Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Solo on <11-16-12/0451:58>
-
Hi Guys,
I have been playing RPG for about 25 years and have played a lot of games includes Dongeon and Dragon (the orginal) and SR1-SR2. When creating characters, I have always tried to find a concept and created a believable individual whitout much thought for complete character optimisation. As long as it fitted within it background and intended role(s), i was happy with it. The flip side to this is a long time friend who would read the rules from A to Z and then find the most powerful character possible (or pretty much). Pretty much a question of personal choice, I am not judging him harshly, although sometime he would deserve it ;D.
Coming to my point. Looking at the characters proposed in this thread, i have come to change my view of character creation and am moving more towards an optimised design. This is presumably because seeing the threads and the comments on characters have made me aware of some point of rules which eluded me before (i am not one who cares most about RPG rules). However, optimising my characters also makes me feel like a sell out to the highest dice pool school of thoughts. Sure, I presume that if Shadowrunners were real they would hone their skills to be the best at what they do but my feeling is that full optimisation make characters lose this more human/flawed element.
Do you guys optimise your PC more because you play Missions in a convention setting or because you just want to be the best or do you create characters that make you smile with too much thoughts on actual effectiveness?
i blurbed a bit but I am not looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist but more to have peoples opinion on the role of optimisation for character creation and if certain campaign settings are more permissive or drivers of optimisation.
Cheers
Solo
-
a combination of Min/Maxing and good,interesting Charconcept (inkluding Backround)
is best ImO
Neither a Powered Up Min/Max Figure thats not muxch more than mere Numbers nor a Char that lacks ability for the Sake of a "Good Backroundstory" (I hope I made myself clear :) )
with a combination Dance
Medicineman
-
Hmmm...I start with an idea, then I give them what I feel are the minimum stats (I love using that little table on pg 119 of SR4A that gives an idea of how much skill a each point represents for this) for their abilities. I throw in any applicable qualities that seem thematically critical and use gear to cover what my qualities miss (like low-light vision for a leopard theme changling). After that I tweak so that the points all fit, use up any spare cash, and then proceed to play. So mostly theme but I will bow to the realities of the game and when points get tight, I will go for increasing what the character is good at over random skills.
-
Is a believable character, ... for example
a hacker/cracker whose life depens upon those gimmicks programs and options he has and his genereal skill
is it not in his interest to become the fastest, best, most brilliant, hacker of all time, so that he never get's cought, does his jobs as expected and generally should be considered way above average?
Is it not that only those people ever have the capability to pick up the fights with the AA and AAA corporations?
Is it therefore not mandatory to build a (still an example here) hacker that packs the best of the equipment, wares and stats to make a truly believable character roleplaying wise?
There are enough 300BP low level campaigns (took part in 2 by myself) to represent more down to earth characters representing more of a normal commoner trying to pick up the fight.
I think "selling out to the highest dice pool school of thoughts" is just what a Character would do in the world itself and so is mandatory roleplaying wise.
Why shouldn't a heavy weapons ork pick up alle the equipment and ware until he finds it as easy to do long bursts as single shots? (aka stacks recoil modifiers until the weapon dosn't even twitch anymore in his hands)
In the end you live in a world of constant trouble and action and want to max your survivability.
For example:
I'm playing a snob elve (face and hacker) who runs around in a tuxedo and constantly get's asked if he wants to put on some ("spare") ammo jacket from one of the team members.
Because in character they can't believe my characters going on runs without at least a bullet proof vest, they want to max out the armor of their whole team character wise, not only rules wise,
because they depend on it ... with their lives.
(he's stacking form fitting body armor actioneer buisness clothing and some other stuff so he's fine but keeps his looks)
-
To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.
Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality. For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely dumb and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?
Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But where min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.
-
To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.
Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality. For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely done and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?
Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But were min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.
That's an excellent point!
-
To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.
Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality. For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely done and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?
Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But were min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.
Yet another +1 to you sir.
-
With all the games I run, I ask my players to come up with a "concept", and then start writing the backstory and basics before making logistical character decisions. It helps expose min/max junkies who can't make sense of crazy and illogical choices that don't draw back and evoke the concept of the character.
-
I believe that optimization is no problem at all, unless that optimization is being taken so far by a player that it limits what they view as "viable concepts."
That believe is much less prominent here than on forums that talk about other RPGs, especially class based ones that don't adhere to random character generation - where you end up seeing advice threads ask "How do I make this character concept a little better?" get answered with "Don't play that concept, play this one instead because it is more optimal."
Go ahead and build your concept to be the best it can be at what it does - just don't start thinking one concept is superior to another in any way that matters - that's what I say.
-
Like you, I've been RPing across a variety of systems for the majority of my life, I find that I tend to build optimal characters as that's how I challenge myself RP-wise and I enjoy seeing how things can be pushed to be effective where it might not normally be. After 20+ years of RPing, I feel it's easy to fall into "archetypical" aspects of myself in RP, there's the roguish me, the brawler me, the wizardly me, etc. etc., and this cuts across genres (things like alignment in D&D are nice, but really only further reinforce the archetypical RP-aspects, lawful me, chaotic me, etc.). If I want do something really new to me, that will really challenge me to be someone different than I tend to be, the best way to do that is to be a genuine thematic departure - mechanically and RP-wise. Not only does it add mechanical reinforcement to my RP, but also it is fun and interesting to me to push a new aspect of a "same-ole" archetype.
For instance, right now in my Pathfinder campaign, I'm playing a free-hand fighter. It's kind of a crappy alternate class variant on the base fighter class, but if you combine it with the Dancing Dervish feat, and Duelist prestige-class, not only does it make an interesting character, but a pretty freaking effective front line warrior where you might not expect it. No shield, NO armor (literally, he doesn't wear armor because his AC and abilities are best without it), that's interesting and fun (to me), is it optimal? Heck yes, but only because I've taken advantage of certain specialist feats. Does he have an 11 in STR and 8 in CHA (as well as "Abrasive Attitude" trait, and is generally just a cocky bastard), but a 22 in DEX and 16 INT, yes - these are critical to taking advantage of the Dervish, FHF and Duelist - does that make me a min-maxer? I dunno, maybe under X-person's personal definition, can't say I really care though because if you played with me, you'd want me at your table permanently because I still have fun and make every attempt to engineer my playing to make the experience fun for others, whether as a DM or PC.
And D&D/PF is a little different than SR of course as it is more explicitly and mechanically role-focused, but the principle is really the same.
Edit: In SR, I always design my PCs to have at least two roles, one to help in combat, one for non-combat, and some builds you can do three and still be actually useful, but beyond that - you're going to be hard pressed to be effective at much, and having a larger set of crappier skills does not make you a better RPer, it makes you a character with a large set of crappy skills. I don't find that fun to play.
To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.
Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality. For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely done and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?
Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But were min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.
An interesting distinction. Where is the line drawn though? When does an optimal build become min-maxed? Not asking you to give a concrete answer, don't want to derail, more just a rhetorical challenge for the two schools of thought.
-
The line, IMO, is the intent. Intent to be part of the story, rather than to try and be the story by breaking the game for every one else. just my 2 pennies.
-
wow, some good answers and responses here!
Optimization? Min/Max? What's the difference? Sadly that wil depend on your viewpoint.
For me, the first sign that a character is Min/max'd is stats. are the 'primary' attributes set to the max of initial character creation, THEN enhanced with cyberware? Is there one or more atrrubutes set to the minamum for the race? This is a good warning sign that the player COULD be min/maxing (note i said COULD... some players have a concept in mind and can pull off such attributes, more later)
The next is skill selection and points. People who min/max generally focus only in one select area and ignore everything else. Thus you end up with a character that has his core combat (or magical, or hacking, etc) max'd out, then augmented with cyberware, and a near total lack of skills that don't somehow support the primary role. for example, you could end up with a character that has pistols at 5, automatics at 6, infeltration at 5, dodge at 5.... and nothing for any other skill! This, to me is an example of a min/max'd character.
Now, what about an Optimizied character? well, I'll put my own Face up to the acid test. The concept was a Face/pistoleer elf build. as such, he has good Charisma and agility (after racial bonuses, they are both 6, not including cyberware) his weakness is strength at a 2, body 4, willpower 3, initition 3, logic 2 (first thing I raised with karma). so as you can see, while he is pretty, and agile, he's not overly strong and initially not very bright... but can take a punch (or a bullet).
From there we move onto skills.... Since his primary role was as the group face, I decided to take the influcence group at 5, THEN pistols at 5. from there I spread my points around (pilot ground craft 2, armed combat (clubs) 3, infeltration 3, computer 3, hardware 1, and a couple other skills...)
From there, I picked out some contacts (ended up with 6, plus a free one from the GM, all at ratings 2/3/4)
and then cyber and equipment... first i got my equipment including 2 pistols ammo, armor and then my cyber... all said while the character wasn't 'Ideal', he was functional and useful to our group.
I think the biggest determination of min/Max Vs optimization is not actually the characters, but the GM and his style of play. some GM's are brutal in their style, throwing mooks equiped with betaware, security armor, automatics and dice pools of 16+ at their players (lets not talk about what they feel are ACTUAL challenges!) or have a simple, straight forward run'n'gun style to their games. These types of games promote Min/maxing simply due to either ignoring other aspects of the subtles of the game (sneaking,planning, schmoozing past the guards, instead of gunplay for example) or force the players to min/max (Tim's GMing this game, and I KNOW he will be giving his mooks wired reflexes 2, LMGs and dice pools of 14+. So in order to survive, I NEED to be better then that!)
If the GM is leveling the opposition of high caliber at the party from the get go, it forces players to Min/Max more then they Optimize. same with only focusing in on a single or dual aspect of the game while ignoring other aspects. Of course, the opposite is also true. If the GM is facing a game where the players are rolling 20+ dice from character creation, have nothing but combat skills and equipment to level a small city, he has only a few choices. Bore the party with card board targets, fustrate the party with social and stealth missions, or throw up challenfging opposition and ignore everything else.
Shadowrun is one of those games that is extremely hard to GM due to the wide differences in characters right from creation. Unlike pathfinder/D&D that has challenge rating for every monster, Shadowrun has "threat raatings" which really tell you nothing about the actual difficulty VS your players to any meaningful degree. I have seen a bunch of challenge rating 1 mooks TPK a party of 4 runners... and I have seen a dozen challenge rating 5 mooks get taken out in the first initiative pass by a party of 3...
If you are the GM and you are feeling that Min/Maxing is out of hand at your table, look to your GMing style and see if you could change up your style some. If you are the player and feel everyone else is Min/Maxing discuss with them why they are building their characters a particular way, or suggest to your GM to throw in a few little social/matrix/etc curve balls to the party (nothing extreme, but enough to show that having a more rounded character is to their advantage).... or, maybe it's time for you to find a new group of players that fits YOUR play style more? after all, we play this game to HAVE FUN! And if you're not having fun.... what's the point?
-
Oh you get it here too.
"Your character is suffering from the 'why is this character not an ork' flaw," is one that I was told once.
"Take a 1 Agility and get a cyberarm with enhanced agility that'll give you 22 for firearms."
Any character I see that has a 1 attribute makes me want to sort of cry.
-
Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality. For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely dumb and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?
Nope, sorry. I don't know who told you that is "min-maxing" but they lied to you. That is creating wide, deep weakness in the character, which is anathema to "min-max". MINIMIZE WEAKNESS and maximize strength is what min-max is, so by virtue of putting such glaring flaws in, the character can not be considered "min-max".
-
I really don't have a problem with optimization unless it either exploits holes in the rules or results in a bunch of characters who look strangely similar.
-
Yeah, the line can get a little blurry at times, I'll be the first to admit.
I guess the first and biggest different is intent; the difference between two mindset:
Minmax "I want to make the best Face" vs Optimized "I want to make an elf stripper who grew up as a poor SINless refugee in Tarislar but learned how to lie, manipulate, charm and secude her way out of the slums and now always gets her way"
Minmax "I want to throw the biggest fireball" vs Optimized "My Hermetic mage studies the way magic and the elements affect eachother and does shadowruns as an expert in offensive combat spells. He uses the money for the expensive magical equipment required and being able to test some of the more dangerous magical theories in practice is a nice bonus to him!"
During chargen I frequently find myself having slipped to the min-max side and have to tell myself to think of the character instead of thinking of this and that skill. And then I stop messing with the numbers, look at the charsheet as a whole and notice a hole here and a quirk there that just doesn't belong in an actual credible person and see if I can fix it.
Wow, 5 ninja's jumped past me!
This was an answer to: An interesting distinction. Where is the line drawn though? When does an optimal build become min-maxed? Not asking you to give a concrete answer, don't want to derail, more just a rhetorical challenge for the two schools of thought.
which now seems a bit obsolete, with stonefur using the same words in a much shorter answer :p
@A4BG: You could be right, I didn't check a dictionary, I was just using the words how I see 'em used most often in the gaming circles I frequent. :)
Anyhow, in the post(s) I made, Min-Maxing is obviously meant to be interpreted differently than that and from the replies from the other posters it seems they understood my intentions.
-
Nope, sorry. I don't know who told you that is "min-maxing" but they lied to you. That is creating wide, deep weakness in the character, which is anathema to "min-max". MINIMIZE WEAKNESS and maximize strength is what min-max is, so by virtue of putting such glaring flaws in, the character can not be considered "min-max".
I disagree. Dump statting an attribute rarely used in a characters primary role is a grand old tradition of min maxing.
-
Oh you get it here too.
"Your character is suffering from the 'why is this character not an ork' flaw," is one that I was told once.
"Take a 1 Agility and get a cyberarm with enhanced agility that'll give you 22 for firearms."
Any character I see that has a 1 attribute makes me want to sort of cry.
I hadn't seen that type of stuff yet, at least not when it seemed out of place to the advice request... but then, I have mostly only noticed advice requests that were basically "how do I kill jerks the best with [insert type of attack]?"
The closest I have seen to what I call "theory of mandatory char-op" is in the discussions of Initiative.
-
Oh you get it here too.
"Your character is suffering from the 'why is this character not an ork' flaw," is one that I was told once.
"Take a 1 Agility and get a cyberarm with enhanced agility that'll give you 22 for firearms."
Any character I see that has a 1 attribute makes me want to sort of cry.
