[Strange]

One thing I have noticed with replies to novice players with standard builds tend to be formulaic, and that the responses to them can come off as power gaming.  Mainly because frequent contributers have seen the same character posted for critique so many times, it seems that some guys get stuck in a response rut, as it were.

I myself have learned a lot about mages from these forums, having never played one before, and am playing a cybered combat mage (mystic adept).  He could have definitely been more powerful, but instead I get to play the character I wanted and even though he is spread out a bit (only has one skill at 6) he is effective and fun. 

To me character concept is huge, if I couldn't reconcile concept and execution I can't play that character.  I don't always end up with the character ibwant, but I do have to like the concept first.

Finally, I think since advancement is so slow and shadowrunners are generally supposed to be pretty badass (cyberpunk mythos is quite style over sensible) both contribute to 'power gaming' type of character building. 

[ZombieAcePilot]

People have remarked on this in this thread already, but I think it deserves more discussion. How can you give advice when you don't know what the person is really looking for/their situation? It seems that instead of soliciting the information needed, responses follow a more one size fits all approach. As an example of a good way this can be done I'll put forth the candlelight forums. They have a form that they request you fill out so they have the info needed to make useful suggestions.

As a way to examine this idea I will put forward my own method of character design. I use a benchmark system, that is to say I have certain criteria that I require the character to meet to pass muster. If I have a B&E specialist, than one of those criteria might be the ability to bypass a certain rating of maglock an average of X% of the time. Thus I can consult a chart and find that I want perhaps 12 dice in that check. Also important is to know what that check is (not everyone would think B&E people need hardware).

I try to come up with situations my character would run into and think how in my mind they would handle that situation, than I try to achieve the mechanics to back up that interaction. I try not to focus on the future growth rate of the character (because I would go insane trying to make it all efficient and end up with a character who can't do what their job title purports).

At a certain point you will have to involve your GM or an imaginary one in this equation (otherwise how will you know what the average rating of a maglock you might encounter in an office building is?). When you do so, it is a good time to bring up growth (since growth rates often reflect the length of campaign a GM plans to run, the long the game the slower the rise typically).

If I were to create a forum I'd ask people to fill out I would ask them what their intentions were for the character and what benchmarks they had for their build or if they needed help establishing those benchmarks (which would be the GM's job in the best case scenario or the forums if we were the imaginary GM). I would need to know some basic info about the game in question (power level, style of play, etc). Once I had collected this information, then I could look at the sheet and give useful feedback (that is likely to be far less needed once the person understands their own design goals).

Power gaming in my mind is just a decision to require higher thresholds. Perhaps your character vision has you as some kind of street legend. Whatever the case, unless your GM is allowing you more points to accomplish your higher vision, you will likely need to make sacrifices in order to reach your benchmarks (or reduce them). Of course, not all concepts will work as baseline starting characters (it's like asking to be a lvl 10 wizard when the party is lvl 5), so sometimes you will realize your concept is beyond what is possible at this point in time. That is typically the best point to consult your GM and see what he wants to do. Many GMs will not appreciate a character built to do one thing at the expense of all others, or that sacrificed in order to backfill cheaply later on. If that is the case, it is back to the drawing board until you can create a character that meets your benchmarks while fitting the limitations of the game he will exist inside of.

I hope someone finds this useful and happy building.

[Hobbes]

The one thing I do agree with Shadowjack on is that sometimes posters who are evaluating characters can be a bit dogmatic with their advice.  Although I think it is hypocritical to decry this while dismissing and straw-manning character optimization.

My responses are usually pretty canned, aka dogmatic.  Even with the *huge* variety of options in SR5, by the time you get done building (what I consider) a standard Shadowrunner chassis for whatever the applicable archetype is you actually have a fairly small amount of resources left.  Coupled with the, IMO, downright glacial character progress after chargen I'll always suggest what is the most long run karma efficient unless a poster has some specific conditions. 

I mean, it's words on an internet forum.  Any given poster can take none, some, or all of the advice given. 

[Shadowjack]

I have relatives with that condition, Gradivus. It is definitely a difficult one to manage and I think you do quite well here. Regarding the thread as whole I am quite happy with the discussion. It's interesting to get into your minds a bit and see what you guys are thinking. It seems that the big difference in opinion is dice pools vs skill ratings. Page 131 of core reads as follows.

