to have to constantly manufacture these niche situations so the player with the second option can avoid sitting around with nothing to do. Not every character has to have an answer for anything, but if you have a mechanical situation where someone just doesn't have as much to offer, then I think you need to address that at a mechanical level and just not a storytelling level.
-
The thing is, from what I can tell, most people who cry for "balance" and whine "imba! imba!" do not share your idea of "balance". I can understand your idea of it, but most arguments I've seen are claiming all characters should be equal in all ways, and I quite honestly believe that to be bull crap.
That's quite the straw man you set up there.
Also, the idea that people wanting balance in RPGs comes from MMOs is pure nonsense. Plenty of RPGs published before MMOs talk about game balance and such - Champions does, for example.
-
Wanting game balance is an idea that has been around long before DikuMUD ever crawled up onto Telnet. The simple explanation is that a game is about having fun, within the structure of the rules. However, no one likes to be Bulma next to someone else's Goku. To take D&D as an example, in 3.5 if you're a caster in a low level game, you suck, and hard, while the rest of your team is stronger, better equipped for fighting, and in general just better able to handle the challenges of adventuring. Take the same caster in a high level game, and you are practically a god, while the rest of the team is there to keep the nasties off you while you nuke them. D&D 4 is a well balanced combat system. However, they achieved that balance by stripping out everything that every other edition of D&D before it had done, and eliminating the customization that was the hallmark of 3.X. Which is why some people hate it.
-
You plan on running a single character through MORE than 20 years of game time, baron? If that's really the case, then why not plan on leonization costs to drop as that technology becomes as old as a 486 computer is today.