I love these people at my table <evil grin>. It usually ends in tears, torn character sheets, and humiliation.
-
My humble opinion about this:
I think min maxing begins, and starts to be a problem, if you minimize traits beyond the norm.
Maximizing some skills is no problem, or shouldn't be a problem.
When you minimize something like charisma to the point that an ugly ork 3 year old is twice as good as you at the least... then you have a problem...
You got a Roleplaying problem because you can't effectively roleplay that kind of uncharismatic and disgusting, either you hide all the time or people run away all the time or just ignore you with disgust or don't notice you at all (like you don't get a coffe at starbucks even if you pay for it because you can't make yourself heard).
Basically this is not portrayable in an rpg game (exception maybe nosferatu in vampire maybe which just basically hide all the time except to likewise creatures, where again nosferatu basically can't interact with humans)
(Note imho in Shadowrun this isn't possible to build characters like these... soemthing like negative charisma for example)
As long as you don't go for those minimized stats it is not minmaxing and falls into the category of optimizing.
What can happen is that people build characters they are not capable of playing, that's a tough job for the GM to enforce the Character to the player up to the point where the GM has to say:
No you shouldn't/can't play that character because basically it doesn't fit the group/campaign or you just can't handle the stuff you put into your character or maybe even I as a GM can't handle it.
This is a GM call based on the Character, the people involved and maybe other factors too but if you don't go for extremely absurd stats it is a roleplay challenge (and it is for everyone not only the one who did the character).
And therefore it is the GMs job to decide what the players and he himself can handle and manage to portray and it is his job to say no.
It is the players job to accept any "no" the GM throws at him for this reason.
Is a character with 1s in all physical stats optimized? maybe
Is he minmaxed? not necessarily... he get's his fair share of problems (can't ever default on anything physical etc.)
Should it just plainly forbidden? hell no!
I really want to play that (from birth on) quadripilegic technomancer some time and I think it's fluff wise stupid to give him anything more then 1 in physical stats...
I mean... he can move his head... that's about it why would he ever develope a strength agility or anything score beyond that of an infant? he never used his body.
Is he playable? really depends... he's los if he ever falls out of his wheelchair or whatever he is using... but as long as he remains inside his Horseman he can
do everything he needs to on the physical space. So it is maybe a challenge but not plainout foobar.
Is a Troll with 1 Charisma and incompetent playable? yes but it is quite a huuuuge challenge to play someone that has trouble ordering a milkshake at a fastfood service and has no firends whatsoever.
(Except maybe what he thinks is a friend and is actually a Bully that takes advantage of him the whole day because he lacks means to comprehend and stand up against him on the verbal front)
The first time the player actually says "no" in character you should maybe have him roll, (oh can't incompetent, no skill, attribute of 1, dicepool 0... Nope, you don't say no you think it in your head but are too shut in to mention your thoughts on the matter)
Really there are poeple out there who want and maybe even like to play such characters, but it's the job of the GM to make sure the character plays by his stats.
It would of course be nice of the GM to reason with the player (you realize you have build such a social shut in that you would in theory never approach another human being to ask for anything and therefore will only ever have contact with service robots in the game?)
And to that concept/story/numbers first thing:
I can build my story after the number crunching part and then retrace what would be logical steps that lead to the character and get to my character, I did that and build my character with my GM and got the Character I wanted.
The GM was happy because he had the feeling my story was there first and then came the numbers... I was happy because I could play the character I wanted to (which was built by stats)
It helps nothing to enforce story first.
P.S.
Minmaxing comes from computer gams iirc where you minimize stats you don't need to maximize stats you need it is not about minimizing weaknesses it is minimizing to be able to maximize and is an accepted prize...
minimizing weaknesses can of course be a part of maximizing (maximizing defense/survivability) but usually you drop like charisma to get better physical stats and high charisma is not a weakness.
-
Rating 0 Untrained
The general baseline of knowledge shared by society. This is not incompetence; it
is the standard level of untrained knowledge held by any Joe Average.
As one can plainly see, defaulting on a skill is what the "average" person would have. Truly "min-max" would make use of this in areas beyond their specialty, as it by rules and "fluff" would put the character's ability in other areas within the realm of a 'normal person'.
P.S.
Minmaxing comes from computer gams iirc where you minimize stats you don't need to maximize stats you need it is not about minimizing weaknesses it is minimizing to be able to maximize and is an accepted prize...
minimizing weaknesses can of course be a part of maximizing (maximizing defense/survivability) but usually you drop like charisma to get better physical stats and high charisma is not a weakness.
That's not 'min-max'. That's twisting the system in knots to be better at specialty. An actual 'min-maxer' would never take Uncouth because it creates too big of a weakness in the character. This is a common misconception.
-
Nope, sorry. I don't know who told you that is "min-maxing" but they lied to you. That is creating wide, deep weakness in the character, which is anathema to "min-max". MINIMIZE WEAKNESS and maximize strength is what min-max is, so by virtue of putting such glaring flaws in, the character can not be considered "min-max".
I disagree. Dump statting an attribute rarely used in a characters primary role is a grand old tradition of min maxing.
That particular usage needs to be analyzed a bit further to see why it was called that:
When the term "dump stat" originated, the standard was to roll ability scores randomly. That would usually result in a low roll that needed to be put somewhere... and was usually "dumped" into whatever the character was already receiving a penalty to (like Charisma or a dwarf back then).
The reason was to minimize the weakness brought to the character from that low roll - the dwarf character didn't have a direct use for Charisma, so there was a lessened impact of placing the low roll there.
The term min/max applied because you were motivated by minimizing the impact of a low score that you could not simply choose not to have - not because you had specifically chosen to have your least relevant ability score as low as possible.
Min/max, as a term, does not apply to minimizing one ability score to maximize another - except in situations where that process minimizes an area of weakness that a character would experience if that choice were not made: a great example is D&D 4e. You could maximize your defense by choosing one of the attributes in each category (strength or constitution; dexterity or intelligence; wisdom or charisma) and leaving it at the minimum allowed value so that you could afford to raise the other higher for a greater tangible benefit.
In SR4, dropping a score to minimum is creating an unmitigated weakness - which is the opposite of min/maxing.
-
Oh you get it here too.
"Your character is suffering from the 'why is this character not an ork' flaw," is one that I was told once.
"Take a 1 Agility and get a cyberarm with enhanced agility that'll give you 22 for firearms."
Any character I see that has a 1 attribute makes me want to sort of cry.
I love these people at my table <evil grin>. It usually ends in tears, torn character sheets, and humiliation.
Really? At my table they seem to just get bored that I won't ramp up the game to the level where there is a difference between 22 dice to shoot someone 12 dice for the same - both tend to put the bad guy on the ground.
...then they get even more bored when stuff besides shooting people in the face comes up and they don't really have much to contribute.
I've had a lot of players request re-builds and tone their characters way, way down because of it - but never any tears or humiliation... and the only torn character sheet I've ever seen was when a guy had this character all built and ready and was very excited to play, but had missed the inherent limitation to a certain rule that made most of his character build illegal or irrelevant
-
In SR4, dropping a score to minimum is creating an unmitigated weakness - which is the opposite of min/maxing.
Again I disagree. I pretty frequently see builds that center on making one stat or a group of stats irrelevant then setting them to as low a level as possible. A good example would be the "never leaves the coccoon" hacker with 1 in all physical atts or the Sniper with 1 Strength mentioned earlier.
-
The line, IMO, is the intent. Intent to be part of the story, rather than to try and be the story by breaking the game for every one else. just my 2 pennies.
Here's the problem though with that line, within reason (barring the troll possession shaman tanks, etc.) the only time a build made within the rules is truly game breaking is because the GM isn't competent enough to do his job. If the GM tells his players he's running a low-power campaign and a player shows up with a min-maxed combat monster, that's a different problem (a bad-fit of a player).
-
In SR4, dropping a score to minimum is creating an unmitigated weakness - which is the opposite of min/maxing.
Again I disagree. I pretty frequently see builds that center on making one stat or a group of stats irrelevant then setting them to as low a level as possible. A good example would be the "never leaves the coccoon" hacker with 1 in all physical atts or the Sniper with 1 Strength mentioned earlier.
Just because you see it done doesn't change that it is the opposite of true min-max. In fact, actual min-max is rare to see in comparison to creating such drastic weakness in a character.
-
Just because you see it done doesn't change that it is the opposite of true min-max. In fact, actual min-max is rare to see in comparison to creating such drastic weakness in a character.
I still disagree. In a limited resources environment, like a point or priority build system, finding a way to free up points for strengths by not spending them on stats you plan never to use is min maxing. Wheter its effective min maxing depends on the GM and the build, but saying that dump statting is never part of min maxing in a build value system seems bizarre.
-
Just because you see it done doesn't change that it is the opposite of true min-max. In fact, actual min-max is rare to see in comparison to creating such drastic weakness in a character.
I still disagree. In a limited resources environment, like a point or priority build system, finding a way to free up points for strengths by not spending them on stats you plan never to use is min maxing. Wheter its effective min maxing depends on the GM and the build, but saying that dump statting is never part of min maxing in a build value system seems bizarre.
A 'dump stat' to a true min-maxer is having the attribute at the average level for the system, whereas a 'dump stat' for someone 'gaming the system' is having the attribute at 1. There are, however, plenty of reasons to have a 1 in an attribute (mainly physical ones though). The hacker/technomancer that never goes out and just sits in VR all the time probably wouldn't have more than a 1 in any physical other than maybe Reaction. Mental attributes are a bit different, as it's generally harder to play a lower intelligence than the player has than it is to play a higher--as an example.
As stated though, a true min-maxer would never consider the negative qualities like Uncouth due to the inherent and dramatic weakness it creates.
Min-maxing and 'gaming the system' are two different things, and people are trying to lump them together. Square peg, round hole.
-
Min-maxing and 'gaming the system' are two different things, and people are trying to lump them together. Square peg, round hole.
I'm not sure I accept your definition. Min Maxing and gaming the system are not identical, but a min maxer can game the system and can do so in the pursuit of min maxing.
-
Min-maxing and 'gaming the system' are two different things, and people are trying to lump them together. Square peg, round hole.
I'm not sure I accept your definition. Min Maxing and gaming the system are not identical, but a min maxer can game the system and can do so in the pursuit of min maxing.
They can, but that doesn't mean that it is always the case, which some people try to claim.
-
Min-Max is minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Powergaming/Munchkinizing is maximizing strength regardless of the weakness it creates, because you never intend to allow the weakness to occur. Optimizing is making a character optimal mechanically.
It all comes down to limits. The heaviest supporters of Powergaming/Munchkinizing will tout the Stormwind Fallacy at every turn to justify their heavily flawed character that doesn't fit their backstory but does what they want to do with as many dice as the system will allow. They make the leap that Optimization and Roleplaying being separated means they are automatic.
The line is very variable. I agree with the earlier poster that where the boundary begins to grey between optimization and powergaming is when the character you want to play isn't viable because it isn't optimal. When an Ex-Marine Tank Gunner or Sniper Street Sam becomes an augmented mind over matter adept demo expert assault trooper because the story changed (after reviewing the mechanics) it would be crystal clear.
On the other hand, changing from using Longarms (sniper rifles and shotguns) to Automatics (for a DMR Battle Rifle) isn't as shattering to the concept.
-
Again I disagree. I pretty frequently see builds that center on making one stat or a group of stats irrelevant then setting them to as low a level as possible. A good example would be the "never leaves the coccoon" hacker with 1 in all physical atts or the Sniper with 1 Strength mentioned earlier.
You can't choose to have a stat be irrelevant - the GM can allow a stat to be irrelevant, but that is different.
Never leaves the cocoon hacker has the weakness that, should he ever be traced (an eventuality, not a possibility) he will be able to do almost nothing to protect himself - and will have the amazingly money-sucking endeavor of moving his cocoon or rebuilding in a new location unless he wants to never be safe again.
The 1 strength sniper is a more readily weakness-suffering character - has to have a teammate help him into position because he can barely even manage to stand while wearing armor and packing his rifle and ammo, or risks being found, shot, and killed in short order because hiding from your enemies is never a sure thing.
In both cases the GM could choose to not have reasonable consequences of those character build choices come up - but in no case can the player truly say "I don't need this."
Just like all those characters that dump charisma and never take the influence skills... it's the GM ignoring or changing the rules that lets them manage work at a reasonable pay rate, and let's them get gear on the street through their face buddy without any punitive time or cost increases - it is not the game saying "yeah, only one character needs any charisma-competence at all."
-
Min-maxing and 'gaming the system' are two different things, and people are trying to lump them together. Square peg, round hole.
I'm not sure I accept your definition. Min Maxing and gaming the system are not identical, but a min maxer can game the system and can do so in the pursuit of min maxing.
They can, but that doesn't mean that it is always the case, which some people try to claim.
Not the claim I'm making though. However arguing that gaming the system in the pursuit of min maxing isn't min maxing seems strange to me.
[slipped]
I totally agree with the GM culpability part of that.
-
Min-maxing and 'gaming the system' are two different things, and people are trying to lump them together. Square peg, round hole.
I'm not sure I accept your definition. Min Maxing and gaming the system are not identical, but a min maxer can game the system and can do so in the pursuit of min maxing.
They can, but that doesn't mean that it is always the case, which some people try to claim.
Not the claim I'm making though. However arguing that gaming the system in the pursuit of min maxing isn't min maxing seems strange to me.
[slipped]
I totally agree with the GM culpability part of that.
Look at it this way. The weird builds that people come up with that would never function, but are billy bad-ass at something (troll tank with cha 1 and uncouth) are 'gaming the system', but they aren't min-maxing because of the inherent weakness created.
-
Min-Max is minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Powergaming/Munchkinizing is maximizing strength regardless of the weakness it creates, because you never intend to allow the weakness to occur. Optimizing is making a character optimal mechanically.
It all comes down to limits. The heaviest supporters of Powergaming/Munchkinizing will tout the Stormwind Fallacy at every turn to justify their heavily flawed character that doesn't fit their backstory but does what they want to do with as many dice as the system will allow. They make the leap that Optimization and Roleplaying being separated means they are automatic.
Well said. I was trying to think of a good way to compare munchkinism, optimization, and min-maxing. I tend to have no issue with the latter two but the first is too much "have my cake and eat it too."