"This is a list of what the skill Ratings mean, so that you can get beyond the numbers and see where your character falls in the general scheme of metahumanity.
NO RATING: UNAWARE This is something other than having no ranks in a skill—this is a special level of ignorance. You haven’t the first clue about this skill. This level can only be achieved through a quality (like the Incompetent negative quality, p. 81), or maybe a character history explaining the deficiency. You can’t default the skill, and it never really occurs to you to even use it to solve your problems.
RATING 0: UNTRAINED The default level of knowledge obtained through interaction with society and the Matrix. Though untrained, you have a general awareness of the skill, and occasionally may even be able to fake it.
RATING 1: BEGINNER You have a little training about how it works, but not always why it works.
RATING 2: NOVICE You’re a hobbyist, but not an enthusiast.
RATING 3: COMPETENT You’re skilled at basic operations but struggle with complex operations and “tricks.”
RATING 4: PROFICIENT You’re comfortable with what you do and perform well under normal pressures. Professional level for most jobs.
RATING 5: SKILLED You know how to handle yourself in unfamiliar situations, and can get creative when solving problems.
RATING 6: PROFESSIONAL You could easily sell your skills on the open market. This is the maximum skill level for starting player characters.
RATING 7: VETERAN You’ve seen a lot of what the skill can do, and what it can’t. Other people ask you how to do it.
RATING 8: EXPERT You are a highly sought-after talent. Corporations seek you out (or extract you from other corporations).
RATING 9: EXCEPTIONAL Your name is synonymous with the skill. If you have multiple skills at this level, you’re lauded as exceptionally gifted.
RATING 10: ELITE You are famous, even among the very best in your field.
RATING 11: LEGENDARY You are a paragon to those trying to excel at your skill. Techniques are named after you.
RATING 12–13: APEX You have reached the pinnacle of mortal achievement. This expertise represents the top 0.00001% of all practitioners in known history. The very highest rating, 13, can only be reached with the Aptitude quality (p. 72)"

This page is the basis of my opinion and seems to be quite clear. There is no mention of dice pools or attributes compensating for low skill ratings. Quite literally it talks about how good you are at a skill being represented by the skill rating. This is why I think that attributes represent more of your talent than skill. When I played basketball competitively I trained for a minimum of 6 hours per day and often double that. I could best the majority of players I faced due to my hard work. However, some players tthat invested less time into their basketball skills could pose a threat, this was because they were incredibly quick or strong, giving them an advantage over what might be considered my lower Strength and Reaction. This example illustrates how both skills and attribtues must be taken into consideration but are entirely different from one another.

ZombieAcePilot's mention of a character creation form sounds excellent to me. I think that would be a fantastic addition.

[Whiskeyjack]

Ultimately the skill rating's description does not matter in gameplay. So why quibble over it?

[FST_Gemstar]

Shadowjack, as you say in your example - some people are good at performing basketball tasks (let's say with a dice pool of Agility + Basketball active skill) because like you they worked really hard and practiced (your basketball skill was higher) and others were good at performing basketball tasks because they were quick strong (Agility was higher). Two people can be equally good at playing basketball but for different reasons (Naturally athletic with a little practice vs. average joe who loved the game and practiced a lot). Ultimately, it doesn't matter why they are good at basketball, as their dice pools are the same, they are equally competent. Of course, to excel at basketball, someone would need both high natural abilities and be very skillful (high Agility + High Basketball)The Skill rating by itself doesn't have a lot of mechanical meaning though.  This is why I argue that this list is a measure of the investment into learning a task, not how good you are at it. Dicepools = how good you are at task. It is a combined pool equally weighting natural ability and learned technique. The skill list only is focused on the learned technique part.  Again, Character X with Agility 1 and 9 Pistols is worse at shooting a pistol than Character Y with Agility 10 and Pistols 1, even though Character X is exceptionally skilled at pistoleering and Character Y spent a few afternoons at a firing range with friends. 

[Herr Brackhaus]

I wouldn't necessarily put that much stock in the skill rating in an isolated context. Sure, it provides a handy reference point for what a character might have trained for (i.e. a person with Rating 6 in any firearms skill has clearly worked with his chosen weapon enough to be considered a professional), but without the associated attribute and/or modifiers it doesn't really give you any specific indication of how good a person is at performing skill related tasks. General idea, sure, but not specific.

Take both extremes; a character with Skill 1 and Attribute 1 vs a character with Skill 1 and Attribute 10. The former is unskilled and has little natural aptitude, while the latter is just as unskilled but has significant natural aptitude at whatever the task at hand is. The same could be said if the skill was 12 instead. Two people of equal skill level, but one is more proficient than the other.