IMO playing black-ops illegal operatives requires a degree of optimization or yiu are just not that good at your job and a liability not an asset. Of course the exact "required" amount of optimization varies between tables and games but I think most would agree that there's some threshold below which your character, who may (or may not) have a great story, is not pulling his weight compared to teammates.
For instance your Street Sam should probably be the scariest shooter, and min-maxing with CHA 1 could probide resources to facilitate that. Does tht create a weakness? Maybe; on the other hand, a troll with CHA 1, Nasty Vibe, and the intimidation-boosting gun mods might be min-maxed and/or optimized for the role but is still somewhat effective with one particular facet of social skills.
I tend to see few things as inherently munchkiny in SR4A. Mostly just pornomancers.
-
I would yet like to see some source and background knowledge where the term minmaxing originated.
neither http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing) nor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing) have good leads and a good agreed on origin.
Dwarfs in DnD which further minimized their charisma had very little will saves iirc and thus had a big whole in their defenses... I played 3.x only 2 times though and might be mistaken.
I still insist minmaxing means minimizing stats too free up points to maximize other stats you really really want to have unless given a serious source that provides enough background on the matter to make me reconsider.
I still stand on my point that as long as the GM enforces proper roleplaying and the players are interested in roleplay Players will come up with good Characters.
Maybe not on the first session... Noble Drake provided an example of his happening.
-
In fact I feel that optimisation and min/max are pretty the same. Just like where is the difference between influence and manipulation, they are just the two faces of the same coin.
I remember of a friend when he was asked what is your job ? His first answer was financial trick ("magouilles" in french) and as the person who asks didn't seem to understand he just triggered a : oh sorry, complex financial engineering with a smile. On one side it's just the dark side and on the other an acceptable one.
IMO the only importance is that the character is playable. Just with SR4 rules I can think of multiple ways of viable character with ones in every physical stats, some have been posted, others have been suggested in others threads. If you go this way there is still a danger of being tricked by your GM but it can be a lot of fun. Except if this one just bring you in situations that should not appear more than once in a life (and even once would be statistically a real bad luck). In this case it would be better for him to say it directly : well I have a problem with your character, can you rethink him a bit ?
In my experience in RPG, the real problem is not min/max or optimisation but how players handle the same things. That's why I really enjoy the character creation and critique where everyone try to optimise a character which is presented. Pointing out flaws, and rounding him in a more viable one. I say optimise and could say evenly min/max, we have enough threads to verify it. Some of you offer just slight adjustement on the concept, others offer their little tricks which minimise the cost or maximise the efficiency.
Where is the frontier ? Really I don't see it, we are in the grey between black and white. But the extrems were unplayable in both cases. No direction in the creation and everything in an average range will be difficult to play (white) while an over optimisation with a 1 in cha and no influence skills will also be difficult (black)
-
I would yet like to see some source and background knowledge where the term minmaxing originated.
neither http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing) nor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing) have good leads and a good agreed on origin.
That's because it is a slang term originating decades before either of those things even existed, and the people that write/edit tv tropes and wikis are very rarely the now 50 to 80 year old folks among whom the term originally came into existence back in the 70s.
Dwarfs in DnD which further minimized their charisma had very little will saves iirc and thus had a big whole in their defenses... I played 3.x only 2 times though and might be mistaken.
the dwarves to which I was refering were those of AD&D, which had only their number of henchmen, the loyalty of those henchmen, and typical social reactions of NPCs meeting them for the first time to worry about their Charisma score for (as there was not a save called "will" at that time - nor did ability scores have influence on saving throws without very situational application).
I still insist minmaxing means minimizing stats too free up points to maximize other stats you really really want to have unless given a serious source that provides enough background on the matter to make me reconsider.
Please define "serious source" and I will see what I can do.
-
okay let's say credible source... (like a written source that sounds believable or cite someone that is known to be believable in the best case with hard proof like a paper on linguistical studies focused on slang terms in the xy, an 80 year old who forgot what was happening decades ago hardly counts as credible source though)
as you stated though it is a slang term and those tend to have different meanings in different subcultures and different time
Since we are extremely derailing the thread though I'll stop going on about this for my part though
-
<snip>
I still insist minmaxing means minimizing stats too free up points to maximize other stats you really really want to have unless given a serious source that provides enough background on the matter to make me reconsider.
Please define "serious source" and I will see what I can do.
best I could find on short notice. Look at reference for more info....
Min/Maxing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing
Optimization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_(role-playing_games)
Munchkining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)
Twinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinking
http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Vocabulary.html
yea wikipedia is NOT the best source (I know) but sometimes, it's the best you are going to find....
-
Well I already linked the wikipedia page and quite honestly ... the information given there is very little....
the last link you provided states:
"Mini-Maxer: A player who attempts to exploit every aspect of a game's rules to maximise character power for minimum cost of any kind - hence, by implication, a variety of power-gamer."
Which is yet another take on the word min(i), and yet another source that does not say anything about minimizing weaknesses.
-
To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.
Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality. For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely dumb and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?
Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But where min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.
Wat?
None of this made any sense to me.
Min-maxing means: Maximizing Strengths while Minimizing Weaknesses. This means creating a character who is very good at very useful things, while not having any crippling weaknesses. A character who is a one-trick pony who can only pull off their all-important trick under only a very specific set of idealized circumstances is NOT Min-maxed. Such a character has tried to maximize their strengths without any concern for how bad or how numerous their weaknesses are.
Min-maxing is an approach - an overall methodology - to optimizing a character. When you min-max, you have carefully evaluated and managed both your character's strengths AND weaknesses, rather than just focusing on strengths.The two terms (Min-maxing and Optimization) are virtually synonymous because Min-maxing is the best way to optimize. A min-maxed character is weak in areas that are useless and strong in areas that are useful. Highly proficient min-maxers are highly accurate in assessing which abilities are useful and which abilities are useless. An incompetent min-maxer will misjudge this, often resulting in the false belief that a major vulnerability is merely a minor one.
Characters can be optimized at particular tasks without regard for the relative usefulness of those tasks - like achieving the highest possible to-hit, or having the biggest possible soak pool, or the biggest social die pool for example. This is not Min-maxing. Such optimization is useful in teaching us what constitutes a low, average, and high amount of talent in a particular task, according to the mathematics on which the game system is based. But under most circumstances, the most proficiently optimized character is one that was Min-maxed.
-
Well I already linked the wikipedia page and quite honestly ... the information given there is very little....
the last link you provided states:
"Mini-Maxer: A player who attempts to exploit every aspect of a game's rules to maximise character power for minimum cost of any kind - hence, by implication, a variety of power-gamer."
Which is yet another take on the word min(i), and yet another source that does not say anything about minimizing weaknesses.
This is because that wiki page was probably written by one of the many people who misuses the term. The above post by Captain Karzak is pretty much a perfect synopsis of what actual min-max really is, and, as you can see by the description he gives, it is not necessarily a bad thing to do.
Min-max character: A functional generalist character competent in two or three areas.
Munchkin character: A Technomancer character based off of Gary from Alphas
-
The objective for me is always to make a character I can enjoy for an entire campaign. Sometimes I intentionally play very weak characters, full of many aspects many others would consider "flaws in design". Some of the most fun I've ever had rping was playing weak characters that had to be resourceful and find ways to compensate for their low power. Other times I've played extremely powerful characters, if that's what I feel like at the time. Most of the time my characters fall somewhere in between. I never make a character with the goal of being the most powerful in the group. I always, always think a lot about my character's background and design him/her appropriately, even at the cost of character power.
On the topic of dump stats. That is one way of looking it at, another way is it doesn't make sense for certain characters to have a 3 Charisma. I just played through a Shadowrun campaign with a 1 in Charisma and it was a lot of fun rping a sociopath who was very unaware socially. I rp'ed her that way the entire campaign and it had a big impact on how others perceived her. It was a fun experience. In terms of character power, She was not min-maxed and I could have made her a lot more powerful if I wanted to. I stuck with her style the whole campaign and it was really a lot of fun. It really made me want to play a higher Charisma character next time, too. I don't feel there is anything wrong with having weaknesses, especially if the GM tries to model the game accordingly.
I'd say my rp group's biggest strength is focusing on the rp aspect of rpgs. We have extensive character histories, long opening stories or speeches to begin each session and sometimes multiple. We play a different kind of character every time and try to push our rp skills as far as we can go. We have had tons and tons of sessions with no combat and even play for more than 24 hours consecutively on some occasions. There are no hard and fast rules when creating characters. Just do what you like. I will just say this though, I personally feel you will have more fun if your character really comes to life and you make a big effort to get into the mindset of that character. Having a bunch of high stats can be fun for many players, sure, but really getting into character is where the greatest rp experiences can be had, that's just my opinion.
I don't think you need to optimize your characters, just do it if you feel like it. Do what you like at the time, that's the beauty of games like this. A lot of players on these boards say things like, "I ALWAYS take X piece of cyberware on my characters." Or, "I never play will Willpower lower than 3." Stuff like that is really not realistic. Sorry to step on anyone's toes but each person in the world is different and it's fun to rp those different personalities. There is no need to place restrictions on the design of your character! It's fun to explore all aspects of games and try a little of everything over time. Having big weaknesses can be just as fun as having big strengths, at least for my group. We try something new with every character, always trying to play new races, new qualities, new gear etc. We play like that in any rpg we play.
I'm not proof reading this so it's probably a bit scattered, but my general message is to just have fun doing what you like to do. Building all your characters with the ultimate goal of being as powerful as possible is a hollow experience for me, but if you like it, great, do it! I would only recommend you try it my way at least once because it can be a lot of fun.
This sub forum I have mixed feelings on. Part of me likes to come here to look at the characters people make. But another part of me doesn't like to see those characters picked apart by people that care nothing about the role playing aspects of the character. I constantly see advice like "This character should not use blades", and then the person that made the character goes ahead and takes that skill off their sheet in favor a more cookie cutter approach. This is especially bad when the character should have a skill like that, based on their character's history. I've had some of my characters picked apart for the most absurd reasons and always because my decisions were not "optimal". I never listen to advice like that, I'm here to have fun and play what I like, optimal or not. It's not like I don't understand how to min max, I just don't enjoy it.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself... just do what you like and try to have as much fun as possible. Trying new things can never hurt and being open minded is the first step to enhancing your role playing experience for yourself and everyone else at your table.
-
The objective for me is always to make a character I can enjoy for an entire campaign. Sometimes I intentionally play very weak characters, full of many aspects many others would consider "flaws in design". Some of the most fun I've ever had rping was playing weak characters that had to be resourceful and find ways to compensate for their low power. Other times I've played extremely powerful characters, if that's what I feel like at the time. Most of the time my characters fall somewhere in between. I never make a character with the goal of being the most powerful in the group. I always, always think a lot about my character's background and design him/her appropriately, even at the cost of character power.
On the topic of dump stats. That is one way of looking it at, another way is it doesn't make sense for certain characters to have a 3 Charisma. I just played through a Shadowrun campaign with a 1 in Charisma and it was a lot of fun rping a sociopath who was very unaware socially. I rp'ed her that way the entire campaign and it had a big impact on how others perceived her. It was a fun experience. In terms of character power, She was not min-maxed and I could have made her a lot more powerful if I wanted to. I stuck with her style the whole campaign and it was really a lot of fun. It really made me want to play a higher Charisma character next time, too. I don't feel there is anything wrong with having weaknesses, especially if the GM tries to model the game accordingly.
I'd say my rp group's biggest strength is focusing on the rp aspect of rpgs. We have extensive character histories, long opening stories or speeches to begin each session and sometimes multiple. We play a different kind of character every time and try to push our rp skills as far as we can go. We have had tons and tons of sessions with no combat and even play for more than 24 hours consecutively on some occasions. There are no hard and fast rules when creating characters. Just do what you like. I will just say this though, I personally feel you will have more fun if your character really comes to life and you make a big effort to get into the mindset of that character. Having a bunch of high stats can be fun for many players, sure, but really getting into character is where the greatest rp experiences can be had, that's just my opinion.
I don't think you need to optimize your characters, just do it if you feel like it. Do what you like at the time, that's the beauty of games like this. A lot of players on these boards say things like, "I ALWAYS take X piece of cyberware on my characters." Or, "I never play will Willpower lower than 3." Stuff like that is really not realistic. Sorry to step on anyone's toes but each person in the world is different and it's fun to rp those different personalities. There is no need to place restrictions on the design of your character! It's fun to explore all aspects of games and try a little of everything over time. Having big weaknesses can be just as fun as having big strengths, at least for my group. We try something new with every character, always trying to play new races, new qualities, new gear etc. We play like that in any rpg we play.
I'm not proof reading this so it's probably a bit scattered, but my general message is to just have fun doing what you like to do. Building all your characters with the ultimate goal of being as powerful as possible is a hollow experience for me, but if you like it, great, do it! I would only recommend you try it my way at least once because it can be a lot of fun.
This sub forum I have mixed feelings on. Part of me likes to come here to look at the characters people make. But another part of me doesn't like to see those characters picked apart by people that care nothing about the role playing aspects of the character. I constantly see advice like "This character should not use blades", and then the person that made the character goes ahead and takes that skill off their sheet in favor a more cookie cutter approach. This is especially bad when the character should have a skill like that, based on their character's history. I've had some of my characters picked apart for
This is a good sort of post for such a thread insofar as the poster just gave information on what works for him and his group without downing those who prefer a more "power" approach.
As to the 'extensive character histories' part, I used to do that (see Predator's bio in the VU93 Biography thread), but I stopped when I got stonewalled every time I tried to actually bring a character's goals and background into the campaign. After that, I just started doing only the barest skeleton of a background because of a feeling of "why bother if it's just gonna be ignored entirely".
I always, always think a lot about my character's background and design him/her appropriately, even at the cost of character power.
With this comment, I've had experience with gaming with someone who did this to a very big extreme, to the point where when "taking the background into account" their characters would be completely useless to the party, and it soured me on the method. It's not all that fun to have to compensate for a useless team mate after gameplay has started (that same player would throw a hissy if someone tried to guide them into being a bit more effective while still holding to the character).
-
I can understand your situation, All4BigGuns. It seems that everyone has their own take on what they want in their games. That's too bad that you had so many problems when trying to bring your background into the game. If that was me, I think I would just find a new group to play with. But I'm guessing it's not that easy :) Maybe if I play a game on these boards some time we could play together. But I might be too busy for some time.
About that very weak character, you didn't find it fun at all? :) I think having someone who is clearly the weakest in the group can be great. But I suppose Shadowrun has more of a professional feel to it and if someone flat out just sucks, realistically the team might not want that person watching their back lol.
-
]
What?
*lots of words*
Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.
For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,
Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.
Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.
-
I can understand your situation, All4BigGuns. It seems that everyone has their own take on what they want in their games. That's too bad that you had so many problems when trying to bring your background into the game. If that was me, I think I would just find a new group to play with. But I'm guessing it's not that easy :) Maybe if I play a game on these boards some time we could play together. But I might be too busy for some time.
About that very weak character, you didn't find it fun at all? :) I think having someone who is clearly the weakest in the group can be great. But I suppose Shadowrun has more of a professional feel to it and if someone flat out just sucks, realistically the team might not want that person watching their back lol.
It wasn't me playing those "weak characters", it was the other person, and it wasn't fun for the rest of us having to constantly work to compensate for them. And you're quite right in that it's not that easy to find a new group...at least not in the Bible Belt area of the country--which is why we're down to a four-man group after people moved away, lost jobs and homes and various other Real Life events messing with things.
]
What?
*lots of words*
Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.
For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,
Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.
Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.
You're right that they can mean different things to different people, but the next line is what Min/Max is. It has just gotten a very negative connotation due to the misuse of the term.
-
"Mini-Maxer: A player who attempts to exploit every aspect of a game's rules to maximise character power for minimum cost of any kind - hence, by implication, a variety of power-gamer."
Which is yet another take on the word min(i), and yet another source that does not say anything about minimizing weaknesses.
Uhm...it does in fact say just that, "for minimum cost of any kind." Weakness in a build is a cost of the build. Minimal weakness is minimal cost.
-
I have been gaming for more than 20+ years. The term is Maximum effect for minimum cost. In a points game that means a lopsided character with a huge skill or two and often huge holes that the player feels he will never have to pay for in the role-playing sense. Min/maxing crosses over to power gaming or munchining with relative ease and often.
Optimization is simply point efficiency in my book. It allows you to make a well rounded character and remain as true to your concept as reasonable.
-
"Mini-Maxer: A player who attempts to exploit every aspect of a game's rules to maximise character power for minimum cost of any kind - hence, by implication, a variety of power-gamer."
Which is yet another take on the word min(i), and yet another source that does not say anything about minimizing weaknesses.
Uhm...it does in fact say just that, "for minimum cost of any kind." Weakness in a build is a cost of the build. Minimal weakness is minimal cost.
I think the issue is in the 'weakness' part and how various people interpret it...
I understand the point you and All4 are trying to make and agree that it's not the proper terminology to use with the term (but it is used). Look at some other words that have had their terminology changed by slang and people who use them:
Bad: once bad meant, well bad! As in horrible, terrible... Bad! Now it's also meant to mean 'good' or cool, impressive...
Shit: once was an expression for excrement, poor quality, or irrelevance. Then in the mid to late 90's also came to mean 'the best', top o the line, good.
Fat: once meant obese, overweight, or a description of physical characteristics... And again in the mid 90's came to mean cool, awesome, great, etc. (usually spelled as phat for these expressions)
Wonderful thing about english and slang... It evolves with every generation, the meaning of words change as the (general) educational level of the population slides/progresses/changes (however you want to view it)
Also, the implied minimizing of a fault is subject to character creator: usually followed by errors in logic, or irrational understanding of principles.
For example: the afore mentioned "combat monster" who sinks a 1 into charisma and nothing into eteiqutte skills. The usual (il)logical line of thought is: "I want to dominate the battlefield, not talk to or befriend people because combat is the most important part if the game. Besides, it's the face's job to negotiate and talk.)
An other leap in (il)logic is the agility attribute of 1, then a cyberarm with an agility of 14 makes for the best ranged combat specialist. The fault in logic is that the boost to agility ONLY applies to tasks done with that singular arm! So if the character stands still and shoots a ONE handed weapon, he is right... The moment he runs'n'guns, shoots from cover, or any other actions involving other parts of his body, he defaults back to the AVERAGED agility if his total body. The same applies if using a two handed weapon and standing still. Now he has to find the AVERAGE of both arms. Or, if shooting a two handed weapon and moving, once again the total averaged agility.
Many 'Min/max' builds are a result of misapplied logic or faulty logic.... And sometimes trying to explain or show this is like trying to knock down a brick wall with you head; just not worth the effort.
••• forgive grammar, spelling, and structure issues please. In IPhone spellcheck hell ATM
-
Yes I think we do. This is why I like letting people just come up with character first. Then giving everything they need.
Sometimes this can mean millions of nuyen on an arcanoarcheology submarine, but so what. Its a fucking great plot hook, and great opportunity for new fights.Avoiding depth charges from corp x while rescuing person y or whatever.
When you say to people Hey do what you like, come up with characters, its works much better than here's some bp. which people spend like money they get the "I must get the most bang for my buck mentality" and then the role-playing kinda comes after or somewhere in that process.
When you get the freedom to build what you like you don't mind so much their weakness because that's exactly the character you wanted weaknesses and all. Though what i often find is the weakness don't end up being what mechanics he cant do, but end up being that characters personality attitude professionalism, not the 6 in charisma that he glitched.
You get things like the stated up jackpoint character's just -3 on pretty much everything :p Not a 6 4444441111 Skill stated character.
-
Wow, all I can say is
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/21059000/ngbbs4bcb94af4bd47.jpg)
I've only read the first page so far, but I'm impressed by all the awesome responses. I'm also surprised no one has brought up the Stormwind Fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy) (graph (http://bildupload.sro.at/a/images/stormwind.png)) yet.
Anyway, I'll have a more detailed response once I've read the whole thread, but so far I'm giving two thumbs up for the awesome JackPoint community.
-
That would be because almost every part of Loremaster's Stormwind Fallacy thread is nonsense.
The position taken, that rules never effect roleplay, is absurd. I think i'm going to start calling it the Loremaster Fallacy.
-
That would be because almost every part of Loremaster's Stormwind Fallacy thread is nonsense.
The position taken, that rules never effect roleplay, is absurd. I think i'm going to start calling it the Loremaster Fallacy.
I believe the point they(he) is trying to make is that:
A: The rules govern the 'world' and how the character interacts with the world. And how the character is created.
B: optimization is not at the detriment of ROLEplay.
C: ROLLplay and ROLEplay are not polar opposites (but can be, based on the player)
-
That would be because almost every part of Loremaster's Stormwind Fallacy thread is nonsense.
The position taken, that rules never effect roleplay, is absurd. I think i'm going to start calling it the Loremaster Fallacy.
I believe the point they(he) is trying to make is that:
A: The rules govern the 'world' and how the character interacts with the world. And how the character is created.
B: optimization is not at the detriment of ROLEplay.
C: ROLLplay and ROLEplay are not polar opposites (but can be, based on the player)
I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.
But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.
-
Alright, finished reading the thread.
About the Stormwind Fallacy, basically what it boils down to is some people think that Optimization and Roleplaying are mutually exclusive. Think of it like a line. At one end is Roleplayer and at the other end is Optimizer:
Roleplayer <-------------------+-------------------> Optimizer
...and supposedly you can't move further toward one end of the spectrum without neglecting the other end. This is the fallacy, because they are not mutually exclusive. If you did try to plot it, it would be more like the graph I posted earlier showing optimization on one axis and roleplaying on the other. So you can be good at both optimization and roleplaying, good at one or the other but not both, poor at both, or somewhere in the middle.
The reason I brought it up is because it seemed like in the Original Post, Solo was saying that he used to feel this way about how Optimizing is to the detriment of Roleplaying, but then slowly realized he was wrong.
As to the question in the thread title, I don't think you lose anything when optimizing your character. If you already have a good character concept that will be fun to roleplay, that concept will not be negatively affected by making your character more powerful in game terms. Alternately, if you have a weak character concept that concept is neither going to be improved nor hindered by your level of optimization. If your concept is based around certain flaws to enhance roleplaying, you should still be able to create a strong, viable character despite those flaws.
In other words, you don't have to gimp your character to enhance your roleplaying experience. All4BigGuns mentioned a player in his group who did this. Such players tend to be drama queens; while there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with favoring roleplay over mechanics, such players really should be playing rules-lite or free-form roleplaying games rather than rules heavy games like Shadowrun.
I do want to enter the semantics debate regarding the meaning of "min/max." Here's how I see it:
Optimizer: wants to create a powerful character to increase their enjoyment of the game.
Powergamer/Munchkin/Twink: wants to create a powerful character to "win" or break the game.
I had always used "min/maxxer" as synonymous with powergamer/munchkin/twink. However, it seems the majority here think that mix/max really should be synonymous with Optimizer instead. It's possible I've been using the term wrong all along.
-
Optimizer: wants to create a powerful character to increase their enjoyment of the game.
Powergamer/Munchkin/Twink: wants to create a powerful character to "win" or break the game.
thats very close to how I see it
with the Min/Maxer being the Superlative(increase ?) of the Optimizer
and the Munchkin being the Superlative of the Powergamer
HokaHey
Medicineman
-
I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.
But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.
I think Crunch understands the Stormwind Fallacy. I think he is arguing that Matt James (Loremaster is his site) is invoking it in a flawed defense of 4e D&D.
So we can stop telling Crunch what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about - Crunch's argument is not with Tempus Stormwind, rather his argument is with how Matt James employs the fallacy to defend the indefensible (yes, I hate 4e).
-
I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.
But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.
I think Crunch understands the Stormwind Fallacy. I think he is arguing that Matt James (Loremaster is his site) is invoking it in a flawed defense of 4e D&D.
So we can stop telling Crunch what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about - Crunch's argument is not with Tempus Stormwind, rather his argument is with how Matt James employs the fallacy to defend the indefensible (yes, I hate 4e).
Honestly it has nothing to do with 4E. I'm not a 4E player, but like all systems it has its strengths and weaknesses. My argument is that the Stormwind fallacy is cited to counter an argument that no one is making.
As it is used here, and as far as I can tell on the 4E site, the Stormwind fallacy is used to argue that rules have no influence on roleplay, nope not ever, and that there is absolutely no difference between systems when it comes to roleplaying. As invoked here, Monopoly is every bit as condusive to roleplaying as Vampire second edition. And if someone brings a MDC mecha into your TMNT game that will have no effect on the enjoyment of the other players. That's the Loremaster Fallacy.
That's balderdash. Rules can effect roleplay, and power gaming can be disruptive, and not one damn thing about the Stormwind fallacy says otherwise.
That's not to say that optimisation is always disruptive. For instance, a character whose concept is that he's an Olympic archer should make a character who can shoot a bow at an Olympic level. I'm a fan, especially in action and adventure games, of making sure that the players build characters that will feel competent and exciting. Optimisation is a part of that.
My first suggestion to anyone dealing with a disruptive player of any kind is to lay out clear expectations and have a conversation with their players. Honestly as a GM I won't run for a player I can't have a conversation with about an issue. That's the luxury of having more people who want to play with me than I have time to play with and having a group of gamers that I know and enjoy playing with.
However for new GMs, or GMs dealing with groups that they are unfamiliar with these issues can be more difficult to handle. In fact issues of party balance and power level are often the hardest issues for a new GM to master after those of pacing and focus.
But around here if you ask for help or suggestions dealing with disruptive power gamers at your table you will immediately be met with a chorus of "Stormwind Fallacy." The argument being that because power gaming is not always disruptive there is never any reason to look for solutions to powergaming.
Again, balderdash.
-
But around here if you ask for help or suggestions dealing with disruptive power gamers at your table you will immediately be met with a chorus of "Stormwind Fallacy." The argument being that because power gaming is not always disruptive there is never any reason to look for solutions to powergaming.
Again, balderdash.
I see your point here. The fact that you can roleplay AND optimize at the same time should not be used to defend disruptive powergaming. I only brought up the fallacy because it seemed relevant to the questions Solo asked in the OP.
-
I understand the point Loremaster et al are trying to make. Unfortunately the position they are arguing against is an absurdist strawman reduction of the argument it's used as a false argument by authority to impugn.
But I don't want to derail the thread so I'll drop this now.
I think Crunch understands the Stormwind Fallacy. I think he is arguing that Matt James (Loremaster is his site) is invoking it in a flawed defense of 4e D&D.
So we can stop telling Crunch what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about - Crunch's argument is not with Tempus Stormwind, rather his argument is with how Matt James employs the fallacy to defend the indefensible (yes, I hate 4e).
Honestly it has nothing to do with 4E. I'm not a 4E player, but like all systems it has its strengths and weaknesses. My argument is that the Stormwind fallacy is cited to counter an argument that no one is making.
As it is used here, and as far as I can tell on the 4E site, the Stormwind fallacy is used to argue that rules have no influence on roleplay, nope not ever, and that there is absolutely no difference between systems when it comes to roleplaying. As invoked here, Monopoly is every bit as condusive to roleplaying as Vampire second edition. And if someone brings a MDC mecha into your TMNT game that will have no effect on the enjoyment of the other players. That's the Loremaster Fallacy.
That's balderdash. Rules can effect roleplay, and power gaming can be disruptive, and not one damn thing about the Stormwind fallacy says otherwise.
That's not to say that optimisation is always disruptive. For instance, a character whose concept is that he's an Olympic archer should make a character who can shoot a bow at an Olympic level. I'm a fan, especially in action and adventure games, of making sure that the players build characters that will feel competent and exciting. Optimisation is a part of that.
My first suggestion to anyone dealing with a disruptive player of any kind is to lay out clear expectations and have a conversation with their players. Honestly as a GM I won't run for a player I can't have a conversation with about an issue. That's the luxury of having more people who want to play with me than I have time to play with and having a group of gamers that I know and enjoy playing with.
However for new GMs, or GMs dealing with groups that they are unfamiliar with these issues can be more difficult to handle. In fact issues of party balance and power level are often the hardest issues for a new GM to master after those of pacing and focus.