So really, if anything I think those categories are more of a reflection of how much education/experience it takes to get to where you are. Bullets & Bandages has a specific example for the Biotech skill ratings:

Skill Level	Example
0	Untrained: Has some basic knowledge of anatomy, but nothing more
1	Beginner: Person who took a CPR course or learned some first aid as a Boy Scout or something
2	Novice: Med student, new hospital orderly
3	Competent: Good student, but not up to advanced coursework yet
4	Proficient: Intern, certified nurse’s assistant
5	Skilled: Resident, licensed practical nurse
6	Professional: Doctor or registered nurse in practice for less than five years
7	Veteran: Doctor or registered nurse in practice for five years or more
8	Expert: Leader and/or supervisor in a practice or hospital
9	Exceptional: Award-winning practitioner, recognized in trade magazines as one of the best in their field
10	Elite: Top-flight practitioner at elite facility or university, sought after by wealthy clientele
11	Legendary: Pioneer of new, cutting-edge medical techniques
12-13	Apex: The absolute tops—CEOs of the megacorps fight each other to see these people

If you look at what B&B considers a "professional", you'll understand why I'm a big proponent of lower dice pool games. If a Biotech Skill Rating of 6 represents a doctor or registered nurse with at least 5 years of practice, what does a Skill Rating of 6 in Handguns, Hardware, or any other skill represent? I mean, that's years of study in addition to years of practice. But again, you could be a doctor or registered nurse with low or high Logic, which directly affects just how good of a doctor you are. And then there's Etiquette; no etiquette skill could mean you have poor bed side manners, whereas a high etiquette skill could represent the opposite. (Dr. House comes to mind as an example of a high logic and biotech skill but low/nonexistant etiquette character, for instance).

In short, I wholly support looking at the character sheet as a whole instead of as a collection of individual pieces, as I feel this more accurately represents what a character is all about. And as for the skill ratings, well, that's wholly table dependent, again. Some agree with the ratings, others don't.

[ZeldaBravo]

<znp>
 OCD

Well shit sucks. *

[Shadowjack]

<znp>
 OCD

Wtll shit sucks.

Yeah, it's pretty rough and caused me a an enormous amount of problems. I'm finally on my proper dose of medication so I'm under a lot better control than in the past

About skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work. Attributes represent your natural and refined ability in general, skill ratings represent your practice and dedication in the skill. The two together makes up your dice pool and in the context of rolling dice that is what matters, but from an immersion standpoint you must treat both separately unless it just isn't important to you. I still think that having a 9 Agility pair of cyber legs and rating 1 Sneaking means you are terrible at sneaking, barely above someone who has no training at all. Your "talent" is carrying the weight here. From this perspective (which seems very logical to me) you can see why I think that making a bunch of Shadowrunners with rating 1 Sneaking and huge agility scores to compensate is very odd. Think about how it would actually play out in your career running the shadows. You're sneaking around pretty damn often, it's one of the most commonly used skills while on the run. Having rating 1 means you learned next to nothing and doesn't seem to match up with the goal of creating a very professional runner.

That is why I think it matters, Whiskeyjack. It is distinctions like this that formed my opinion that power gamers are often but not always less focused on the roleplaying aspects of rpgs and more focused on rolling dice. People may say it's a generalization but I am explicitly stating that not all powergamers are the same.

[Hobbes]

"This is a list of what the skill Ratings mean, so that you can get beyond the numbers and see where your character falls in the general scheme of metahumanity.
NO RATING: UNAWARE This is something other than having no ranks in a skill—this is a special level of ignorance. You haven’t the first clue about this skill. This level can only be achieved through a quality (like the Incompetent negative quality, p. 81), or maybe a character history explaining the deficiency. You can’t default the skill, and it never really occurs to you to even use it to solve your problems.
RATING 0: UNTRAINED The default level of knowledge obtained through interaction with society and the Matrix. Though untrained, you have a general awareness of the skill, and occasionally may even be able to fake it.
RATING 1: BEGINNER You have a little training about how it works, but not always why it works.

So what is the issue.  Unaware "can only be achieved through a quality", Untrained "obtained through interaction with society and the Matix" skill 1 "have a little training..."

Untrained is the mythical "average person", Unaware is from a Negative Quality, and skill levels represent actual training.  A typical Shadowrunner is "Untrained" and can do the things everyone else can unless they take a negative quality. 

Usually what I see is folks arguing that "everyone" should have Computer and/or Etiquette.  Look at the Season 5 contacts, even Computer and Etiquette aren't universal.  Even one of the Fixers skips Etiquette (Simon), and Computer is skipped by like three of them.  And these are characters with 60 to 80 skill points, compared to the 20 to 30 skill points most runners start with. 

If you've got some character reason for taking a skill, go nuts, but there isn't any game world reason for characters to have certain skills.  There are powerful mechanical reasons that drive skill selection, stealth, perception, combat skills, and whatever your character archetype is.  But just by virtue of living in the Sixth world your character is able to get through high tech day to day life.   

[Darzil]

About skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.

Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.