But around here if you ask for help or suggestions dealing with disruptive power gamers at your table you will immediately be met with a chorus of "Stormwind Fallacy." The argument being that because power gaming is not always disruptive there is never any reason to look for solutions to powergaming.
Again, balderdash.
And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.
-
]
What?
*lots of words*
Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.
For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,
Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.
Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.
I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....
-
]
What?
*lots of words*
Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.
For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,
Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.
Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.
I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....
Well, there shouldn't be any arbitrary "consequences" levied beyond the natural consequence of not having anything to do when your character's narrow focus has nothing to do with the scene at hand. Anything more is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily antagonistic toward the player, IMO.
-
The objective for me is always to make a character I can enjoy for an entire campaign. Sometimes I intentionally play very weak characters, full of many aspects many others would consider "flaws in design". Some of the most fun I've ever had rping was playing weak characters that had to be resourceful and find ways to compensate for their low power. Other times I've played extremely powerful characters, if that's what I feel like at the time. Most of the time my characters fall somewhere in between. I never make a character with the goal of being the most powerful in the group. I always, always think a lot about my character's background and design him/her appropriately, even at the cost of character power.
On the topic of dump stats. That is one way of looking it at, another way is it doesn't make sense for certain characters to have a 3 Charisma. I just played through a Shadowrun campaign with a 1 in Charisma and it was a lot of fun rping a sociopath who was very unaware socially. I rp'ed her that way the entire campaign and it had a big impact on how others perceived her. It was a fun experience. In terms of character power, She was not min-maxed and I could have made her a lot more powerful if I wanted to. I stuck with her style the whole campaign and it was really a lot of fun. It really made me want to play a higher Charisma character next time, too. I don't feel there is anything wrong with having weaknesses, especially if the GM tries to model the game accordingly.
I'd say my rp group's biggest strength is focusing on the rp aspect of rpgs. We have extensive character histories, long opening stories or speeches to begin each session and sometimes multiple. We play a different kind of character every time and try to push our rp skills as far as we can go. We have had tons and tons of sessions with no combat and even play for more than 24 hours consecutively on some occasions. There are no hard and fast rules when creating characters. Just do what you like. I will just say this though, I personally feel you will have more fun if your character really comes to life and you make a big effort to get into the mindset of that character. Having a bunch of high stats can be fun for many players, sure, but really getting into character is where the greatest rp experiences can be had, that's just my opinion.
I don't think you need to optimize your characters, just do it if you feel like it. Do what you like at the time, that's the beauty of games like this. A lot of players on these boards say things like, "I ALWAYS take X piece of cyberware on my characters." Or, "I never play will Willpower lower than 3." Stuff like that is really not realistic. Sorry to step on anyone's toes but each person in the world is different and it's fun to rp those different personalities. There is no need to place restrictions on the design of your character! It's fun to explore all aspects of games and try a little of everything over time. Having big weaknesses can be just as fun as having big strengths, at least for my group. We try something new with every character, always trying to play new races, new qualities, new gear etc. We play like that in any rpg we play.
I'm not proof reading this so it's probably a bit scattered, but my general message is to just have fun doing what you like to do. Building all your characters with the ultimate goal of being as powerful as possible is a hollow experience for me, but if you like it, great, do it! I would only recommend you try it my way at least once because it can be a lot of fun.
This sub forum I have mixed feelings on. Part of me likes to come here to look at the characters people make. But another part of me doesn't like to see those characters picked apart by people that care nothing about the role playing aspects of the character. I constantly see advice like "This character should not use blades", and then the person that made the character goes ahead and takes that skill off their sheet in favor a more cookie cutter approach. This is especially bad when the character should have a skill like that, based on their character's history. I've had some of my characters picked apart for the most absurd reasons and always because my decisions were not "optimal". I never listen to advice like that, I'm here to have fun and play what I like, optimal or not. It's not like I don't understand how to min max, I just don't enjoy it.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself... just do what you like and try to have as much fun as possible. Trying new things can never hurt and being open minded is the first step to enhancing your role playing experience for yourself and everyone else at your table.
Playing a very flawed character for obvious RP reasons is very different to playing an imbalanced character for dice pool reason. I totally agree with your view here.
RP characters while flawed will have a rich background explaining the choices made at character creation. This I would be ready to access at a table. The previously mentioned sniper with nothing but a shooting skill is something i would be more reluctant.
-
]
What?
*lots of words*
Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.
For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,
Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.
Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.
I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....
Well, there shouldn't be any arbitrary "consequences" levied beyond the natural consequence of not having anything to do when your character's narrow focus has nothing to do with the scene at hand. Anything more is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily antagonistic toward the player, IMO.
Except that the character does not live in a little box while a run is not taking place. Which is what a lot of power gamers seem to think is happening.
The character should have a life... Shadowrunning is what the character does to support his life. Just like you go to work to support your life, you are not defined by your job (unless you let it consume you) after all, you have hobbies (like shadowrun!) and activities you like to partake in, you have friends that you hang out with (I hope!)
All these things are generally missing from a power gamer build. It's like the character folds up into a little ball and sits in a dark corner till someone in the team comes and gives him a kick, points him at an objective and says "Go".
Which again, falls back to the GM for allowing and condoning such play styles. If the GM is not making use of the "after action time" to help promote ROLEplaying, it just more justification to the power gamer for ROLLplaying...
-
And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.
With all due respect that's not what I've seen in the last several threads that touched on the subject.
-
And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.
With all due respect that's not what I've seen in the last several threads that touched on the subject.
I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).
-
]
What?
*lots of words*
Yeah, Min/Max, Twinking and Optimization means different things to different people.
For example the Min/Max you described to me sounds like Optimization,
Min/Max, as I learned it is: Maximizing your character towards one end and giving minimal, often times non-existent, efforts to round out your abilities. The sniper, listed before, was a fine example of it. IE: You're playing a dice pool, or one trick pony.
Like the Minotaur in one campaign I was in. The player's whole reason for making the character was to have a 22P unarmed punch. A 3 composure roll and the vengeful negative quality.
I agree with this. A lot of the discussion revolves around the meaning of such words while the discussion should focus on the consequences of min/maxing optimising twinkling etc....
Well, there shouldn't be any arbitrary "consequences" levied beyond the natural consequence of not having anything to do when your character's narrow focus has nothing to do with the scene at hand. Anything more is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily antagonistic toward the player, IMO.
I don't mean anything ominous with the word consequences.
Just that the character will suck abysmally at anything but his chosen path. If I accept a PC at a table I will do my best to ensure they have fun.
-
And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.
With all due respect that's not what I've seen in the last several threads that touched on the subject.
Again with all due respect not what I've seen. I have seen several people get jumped and cudgeled with Stormwind for daring to ask for help with what they perceive as a problem in their games though.
I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).
-
Except that the character does not live in a little box while a run is not taking place. Which is what a lot of power gamers seem to think is happening.
The character should have a life... Shadowrunning is what the character does to support his life. Just like you go to work to support your life, you are not defined by your job (unless you let it consume you) after all, you have hobbies (like shadowrun!) and activities you like to partake in, you have friends that you hang out with (I hope!)
All these things are generally missing from a power gamer build. It's like the character folds up into a little ball and sits in a dark corner till someone in the team comes and gives him a kick, points him at an objective and says "Go".
Which again, falls back to the GM for allowing and condoning such play styles. If the GM is not making use of the "after action time" to help promote ROLEplaying, it just more justification to the power gamer for ROLLplaying...
What if they're simply expecting that their defaulting the social skills (if such is the case), as an 'average joe' would, be sufficient for the time spent in down time hanging out and such?
Hobbies are generally represented by Interest type Knowledge skills (which since BP generation gives free points there, they probably will have some--less likely in karma generation since Knowledges have to be bought out of the pool of points given).
Most people probably don't play games for "a day in the life of...", so not 'playing out' down time is not necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly doesn't mean the GM is 'condoning Munchkin behavior'. It simply isn't fun for everyone. If it is for you, fine, but that's no reason to dog someone who doesn't think it is.
And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.
With all due respect that's not what I've seen in the last several threads that touched on the subject.
I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).
Again with all due respect not what I've seen. I have seen several people get jumped and cudgeled with Stormwind for daring to ask for help with what they perceive as a problem in their games though.
Or maybe people were trying to give insight to help them realize that there wasn't a problem, and they just ignored it while making claims that fit the fallacy. I've seen that one before too.
-
telling someone that is having trouble with their game that there's not a problem because you disagree with them, and then using the fallacy to argue something that the fallacy in fact does not say is exactly what I'm talking about.
There isn't necessarily a correlation between bad roleplaying and power gaming. (The actual fallacy)
Is not the same as
Power Gaming is never bad roleplaying or disruptive. (What I see the fallacy used for around here.)
-
Power Gaming is never bad roleplaying or disruptive. (What I see the fallacy used for around here.)
Never seen this one before, but I have seen people making the claim that it always is (those are the times I've mainly seen the fallacy mentioned).
Anyway, we ain't gonna agree on this, so let's drop this line.
-
The way I read the Stormwind Fallacy, it's not actually saying anything about optimization or power-gaming at all.
My interpretation is that it's aimed at the false idea that a "weak", "flawed", or "sub-optimal" character is somehow better for RP than one that is mechanically optimal... as if somehow actually being well-suited for the line of work you're pursuing is going to diminish your ability to role-play... when, of course, it's actually quite the opposite.
By that I mean that big, glaring flaws are crutches used by RPers who want nice, easy hooks so they don't have to think too hard about their characters. To make an optimized character "pop," you actually have to dig into the little details to bring them to life.
I've written highly involved characters, complete with detailed personal history, family ties, a Character Questions writeup, 3x3 contact grid, a well-researched cultural identity, and their own set of personal agendas that don't have anything to do with the mission at hand. Characters that I knew, inside and out, like they were a real person.
They also happen to be extremely good at their jobs.
So, yeah, I have to call bullshit any time someone says that playing a "flawed character" is somehow better for RPing.
-
I personally enjoy playing characters who have some sort of flaw. I just enjoy it more. Its a personal preferance. After all, roleplaying isnt a competitive sport, so there really is no 'right way' of playing a game. Just play your character the way you enjoy it most, and providing it works with your fellow players and GMs style, then just have fun.
In Shadowrun, I want my character to be competent in his speciality, whatever it may be, but its also a matter of comparision. Some games, a dice pool of 8 is fine, other games characters have dicepools of 20. Some games dont require 'optimisation' for the character to be considered competent, some games do. I think this is the real challenge. How good do you need to be to be considered 'good' at what you do? Some games the sniper just needs a good weapon, a solid dice pool and an agility of 4 or 5. Other games require him to have his agiity much higher due magic/augmentation. Some games the cops are 1 IP, have standard armour, skills and weapons. Other games throw enemies with augmentation or other enhancements as standard. Its a in-group balance issue... but not neccessary a roleplaying style issue. After all, either way doesn't directly impact how to roleplay your character.
Oh, and good roleplaying doesn't have to be taken to the extreme either. A 'flawed' character doesn't have to be disruptive to the game and the team. I have a great player in my current campaign who plays an infiltration experts... who also happens to be a bit of an elitist clean freak paranoid. The one game were the team needed to break into a safe house via the sewers... or the times his paranoia has kicked in... only for him to be right. Classic moments in our game. Good character play, not disruptive, creating moments we all still joke about months later. And thats why I game.
-
I very much like Savage worlds as a System... why?
Because You choose 3 hindrances for your character which define him (you dont have too but actually but about 100% of the time you do).
These hindrances are one of 2 mechanics how you can get bennies (think edge), and generally define your character.
On top of that you drop 6 attribute points 1 edges(think positive quality like mage/ambidex for example) and 15 skillpoints.
And 4 free points (1fp = 1/2 edge,1skillpoint,1/2 attribute point).
What happens then? You play your weaknesses because everytime you play your weakness and get trouble for that you get a benny.
So you try to choose hindrances you can play and indulge... sometimes plot becomes 2nd to playing hindrances,
and I had so much roleplaying experiences with people who otherwise rollplayed all the time.
No one I played savage worlds with ever had problems with you going for a minimized or a maximized stat...
It's more the other way around... you are playing a stupid guy with no int? and added some hindrance like "real world naivitée" just that there is only the real world?
Nice... that will produce a lot of roleplaying experiences.
You are playing a heard of hearing character with bad eyesight and no perception skill?
A stubborn Brute with max strength and a vengefull attitude go for it.
The system (as I know and played it) empathizes those concepts and suddenly they get very realistic and provide means to roleplay.
And suddenly all is about this concept, which you support with the correct stats.
That is something that I alwys miss playing Shadowrun...
Oh you are playing an Asthmaticand allergic to pollen streetsam with an allergy to sea salt?
Well you are going to the docks (sea salt) of Seattle into a dusty (astmathic) warehouse in spring when pollen are flying (alergic).
"I activate my compressed air Tank."
Ok back to plot.
(This for example is a fine example of minmaxing and optimizing... you minimize resistances to allergens (minimizing) to get points for X (optimizing) and then optimize the flaw away with an air tank. Imho the optimization part where you again drop your weaknesses is not part of the minmaxing but apparently we all have a different meaning of that term.)
Your flaws never seem to get into play.
You are playing a media addict with multitasking and are constantly surfing while doing anything else?
You don't even need to roleplay that instead it is more adequate to shut up and not constantly drop random stuff like watching a new trailer to my favorite movie star x/y because it's only irritating to everyone.)
Vindictive? either you munchkin it up like some posts above and got a dice pool that's below the treshold so you don't bother to roll or you got so many dice anyway that you don't need to fear the consequences anyway.
Those are not hindrances that's minor annoyances which Shadowrun has, and which are easily circumvented.
(Simsense Vertigo and gremlins for a Bio Shaman that never ever touches technology anyway, bio incompatibility for mages that never get ware...)
When you are able to just ignore the flaws of minmaxing it get's ridiculus and you can suddenly optimize in ways that can indeed cause GM aggro, for the right reasons...
Having a realistic fun to play Character means having Character flaws... look at your daily soap... your favorite fantasy/sci-fi book or your favorite movie...
without flaws it'ld all be boring...
So you should embrace your flaws, they are what's making roleplaying worth the time.
And that's where I come back to topic and say:
We do looses something in optimisation if we "optimize" away every chance to roleplay our Character as a Character.
We don't if we just go for imba high skills which is irrelevant for roleplaying anyway above a certain dicepool.
-
Sometimes, as a GM, you gotta take control of a player's flaws and work them into the story/game. You don't have to be mean about it... But sometimes gotta be done (and can be humorous too)
Example:
The street Sam in one of my games too the dependent flaw at the +20% lifestyle rating. He decided that his character had a live in girlfriend that was a shopaholic (even paid the +10% roommate fee) and kinda left it at that... Didn't make any mention of the girlfriend for the next 5 runs.
Well after doing a run and getting a reasonable payday, the team was thinking about some downtime and he was thinking about some new cyberware. Then I hit him with this:
Me: "So John, you come back to your flat, and open the door.... Make a perception test."
<he rolls, and states that he slips his hand into his jacket to grab his pistol>
Me: "the first thing you notice is that in your living room are a number plastic bags that look to be full of something. You hear muffled movement and voices from the bedroom"
John: ".... I keep my hand on the my gun and creep down the hallway to the bedroom, and listen at the door" <rolls infeltration and then perception>
Me: "you move like a shadow down the hallway... Inside the bedroom you can hear Susie <his GF> and another female voice... They seem to be discussing the color of shoes and dresses."
John: "???.... Oh no.... I open the door"
Me: "in the room you see Susie in a two piece outfit you have never seen before, on the bed are an other 2 dozen articles of clothing, and a half dozen shoe boxes. A woman you have never met before is giving the outfit Susie is wearing a critical eye and states 'hmmm, that looked better in the store... Too bad it's non refundable..' "
John: "?!?!?! Oh gawd!"
Me: <rolls dice> "they hear you gurgle, and turn towards you, Susie has a huge smile in her face 'John! You're back! This is Victoria, my best friend from college! She was in town on a business trip and looked me up! We decided to meet at the aztech mall for coffee and this boutique was having a closing out sale so we just HAD to look around... Everything they had was just fantastic so we bought a few things..."
John: <to me> "how much did she spend???"
Me: "A quick check of your accounts shows a total purchase of $2500... With a non refundable notice attached"
John: <to me> "can I shoot her?"
Me: "you could... But is that any way for a loving boyfriend to act towards his girlfriend?"
John: <grumbles, fumes>, <to me> "can I shoot Victoria??"
Me: " you could, but somehow I think Susie would be really upset if you put two in chest one in the head of her old college friend..."
John: "that great honey! I'm.. Glad you had fun shopping" <to me> " I drop a quick message to Marcos, my fixer contact and see if he's got and quick work that needs doing..."
•••••
And thus the hard luck life of a street Sam at my table, got a little harder... He chose the flaw, he forgot about it... I reminded him, and life went on (with him remembering to take an extra 20% off in lifestyle payments for Susie clothing addiction)
-
I had always used "min/maxxer" as synonymous with powergamer/munchkin/twink.
I'm not about to break out the "I've been gaming for X years," measuring tape because who honestly cares?
The above is pretty much how its always been looked at in the gaming groups I've been in.
Min/Max = Powergamer = Sucks the fun out of the game for anyone that's not min/Maxed.
IE: "Anything I throw at you that would be a challenge would kill everyone else, anything I throw at them that won't kill them you obliterate without effort and act bored."
-
Sometimes, as a GM, you gotta take control of a player's flaws and work them into the story/game. You don't have to be mean about it... But sometimes gotta be done (and can be humorous too)
Example:
*words...brilliance....*
Said it before, saying it again, if you ever run a Shadowrun game via virtual tabletop, save me a slot.
-
And just as often you have the opposite where people say "BOOT THEM OUT OF YOUR GROUP NAO!" as a knee-jerk reaction to just hearing anything close to "power-gamer". THAT is when Stormwind starts getting pointed out.
With all due respect that's not what I've seen in the last several threads that touched on the subject.
I've seen it several times. Maybe not the exact phrase, as that would probably bring a hammer down on their heads from the mods, but the gist has been such. It does seem that the biggest offender is gone though (saw where the individual is now listed as "guest" in a thread that he had posted in).
The thread was someone asking for help to minimize powergaming or min/maxing as they are the same. I responding with what I do and that is use karmagen and tell people I want characters that are playable. I also look for dumpstats, super high dice pools and lack of social skills as a tip off that the character may have problems in the game. All of those are a sign of min/maxing/powergaming. The point is I want my players to have fun and have the ability to contribute in the leg work and social situations as well as the fighting. Gun fights happen in shadowrun but they are not the only things that happen in shadowrun.
Optimizing a character is about points efficiency not about powergaming. You are looking at where you might have overspent without reason and correcting it. This helps create a more well rounded character.
All you could argue was that a 1 stat is perfectly acceptable under any condition and I disagree. I think it is a sign of powergaming or min/maxing and I am very hesitant to allow it unless you show me good reason as part of your background and you understand you will have to roleplay it.
The statement about there are no ineffective character only ineffective player is that ultimately min/maxing & powergaming in a player problem not a character problem. When you are in a role-playing game then min/maxed & powergaming characters often have nothing to do until there is a fight. The best shadowruns often time have very limited fights scenes or spurts of heavy fighting and times of working together to find a way to get the job done without getting caught (leg work and social stuff).
I have never said boot the powergamer or min/maxer. You work with them, enlighten them and let them understand they are going to have to roleplay the character negative qualities and all.
-
Never seen this one before, but I have seen people making the claim that it always is (those are the times I've mainly seen the fallacy mentioned).
Let's face it, Powergaming is always bad when it's causing a disruption in the game. Does that mean it's always bad? No. If the entire group is set and ready to go Powergaming, then it's just as viable a way to play as any other, everyone's having fun, everything is kosher.
If it's causing issues, then everyone obviously isn't set to Powergame. If the GM is having issues with a player/some players Powergaming, then the GM is obviously not set to run a game at that level, or most of his players aren't. Otherwise, the GM would be asking for advice on getting players to Powergame up to par rather than how to deal with the Powergaming issue.
Nothing to do with Roleplaying at all, yet the Fallacy always gets thrown in as though it's some sort of magical shield to hide the real issue behind.
I've written highly involved characters, complete with detailed personal history, family ties, a Character Questions writeup, 3x3 contact grid, a well-researched cultural identity, and their own set of personal agendas that don't have anything to do with the mission at hand. Characters that I knew, inside and out, like they were a real person.
You're jumping right into the same pool here. Putting background work into a character does not make the character any better roleplayed than a character with no background work put in. Roleplaying occurs after the game starts. Background just helps you better define the role you'll be playing.
I've seen players write a twenty page story, do the friend/enemy matrix, and even plot out their address on Google Maps only to spend the entire campaign roleplaying slightly worse than the dead bugs in my porch light. Could have replaced them with some cardboard standups and things couldn't have been much worse.
On that same note. Giving a character a flaw does not immediately make them roleplayed either. Like a background, it's just another tool for creating that role that the player wants to play. Both Flaws and Backgrounds help keep the game interesting and personal, but the players have to continue to make them relevant in the game through roleplaying.
My interpretation is that it's aimed at the false idea that a "weak", "flawed", or "sub-optimal" character is somehow better for RP than one that is mechanically optimal... as if somehow actually being well-suited for the line of work you're pursuing is going to diminish your ability to role-play... when, of course, it's actually quite the opposite.
By that I mean that big, glaring flaws are crutches used by RPers who want nice, easy hooks so they don't have to think too hard about their characters. To make an optimized character "pop," you actually have to dig into the little details to bring them to life.
And we can see where you completely jumped in. Again, competency mechanically has nothing to do with ability to be roleplayed. Now, matching ratings to your story to make things make sense should be heavily encouraged (or required depending on the GM), but there is no reason that a four year runner is better roleplayed than a green runner that hasn't really figured out what he's doing yet.
Flaws are no more crutches than optimization is, to any degree. They are simply a tool to develop a character, and are vital to the fiction process (which roleplaying is a part of). Every single lead fiction character I can think of (from good fiction at least) has big gaping flaws and a rich backstory. To argue that one is better than the other is no different than the argument the Stormwind Fallacy disproves. Gaping flaws and juicy though out backstories are not mutually exclusive.
Also, flawed characters can be optimized just as well as non-flawed characters. They just can't be min/maxed since that requires minimizing cost and flaws are a cost.
If you already have a good character concept that will be fun to roleplay, that concept will not be negatively affected by making your character more powerful in game terms. Alternately, if you have a weak character concept that concept is neither going to be improved nor hindered by your level of optimization. If your concept is based around certain flaws to enhance roleplaying, you should still be able to create a strong, viable character despite those flaws.
Key pretty much summed it up perfectly here. Optimizing your character based on your concept does not cause you to lose anything from optimization. Where loss begins to occur is when you begin optimizing your concept to make your character more optimal and it doesn't resemble what it began as. Sure, it can still be roleplayed perfectly, and I haven't seen anyone say otherwise, but once you begin this process it leads to a narrowing of concepts that are viable to be played. On a similar note, it usually winds up causing the player to look down on those unwilling to optimize their concept rather than their character.
Where optimization of a character crosses into optimization of a concept is a blurry line that leaps and bounds back and forth depending on the character, the concept, and the player. One player making an operative from the middle east may consider augmentations to break his concept, while another may not. Similarly one player may consider augmenting his adept to break his concept, while another may not.
The key is to not force your beliefs based on the concepts you usually build onto players that have a considerably different concept for their characters. This happens quite constantly (every augmented adept thread for instance).
Wonderful thing about english and slang... It evolves with every generation, the meaning of words change as the (general) educational level of the population slides/progresses/changes (however you want to view it)
Shhh now...you're getting dangerously close to magazine vs...uhm...that other word people use. ;D
-
+1
-
Sometimes, as a GM, you gotta take control of a player's flaws and work them into the story/game. You don't have to be mean about it... But sometimes gotta be done (and can be humorous too)
Example:
*words...brilliance....*
Said it before, saying it again, if you ever run a Shadowrun game via virtual tabletop, save me a slot.
And one for me. That was just plain awesome.
-
Shhh now...you're getting dangerously close to magazine vs...uhm...that other word people use. ;D
You mean clip? *pokes CanRay with a stick* :P
-
I think he got issues remembering the word issue?
-
The thread was someone asking for help to minimize powergaming or min/maxing as they are the same. I responding with what I do and that is use karmagen and tell people I want characters that are playable. I also look for dumpstats, super high dice pools and lack of social skills as a tip off that the character may have problems in the game. All of those are a sign of min/maxing/powergaming. The point is I want my players to have fun and have the ability to contribute in the leg work and social situations as well as the fighting. Gun fights happen in shadowrun but they are not the only things that happen in shadowrun.
With the "super high dice pools", well, that's just how capable the player wants their character to be. It does NOT mean that they are a "bad" player, nor is it a "warning sign" of disruptive behavior forthcoming.
On the lack of social skills subject since so many of the people who harp on this bring up the rating comparison table, here's a quote from that table.
Rating 0 Untrained
The general baseline of knowledge shared by society. This is not incompetence; it
is the standard level of untrained knowledge held by any Joe Average.
Athletics Example: Has played catch with friends in the backyard.
Firearms Example: Point the barrel, pull the trigger.
Technical Example: Can send an email, browse a Matrix site, or store data
on a commlink.
Social Example: The typical man on the street.
Vehicle Example: Basic operator’s license. Can get from here to there, but can’t
handle driving in adverse conditions.
Knowledge Skill Example (Academic): High school student. Screamsheet-level
of knowledge.
Knowledge Skill Example (Street): Never visited Seattle before, but can find it
on a map.
Emphasis mine. As you can plainly see, taking this into account, having 0 ranks in the social skills is the social ability of the typical Sixth World citizen. This means that making the Street Sam that takes 0 ranks in these skills and an average to slightly below average Charisma to have to roll the skill to buy a burger at a fast-food restaurant or buy necessities is being an antagonistic bully toward that Street Sam's player (this is sometimes caused by a desire to Power Trip--often this desire is a subconscious one).
Below is the rating that you're claiming is rating 0.
No Rating Unaware
A complete absence of knowledge or practice. Generally, this degree of ignorance
can only be achieved with the Incompetent negative quality (p. 95). A character
rated “unaware” in a skill may not default for that skill.
Athletics Example: Couch potato.
Firearms Example: Never seen a gun before.
Technical Example: Shapeshifter, Luddite, or someone born before the
Computer Age.
Social Example: Hermit.
Vehicle Example: Has never seen a car before.
Knowledge Skill Example (Academic): Mentally damaged in some manner.
Knowledge Skill Example (Street): Lives alone in a cave.
Emphasis mine. As can be plainly seen, it requires a negative quality such as Incompetent, Uncouth, Uneducated or the like to be at this level of inability in a skill.
The statement about there are no ineffective character only ineffective player is that ultimately min/maxing & powergaming in a player problem not a character problem. When you are in a role-playing game then min/maxed & powergaming characters often have nothing to do until there is a fight. The best shadowruns often time have very limited fights scenes or spurts of heavy fighting and times of working together to find a way to get the job done without getting caught (leg work and social stuff).
If the character has nothing to do when there isn't combat, that is what the player wants, and that is perfectly fine, as that is merely the player's tastes and no one has the right to say they are wrong for wanting only that, but it is still a weakness in the character, so the character is not Min/Max.
YOUR opinion may be that the best 'runs have very limited combat, but that does not make it true for everyone across the board. For some people, the action of combat is the most fun aspect of any game.
-
I think a lot of powergaming isssues can be avoided if optimizers include a bit of metagaming in their optimization. Look at what kind of game the GM is running, and what kind of challenges are being presented, and how often the GM will utilize things such as social skills, hacking, or stealth. A character that is fine for one game might be overpowered, or underpowered, in another game. This goes both ways. You don't want to bring your tweaked-out vatjob into a game where everyone is playing "starting" runners. But you also don't want to bring your generalist into a game where 90% of it is combat, social skills are never rolled, and an NPC does the hacking.