[Rooks]

Hows this a thing? this isnt wind in the willows RPG or mouse guard you are hired mercs in a world where you can install cybernetics into your body you have magical threats dragons incarna spirits you can learn skills overnight with tutorsofts you can hook yourself up with skillwires and become as good as a trained professional you can walk into a streetdoc and go from an overweight slob to a chiseled bronzed (chromed) god you have to be good because your competition is good look at the availablities of milispec grade vehicles and gear thats your competition your lucky to get a steel lynx and a bull dog step van

[Shadowjack]

About skill ratings, I have to think that you guys are choosing how you want to perceive it and not accepting that it is in the official book and it is exactly how skills work, these are the rules after all. If the core book defines skills like it does in that table, that's how they work.

Except it is how they are described, not how they work. How they work is that your effectiveness is based on a combination of your skill training plus your ability, limited by either physical attributes or equipment. If they were how skills worked, then we wouldn't include attributes or limits.

Again, it seems like you are refusing to accept the truth here. It doesn't matter how skills work in combination with attributes, the fact is that your skill rating represents how good you are a a skill, the attribute only enhances it. A stealth expert should never have rating 1 Sneaking, even if he has a very high agility. That is someone who is agile and not skilled at the fine points of stealth. You are trying to do what is convenient during character creation but not accepting the way things actually work.

"This is a list of what the skill Ratings mean, so that you can get beyond the numbers and see where your character falls in the general scheme of metahumanity.
NO RATING: UNAWARE This is something other than having no ranks in a skill—this is a special level of ignorance. You haven’t the first clue about this skill. This level can only be achieved through a quality (like the Incompetent negative quality, p. 81), or maybe a character history explaining the deficiency. You can’t default the skill, and it never really occurs to you to even use it to solve your problems.
RATING 0: UNTRAINED The default level of knowledge obtained through interaction with society and the Matrix. Though untrained, you have a general awareness of the skill, and occasionally may even be able to fake it.
RATING 1: BEGINNER You have a little training about how it works, but not always why it works.

So what is the issue.  Unaware "can only be achieved through a quality", Untrained "obtained through interaction with society and the Matix" skill 1 "have a little training..."

Untrained is the mythical "average person", Unaware is from a Negative Quality, and skill levels represent actual training.  A typical Shadowrunner is "Untrained" and can do the things everyone else can unless they take a negative quality. 

Usually what I see is folks arguing that "everyone" should have Computer and/or Etiquette.  Look at the Season 5 contacts, even Computer and Etiquette aren't universal.  Even one of the Fixers skips Etiquette (Simon), and Computer is skipped by like three of them.  And these are characters with 60 to 80 skill points, compared to the 20 to 30 skill points most runners start with. 

If you've got some character reason for taking a skill, go nuts, but there isn't any game world reason for characters to have certain skills.  There are powerful mechanical reasons that drive skill selection, stealth, perception, combat skills, and whatever your character archetype is.  But just by virtue of living in the Sixth world your character is able to get through high tech day to day life.   

The main issue I have with power gaming is that power gamers tend to care about power and will sacrifice many important thematic elements in order to get it on a grand scale. That is fine if that's the way you want to play it, but doing that and saying you are equally devoted to roleplaying is strange to me. The way I see it, a person that is more concerned with roleplaying is going to be willing to sacrifice some character power to make their character vision come true. This is why the majority of Shadowrun groups I've seen are tables full of people that don't actually roleplay and just roll 20 dice at a time and play experts in their role only. Again, play how you want to play but when new players come to the boards I dislike the practuice of telling them to remove half of their skills and put all attack skills at 6.

[falar]

Hows this a thing? this isnt wind in the willows RPG or mouse guard you are hired mercs in a world where you can install cybernetics into your body you have magical threats dragons incarna spirits you can learn skills overnight with tutorsofts you can hook yourself up with skillwires and become as good as a trained professional you can walk into a streetdoc and go from an overweight slob to a chiseled bronzed (chromed) god you have to be good because your competition is good look at the availablities of milispec grade vehicles and gear thats your competition your lucky to get a steel lynx and a bull dog step van

Sadly, you lack periods.

[FST_Gemstar]

Shadowjack - I fundamentally disagree looking over the materials. I agree that it doesn't matter how skills work in combination with attributes, because whatever the combination is, it makes the base of your dice pool. Where I disagree is I believe dice pools reflect how good you are at performing a task, not a skill rating in isolation. This is why you roll dice pools, not skills, when doing a task. Per your example and by game rules, someone who is very agile with a little skill in sneaking can sneak past a guard as well as someone who is not very agile but knows all about the fine points of stealth. Someone wearing a chameleon suit, slotting an Infiltrator psych chip, and casting invisibility on themselves could expand can get that past guard even easier. This is the way the game works. It's a simulation of real life factors that are not easily translated to rules simple enough for a game (and Shadowrun is not a simple game!).

I know it feels weird to look at a character sheet and see Sneaking 1 in isolation and think the character is good at sneaking. In context however, it could be perfectly true and rich for character and story purposes (roleplaying).