One interesting thing I have noticed is that everyone assumes the powergamer will be suffering from dump stats or other serious weaknesses. But that is not always the case. A lot of times, a character will be more powerful than others because of making better use of stacking dice pool bonuses, or the relatively cheap and easy boosts that you can get from magic or augmentation. Say, one street samurai gets wired reflexes: 2 and muscle toner: 2. Another street samurai gets wired reflexes: 2, reaction enhancers: 2, muscle toner: 4 (with the restricted gear quality), and a suprathyroid gland (with the restricted gear quality). The second street samurai spends a bit more on gear and the two restricted gear qualities, but his Attribute bonuses more than make up for it, giving him points for a few extra skills (and later on, he will be able to get some skillsofts to be even more well-rounded), and he has higher dice pools for all of his Agility and Reaction-based skills.
An open character creation system like Shadowrun's lets you create a wide variety of characters, but their power levels go all the way up and down the chart. More powerful characters are not always going to be disruptive, though. The character sheet alone is not really a good litmus test for a problem player, unless it goes beyond mere optimization and into shoddy rule exploits. The fit of the team is more important than the (almost unavoidable) disparate power levels.
Looking at the original poster's problem:
Optimization and roleplaying are not polar opposites - they can go hand in hand, because if your optimization makes sense for your role, it makes the character more believable. I think the OP's problem is that sometimes, the most optimal choice can be different than what would fit that particular character. Say, you are playing someone with high physical stats and middling mental stats, and you envision this character as a human. Obviously, not playing such a character as an Ork will cost you a net 20 build points. Or you envision your hard-bitten former Vory enforcer as the kind of guy who would use a battered AK-97 assault rifle. Obviously, not getting an Ares Alpha will cost you 2 points of integral recoil compensation.
I think, generally, you need to do what makes sense for that character. Having a coherent character that makes sense in your own mind is better than squeezing every last bit of effectiveness. This assumes an otherwise effective character built both to assume a particular role (sniper, etc.), and one built with some deference to the realities of the system (uncouth is a "trap" option, unaugmented mundanes are very challenging to play). It's a matter of balance. Make a few small sub-optimal choices if they fit the character, but still keep in mind how your dice pools and other stats will actually work out in the game world.
-
But you're all missing the point/ You're all right in your own ways but what you're missing is that when you're focusing on mechanics you're not focusing on story. Its a cop out to shape your story around the optimized charecter you've built.
When you think of what would be fun to play its doing certain things, acting in certain ways. Express those first. Then build the character.
This is why people should make their charecter with the gm, before even looking at the books.
designing the character without spending bp. Deciding what they good at and bad at. Not doing the "lets see how good we can make him at as many things as possible"
Once youve done that try and build it.
Do that with all the characters in the champaign.
Compare their bp costs. Fudge things so that everyone has the same bp costs.
-
I generally start with a concept, roughly stat it out, then polish it as I work on the background. Characters are not free-form writing assignments. They are a mix of stats and story that are your avatar in a game world. The rules that govern that game world, and the function characters are supposed to perform in the game, should be given due consideration rather than dismissed as being unimportant compared to the character's backstory.
The story first approach may work for you, but only if you have a GM who does it that way - tweaking the number of build points to accommodate the concept. Otherwise, it will be frustrating; you will run out of points, then you will need to cut things that are an integral part of the character's backstory. I find it works better, and results in a more "organic"-feeling character, if stats and backstory are done in tandem.
-
And it works just fine to do the stats first and worry about the background later as well.
-
And it works just fine to do the stats first and worry about the background later as well.
I actually couldn't agree more with this. Especially with players who are less familiar with a world, letting them pick a skill set and build to that can be a lot less intimidating than expecting them to have a full back story when they sit down to play.
-
Yes it works to do stats first and worry about background later. I didn't say it didn't work. but what it does is forces you in to certain backgrounds. Or makes you create rather off the wall explanations to justify your character. Therefore it restricts your character. Not necessarily a bad thing because it can lead to interesting things. But its still restrictive where it need not be.
-
Yes it works to do stats first and worry about background later. I didn't say it didn't work. but what it does is forces you in to certain backgrounds. Or makes you create rather off the wall explanations to justify your character. Therefore it restricts your character. Not necessarily a bad thing because it can lead to interesting things. But its still restrictive where it need not be.
You do realize that you can actually do them both at the same time, right?
Nobody's forcing you to have your stats set in stone before you start writing your background. If you come up with something that doesn't quite jive with your sheet, you can go back and tweak your stats.
Conversely, of course, if your background can't justify your character's "core competencies" then you need to go back and change your background so you actually have a playable character... for whatever dice-pool is "playable" at your table.
In short... the stat block and the background are two sides of the same coin. You need both, and neither is more important.
-
[You need both, and neither is more important.
I'd say rather that the importance of each is determined by the style of your table and GM. I've played in damn good games where the stat block was rarely if ever used. I've also played in damn good games where the characters back story was relatively unimportant and the characters stats and current behavior were all that was important.
-
Yes it works to do stats first and worry about background later. I didn't say it didn't work. but what it does is forces you in to certain backgrounds. Or makes you create rather off the wall explanations to justify your character. Therefore it restricts your character. Not necessarily a bad thing because it can lead to interesting things. But its still restrictive where it need not be.
You do realize that you can actually do them both at the same time, right?
Nobody's forcing you to have your stats set in stone before you start writing your background. If you come up with something that doesn't quite jive with your sheet, you can go back and tweak your stats.
Conversely, of course, if your background can't justify your character's "core competencies" then you need to go back and change your background so you actually have a playable character... for whatever dice-pool is "playable" at your table.
In short... the stat block and the background are two sides of the same coin. You need both, and neither is more important.
There's only one person that CAN force that. Oneself. ;)
I've played in damn good games where the stat block was rarely if ever used.
I question the possibility of such a thing. With no combat (which requires use of mechanics), IMO, a game becomes incredibly dull and boring very rapidly.
-
I question the possibility of such a thing. With no combat (which requires use of mechanics), IMO, a game becomes incredibly dull and boring very rapidly.
Which is just a way in which all people are not identical.
Good games with little reference to mechanics are easily possible. I've played in sessions that focused on RP or puzzle solving that were incredibly engaging and enjoyable. I've also run sessions in which combat and mechanical interaction were at best side shows that worked very well.
I'm not saying that everyone has to play in such games or want to. Just as people like different books and movies people like different types of games as well.
-
I question the possibility of such a thing. With no combat (which requires use of mechanics), IMO, a game becomes incredibly dull and boring very rapidly.
In fact I used to play Sventh sea RPG and the opposition level is pretty good. You deal brute squad easily with one or two rolls, henchmen in a nearly real fight but supposed to be in your advantage and the true vilains who are on par with you and should be epic.
But throwing dozens of brute in a fight has something of the swashbuckling old movies and is pretty fun.
BA
-
I question the possibility of such a thing. With no combat (which requires use of mechanics), IMO, a game becomes incredibly dull and boring very rapidly.
In fact I used to play Sventh sea RPG and the opposition level is pretty good. You deal brute squad easily with one or two rolls, henchmen in a nearly real fight but supposed to be in your advantage and the true vilains who are on par with you and should be epic.
But throwing dozens of brute in a fight has something of the swashbuckling old movies and is pretty fun.
BA
I've been in combats using those 'brute squad' mechanics, and it was interesting. GM used them in an L5R game.
-
... when you're focusing on mechanics you're not focusing on story. Its a cop out to shape your story around the optimized charecter you've built.
Wow, can't do much but just grin and shake my head anymore.
-
I question the possibility of such a thing. With no combat (which requires use of mechanics), IMO, a game becomes incredibly dull and boring very rapidly.
Which is just a way in which all people are not identical.
Good games with little reference to mechanics are easily possible. I've played in sessions that focused on RP or puzzle solving that were incredibly engaging and enjoyable. I've also run sessions in which combat and mechanical interaction were at best side shows that worked very well.
I'm not saying that everyone has to play in such games or want to. Just as people like different books and movies people like different types of games as well.
Good point, there. I can totally agree that dfferent people look for different things from their games.
My personal PoV is that of a long-time MUSH player. If I want diceless, freeform social RP I'll just log on and play over telnet where it's easier to immerse myself in the character. I play "crunchy" games to get my tactical mojo on, and create my characters appropriately.
I can totally see where people who don't get regular "soft RP" fixes would want to make the system less mechanically dominated, though.
... when you're focusing on mechanics you're not focusing on story. Its a cop out to shape your story around the optimized charecter you've built.
Wow, can't do much but just grin and shake my head anymore.
Agreed.
It's a fine demonstration of the universal nature of fanatical extremism, though.
-
Good point, there. I can totally agree that dfferent people look for different things from their games.
My personal PoV is that of a long-time MUSH player. If I want diceless, freeform social RP I'll just log on and play over telnet where it's easier to immerse myself in the character. I play "crunchy" games to get my tactical mojo on, and create my characters appropriately.
I can totally see where people who don't get regular "soft RP" fixes would want to make the system less mechanically dominated, though.
Sure. Mostly if I want to get my tactical mojo fix I play Battletech or one of the half dozen or so board or war games I play. (I'll also give a shout out to the Battletech A Time of War Tactical Addendum which is a very elegant RPG scale war game.)
What I'm looking for in a game like SR is a blending of the hard and the soft. Tactics and acting. Crunch and fluff. Story and action.
But that's just my preference, and I'm, not trying to force it on anyone. What irks me is when players do try to force their play style on others.
As for fanaticism I'd say that neither All4BigGuns opinion that good non combat RPGs are impossible, nor Katrex's opinion that mechanics distract from story are examples of it. I'd just say that its two players with different styles expressing their preference. The fact that Guns got a reasoned response and Katrex got called a fanatic is an example of the behavior I've been objecting to here.
-
Thank you crunch, I was about to comment on that myself. People seem to think im saying that they are mutualy exlusive. Im not saying that at all.
Im saying when mechanics influence your charecter... well they're influencing your charecter. Its obvious isn't it?
There will be people forced in to the shadows who at the start DONT have their core competancies,
Let's take a corp wageslave that finds out too much and has to go on the run. Saying "oh hes not good enough mechanicly" so he then becomes a gun fanatic who went to the pistol range every other day to get a 6 in pistols
That's viable, and im not saying its wrong. It's created a character with a back story. But it does detract from the fact that at first your idea was this is an ordinary guy who gets mixed up in the wrong business.
I would, Give him in debt and with a basic skillwire, have him perhaps get addicted to combat drugs in play, max his edge even if it isn't optimal, because he is damn lucky hes somehow survived this far, high mental stats even if he isn't a mage or technomancer.
He wont be as optimised but for me anyway trying to roleplay how he would deal with the horrors of the shadoworld, is much more interesting than, the guy in the same situation who was a corporate experiment whos auged up to the teeth and spent his childhood hunting animals and is therfore no stranger to death.
I hope you understand the distinction Im making. And im not always doing it, i also often do it yourway. But i think this way does create more interesting characters to roleplay, Although granted it can be as if you're playing on hard mode.
-
Im saying when mechanics influence your charecter... well they're influencing your charecter. Its obvious isn't it?
There will be people forced in to the shadows who at the start DONT have their core competancies,
Let's take a corp wageslave that finds out too much and has to go on the run. Saying "oh hes not good enough mechanicly" so he then becomes a gun fanatic who went to the pistol range every other day to get a 6 in pistols
That's viable, and im not saying its wrong. It's created a character with a back story. But it does detract from the fact that at first your idea was this is an ordinary guy who gets mixed up in the wrong business.
I would, Give him in debt and with a basic skillwire, have him perhaps get addicted to combat drugs in play, max his edge even if it isn't optimal, because he is damn lucky hes somehow survived this far, high mental stats even if he isn't a mage or technomancer.
See but all you're saying is that what interests you, rp-wise, is an everyman being thrown into the world of runners. This build is no less focused on mechanics than the spec ops sniper, just the mechanical focus is being ill-fitted for the shoes he's wearing. The mechanics are guiding your character creation here no less than my ex-corporate confidence man who's an augmented adept.
Neither is made in a vacuum, whether you're saying "I build around my story", you still know what it's gonna mean mechanically. And when I say, "my group needs a face, I'll make a good face", I already have in my mind how a top notch face would get into the world of running.
If you are building a character like the above for Missions, I'm sorry but those guys who sit down at that Con table and run circles around your ex-wageslave are not bad-rpers, you just made a dumb choice for a Missions character. If you're making that kind of character, I have to assume everyone is on the same page (making mooks), if not - and your GM just said, "bring SR characters next week", you cannot blame other players for building what they enjoy, if their was no dialogue. If you are consistently under powered or one guy is consistently over-powered, someone might just needs to find a new group. If someone isn't interested in rping, then they definitely need to find a new group, but you can't tell that just from their build.
-
As for fanaticism I'd say that neither All4BigGuns opinion that good non combat RPGs are impossible, nor Katrex's opinion that mechanics distract from story are examples of it. I'd just say that its two players with different styles expressing their preference. The fact that Guns got a reasoned response and Katrex got called a fanatic is an example of the behavior I've been objecting to here.
Really? Because the way I read it, Katrex just outright dismissed any possibility that a background, no matter how detailed or well-characterized, after you start on your sheet might create a "genuine" character, and declared that the One True Way to build a character is to write your background then, and only then, once the background is set in stone, fill in your sheet.
Probably just an unintended implication of the word-choice, but it's the same style of dismissal I hear from certain religious types when they foo-foo scientific knowledge that contradicts their religious dogma.
--- --- ---
Now, as for Katrex's own commentary...
There will be people forced in to the shadows who at the start DONT have their core competancies,
Problem is, 400 BP characters aren't "noobs". They're right at the start of their career, sure, but they're supposed to be developed enough to actually get booked for "real" work by a Fixer. These people aren't charities and, as said before, your teammates aren't there to baby-sit you. If you can't do your job, why are you being hired instead of one of the guys who can?
And don't get me wrong, there's a world of difference between "the best of the best" and "good enough." I think that message may get a little lost in the shuffle, some times.
You've got to start somewhere, and people aren't going to be paying the money the Big Dogs demand to do jobs like a simple grab'n'go theft or low-security extraction, but there's a point where you have to ask yourself why they're bothering with you when the out-of-the-book Gangers are just as good, and will probably work for cheaper.
Let's take a corp wageslave that finds out too much and has to go on the run. Saying "oh hes not good enough mechanicly" so he then becomes a gun fanatic who went to the pistol range every other day to get a 6 in pistols
That's viable, and im not saying its wrong. It's created a character with a back story. But it does detract from the fact that at first your idea was this is an ordinary guy who gets mixed up in the wrong business.
If he's a trigger-man, then he dang well better have some shooting skills at the start. Otherwise, again, why did he get hired as a trigger-man?
If he's not a trigger-man, shooting isn't one of his "core competencies" anyway, so it doesn't matter if he can't shoot. Sure, it's a good idea to be able to handle a gun, given the line of work, but it's not the Face/Hacker/Whatever's job to sling lead, so it's not a huge deal if they can barely hit the broad side of a barn.
I would, Give him in debt and with a basic skillwire, have him perhaps get addicted to combat drugs in play, max his edge even if it isn't optimal, because he is damn lucky hes somehow survived this far, high mental stats even if he isn't a mage or technomancer.
He wont be as optimised but for me anyway trying to roleplay how he would deal with the horrors of the shadoworld, is much more interesting than, the guy in the same situation who was a corporate experiment whos auged up to the teeth and spent his childhood hunting animals and is therfore no stranger to death.
That's a bit of a straw man, there, Katrex. You don't need to be some freakish, SURGEd vat-job to be "competent." Just take all the common and customary steps that anyone would reasonably take to be good at their high-risk-high-reward profession. Stuff like a trigger-man having Muscle Toner 2, an Agility of at least 4(6), and a Shooting Skill of at least 4.
10 dice before modifiers isn't too high a bar, is it?
As for roleplaying horrors... how about a kid that grew up half-starved in the Barrens and learned how to fight because it was that or keep getting the shit kicked out of him by bigger kids who wanted what little he had and, eventually, got noticed by one of the bigger gangs and got some more skills and access to some 'ware (probably Second-Hand, of course), and is finally "graduating" to being a Shadowrunner?
The very fact that the kid sees those horrors as "the way things are" has its own potential for gritty, GrimDark nastiness if you play up the "hardened" attitude, rather than simply dismissing it... especially if there's a sheltered Wageslave type in the party as well to get freaked out over it. ;)
I hope you understand the distinction Im making. And im not always doing it, i also often do it yourway. But i think this way does create more interesting characters to roleplay, Although granted it can be as if you're playing on hard mode.
I wouldn't call them "more interesting" as much as simply "less professional."
That's not a bad thing, mind you, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. It really depends on what you want from the game, and how you, as a player, are going to interact with your character on a meta level.
For example, I enjoy social RP, especially if it's random stuff happening during "slow points" in a job when we have to wait for something, but I don't want to spend 3 sessions on down-time chit-chatting with family and friends. I get enough "just folks" RP on the MUSHs I play on.
I also take pleasure in designing, planning, constructing, and generally "scheming" type activities. That means that 1) optimizing a character while preserving their uniqueness as an individual entity is an enjoyable challenge in its own right, and 2) I need to play a character that can reasonably do the same things... because, otherwise, it's just no fun for me. I hate not being able to actually act on the tactical insights I might have because it's not the "in character" thing to do.
-
Just a dude I think Instead of trying to be "Right" you should try to instead understand and communicate. If you think im dismising something out of hand just ask
"Are you implying that theres never possibility that a background, no matter how detailed or well-characterized, after you start on your sheet might create a "genuine" character,"
And I would have said, "No" thats not what im saying, The characters can still be genuine, anything can happen in shadowrun and not all of it is rediculous :P but for me personally they miss something, and ive been trying to explain how.
Thats what the Op was asking. Does optimisation miss something, For me the answer is "Sometimes, yes"
Now if you don't understand my perspective fair enough.
"Sorry I don't understand katrex, I've never felt limited by mechanics", or" Ive always enjoyed creating a backstory within the framework of my character" Or whatever other reasons you might have.
"Sometimes I enjoy that too, But characters for me feel most real when I build them before opening the books. Maybe its because I used to be such a min maxer than I cant help mechanics influence my charecter, but for me anyway my characters lose something no matter how hard I try when I optimize.I hope our posts have been informative to the OP"
-
As for fanaticism I'd say that neither All4BigGuns opinion that good non combat RPGs are impossible, nor Katrex's opinion that mechanics distract from story are examples of it. I'd just say that its two players with different styles expressing their preference. The fact that Guns got a reasoned response and Katrex got called a fanatic is an example of the behavior I've been objecting to here.
Really? Because the way I read it, Katrex just outright dismissed any possibility that a background, no matter how detailed or well-characterized, after you start on your sheet might create a "genuine" character, and declared that the One True Way to build a character is to write your background then, and only then, once the background is set in stone, fill in your sheet.
And you said that it was impossible to run a good game without combat. Actually your post was much closer to a "one true way" mandate than Katrex's.
-
Actually, that was me, but I was misquoted BY YOU in the use of the word 'impossible'. I merely said that I doubt the enjoyability of such a game, and then reiterated that I personally find it unbelievably boring. Interesting how the other side likes to twist one's words to change meaning in attempt to discredit the argument...
-
Actually, that was me, but I was misquoted BY YOU in the use of the word 'impossible'. I merely said that I doubt the enjoyability of such a game, and then reiterated that I personally find it unbelievably boring. Interesting how the other side likes to twist one's words to change meaning in attempt to discredit the argument...
Those who live in glass houses, dude.
-
You're right that it was you. I apologize to JAD for the misattribution.
I question the possibility of such a thing.
You're wrong that I misquoted you.
-
Did I ever say impossible? No. Questioning it and saying blatantly that it is in fact impossible are two entirely different things, so yes, you did in fact misquote me, and you made a mistake as to the intent behind it (intent was explained in the post I made before this one).
-
Suggest that people step away from this thread for a day or two and cool down. When your argueing about who is argueing and quoting / misquoting etc etc. Then you've gone off-topic.
Topic in summary(my reading anyways)
- everyone has different play styles
- everyone creates characters differently
- no style is 'the right way'
I think we can agree on these at least?
And remember, don't post when angry :)
-
Did I ever say impossible? No. Questioning it and saying blatantly that it is in fact impossible are two entirely different things, so yes, you did in fact misquote me, and you made a mistake as to the intent behind it (intent was explained in the post I made before this one).
Doubting the possibility of a thing and suspecting that it's impossible are functionally equivalent guns.
[slipped]
I agree on all three of those things.
Other posters here, notably those who favor more optimized styles, don't seem to agree with any of the three. Or at least their behavior towards anyone who plays differently than they do would lead to suspect that unfortunately it's not a point of commonality.
-
Did I ever say impossible? No. Questioning it and saying blatantly that it is in fact impossible are two entirely different things, so yes, you did in fact misquote me, and you made a mistake as to the intent behind it (intent was explained in the post I made before this one).
Doubting the possibility of a thing and suspecting that it's impossible are functionally equivalent guns.
Aye those are the same, but again you're attempting to deflect the point away from the fact that I did not blatantly say that such is impossible, which is what you have been implying.
Suggest that people step away from this thread for a day or two and cool down. When your argueing about who is argueing and quoting / misquoting etc etc. Then you've gone off-topic.
Topic in summary(my reading anyways)
- everyone has different play styles
- everyone creates characters differently
- no style is 'the right way'
Actually most of us would agree with that. The fact is, the other side is far more often saying their way is 'right'.
-
Please calm down people and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
Appologies to the op for the way this thread turned out, It seems nothing more is to be gained here. i'd just lock it before people create any animosity amongst themselves.
-
Actually most of us would agree with that. The fact is, the other side is far more often saying their way is 'right'.
Funny, because I have yet to see a thread where someone asked for help optimizing and had a bunch of story centric players jump in and shout them down for asking for help.
I've seen the opposite several times.
-
Oh
My
Effing
$Deity
Can you guys really not post in a single thread without it turning into yet another of your own personal bitching places?
Different people have different opinions and play the game differently. Can't live with that fact? Then stay the f*ck away from threads where people don't agree with yours or at least keep yourself from posting the same damned opinion again and again and again and again.
-
I would have to ask for some of this hostility to stop, too. I recall a week or so ago, things were a lot more peaceful here. I know it's hard to bite your tongue sometimes, there is a lot of crazy, heavily biased stuff said here and on any other boards, but it's best to just state your opinions peacefully and avoid getting into silly disputes. The vast majority of the time, people will not back down and admit they're wrong, it's just something you need to accept. We all have our own preferences and none of us will unify the masses to follow our style. That's the real genius of role playing, it can be done a million different ways and still be enjoyable :)
-
Starting to get miffed about it as well. I personally enjoy story, background and optimisation equally, so both sides of this debate are starting to tick me off a bit.
There is no story or omptimisation centric, there is only the for- ehem, there is only having fun.
-
For me, the process of character creation goes something like this.
Step 1:
- Character Concept: A this point, I have a vague idea of what I want to do with the character. Fish out of water ex-corporate hacker.
Step 2:
- The Build: At this point, I am starting to look at stats and gear. I've already got the vague idea that the character is a ex-corporate so I start looking at skills and equipment they might have on hand. At this stage, I start pestering my GM. "Do you think that they'd have X? No, well you're right. OK hmm, how about Y? Good? OK!" To me, its important to keep with the GM and make sure your character is going to fit the campaign.
Step 3:
- The Tweaking: Now we've got the concept and the stats/gear pretty much laid out. I sort of just sit and look over the sheet for a while, as ideas pop into mind I shift little adjustments. Maybe this contact becomes that contact, this knowledge skill becomes that one. As I am looking over the stats I am mulling over background and personality. I love to write, its a hobby of mine so the background and personality just sort of happen. For me, that is the really easy part. I start with a blank page and just see where the words take me.
Step 4
- The Art: Now I've got the concept, the stats, the personality and the background. Time to find just the right look to fit my mental image, its at this point I wish A) I had more money, B) had a charitable artist friend or C) Was a visual artist myself!
Step 5
- The Manic Stage: OK art, concept, stats, background and personality are down. Now I get into the nitpicky stuff, "Where does the character live," "I'll fill out the 20 questions thing," "What's on this fake SIN anyhow?" I can really get into the little fiddly bits while I am eagerly awaiting the next session.
Step 6
- *sigh* The backup plan: What if the character dies? Well, I'll need a replacement then, won't I? See Step 1...
-
and i do it totally different:
1- what does my team need that they currently don't have?
2- design char's stats, skills and gear to do that role very well, whilst adding flavour through secondary skills
3- create believe backstory to explain characters skills and motives
4- go play!
neither way is best, we all have fun!
for me, half the fun of shadowrun is in chargen. get a weird kick out of making a pretty solid character with a good story :-)
-
I have ... of course... yet another method...
1: crawl through books untill I find an interesting mechanic that I want to implement...
(this can be a rule exploit, loophole, minmax mechanic, ... but it dosn't need to be it can be simple like: I want to use a railgun with uwb radar to shoot thourgh walls or I want to have quick reading + eidetic memory, I want to use mind over matter, I want to play a rigger solely working with optical cables...)
[1.5: check if it fits a niche with the group otherwise got to step 1]
2: think of a believable character that would use this
3: create stats
4: write down character background
5: maybe go back to stats to adjust for background
6: check with gm, if he dosn't approve go to step 1,4 or 5 depending on what the gm said
-
and i do it totally different:
1- what does my team need that they currently don't have?
2- design char's stats, skills and gear to do that role very well, whilst adding flavour through secondary skills
3- create believe backstory to explain characters skills and motives
4- go play!
neither way is best, we all have fun!
for me, half the fun of shadowrun is in chargen. get a weird kick out of making a pretty solid character with a good story :-)
I have ... of course... yet another method...
1: crawl through books untill I find an interesting mechanic that I want to implement...
(this can be a rule exploit, loophole, minmax mechanic, ... but it dosn't need to be it can be simple like: I want to use a railgun with uwb radar to shoot thourgh walls or I want to have quick reading + eidetic memory, I want to use mind over matter, I want to play a rigger solely working with optical cables...)
[1.5: check if it fits a niche with the group otherwise got to step 1]
2: think of a believable character that would use this
3: create stats
4: write down character background
5: maybe go back to stats to adjust for background
6: check with gm, if he dosn't approve go to step 1,4 or 5 depending on what the gm said
I'm somewhere between these two, myself.
I also try to have an "RP Hook" to go along with the "Mechanical Hook," because without it I can't really bring the character to life. Some notable RP Hooks for me have been:
1) Main Battle Troll... With Class - Dresses in Mortimer Of London, drives a nice (and heavily armored) car, and enjoys the finer things in life. Also ready to break someone's knees at a moment's notice, and likes to hide a HVBR under his Greatcoat when expecting trouble. Think an old-school "Wise Guy," Trog Style.
2) Psycho-Pixie Magician - A borderline-psychotic little SoB by anyone's standards. Gleefully vindictive, short tempered, manipulative, and prone towards using mind-control when saying "please" fails. Also loves him some Force 7 Spirits. Tends to keep 7 of his possible 8 Bound Spirit slots filled at all times.
3) Native Ork Commando - A "burned" Black Ops type that grew up in the Barrens. Stone-cold, ruthless bastard whose major "flaw" is that he hates Humans, hates Whites, hates Rich Bastards, and doesn't care much for anyone else, either... except his (massive) family, and his few surviving Army Buddies. Them, he'd give his life for.
-
I initiated this thread so it feels right for me to close the subject (unofficially anyway) and to thank all of you for an interesting and stimulating read!
My original question was to work out whether players lose something through too much optimisation.
The short answer is no as characters (in SR4 anyway) evolve in a rough and tough environment and unless they hone their skills they will die. Hence the need for optimisation. This is better done with a background story as backdrop but a good background does not necessarily mean better role play.
Quite a few of you condemn or at least disagree with the concept of min/maxing (or however you want to call it, let's not argue about defining this term) where players super specialise their character for a very limited number of roles (sometimes one role) and gimping completely their characters for anything else (the caricatural character being the sniper with 20+dice in longarms who can't run 100m because of his low body, can't talk because of his low charisma).
As a consequence to this thread, I will now pay more attention to the optimisation of my characters while ensure that it works with their background and open up interesting role playing avenues.
thanks again
-
And, since the OP has ended the discussion, I'll lock it. Very interesting ideas on both sides of the fence.