[Marcus]

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

He's not arguing from the stand point of effectiveness Rook, he's argue from an artificial distinction.  From the stand point of the mechanics it doesn't matter, from the stand point of who has spent the most time training in something is his point. For practical game purpose you will rarely see a skill rating go above 7. Claiming a character with a skill at 7 but a dice pool of 9 is better at the given skill vs a character skill of 3 and a pool of 18, is of course not relevant in a fight, the character with the pool of 18 is of course going to score more success on average then the character with 9 (6 vs 3). It simply is a question of if you buy into the theory that skill rating has large meaning.

That part I don't really care about. The further implications however are more his point, he's saying we encourage new people to focus too much on depth over breadth. Which again in my view is far too limited thinking.

[Glyph]

Someone with a high Attribute and low skill is actually better than someone with a low Attribute and high skills, because the former will have higher Limits.  Someone with a skills of 1 in, say, sneaking and pilot ground craft, isn't good, per se, it's just that with a high (augmented) agility and reaction, a bit of basic training lets the character succeed often enough at tasks that require 2 to 3 hits.  I see nothing wrong with having a 6 in your specialties (after all, shadowrunners are selling their skills on the open market), nor with them having a lot of rating: 1 skills in things like sneaking that fall more in the category of skills that runners, in general, are likely to have had some basic training in.  And like Hobbes said, even a skill of 1 starts pulling away from the norm.

I think a lot of the anti-power gamer sentiment comes the assumption that an effective character is, by its nature, built for effectiveness rather than concept.  But a lot of times, it is simply that the optimized character is built with a background that is more in sync with how the game rules and the Shadowrun universe work.  I think a lot of people who build to concept consider it in isolation, rather than picturing how that character will survive in the game world and interact with the creations of other players.

[Shadowjack]

Interesting points again. I find it to be immersion breaking to allocate my skills in the manner that you think is totally fine, it is a drastic difference of opinion. At least now I know what you guys are thinking with these builds

[gradivus]

"Effective"

Interesting word.

Glyph, can you define it in the context of the Shadowrun mechanics.

[Glyph]

Interesting points again. I find it to be immersion breaking to allocate my skills in the manner that you think is totally fine, it is a drastic difference of opinion. At least now I know what you guys are thinking with these builds

So if you were making, say, a street samurai, what skills would you give him, assuming the usual limited resources and hard choices of standard character creation?  For me personally, my skills are not nothing but 1's and 6's, but 1's and 6's both have their place in a character build.

"Effective"

Interesting word.

Glyph, can you define it in the context of the Shadowrun mechanics.

I define effective as the character being able to have a reasonable chance of success at their specialty, which can vary a lot depending on that specialty.  Some archetypes, such as street samurai or deckers, need higher dice pools for this - they face more difficult tasks, are often rolling opposed dice contests, are often facing negative modifiers, and the consequences for failure are more severe.

I think character creation is a balance between making a character good enough at something to be hired to do it, and making a character who could have plausibly existed before being plunked onto a team of shadowrunners.  This usually means some basic utility skills, but not always - the character could come from a more limited or sheltered background (troll who was dumb muscle, decker who used to be a sheltered corporate citizen), or I might deliberately give the character a weakness - but I won't neglect something I consider necessary just to squeeze another couple of dice onto my specialty.  I think people tend to have very different opinions on this second category of skills, which is why builds that seem fine to some people might seem drastically bare-bones to other people.

[gradivus]

I define effective as the character being able to have a reasonable chance of success at their specialty

But there's the rub.

A reasonable chance of success is determined by the power level of the table.

Take a look at a combat elf: AGI 7(9) REA 5( INT 5 with Automatics|SMG 6|+2, Agile Defender
At a table where the avg opponent has 12DP this isn't effective, it's plain overkill.
At a table where the avg opponent DP is 16 it's effective.
And if the avg opponent at the table makes this character not effective- the decker probably bit it the first phase.

So, for some people, they look at the elf and say that's just powermonging and probably because they play at the first table.
For others, it's a well designed character because they play at the second table.
And the guys at the third table say , tighten up your panties and make yourself useful.

[Shadowjack]

Interesting points again. I find it to be immersion breaking to allocate my skills in the manner that you think is totally fine, it is a drastic difference of opinion. At least now I know what you guys are thinking with these builds

So if you were making, say, a street samurai, what skills would you give him, assuming the usual limited resources and hard choices of standard character creation?  For me personally, my skills are not nothing but 1's and 6's, but 1's and 6's both have their place in a character build.

"Effective"

Interesting word.

Glyph, can you define it in the context of the Shadowrun mechanics.

I define effective as the character being able to have a reasonable chance of success at their specialty, which can vary a lot depending on that specialty.  Some archetypes, such as street samurai or deckers, need higher dice pools for this - they face more difficult tasks, are often rolling opposed dice contests, are often facing negative modifiers, and the consequences for failure are more severe.

I think character creation is a balance between making a character good enough at something to be hired to do it, and making a character who could have plausibly existed before being plunked onto a team of shadowrunners.  This usually means some basic utility skills, but not always - the character could come from a more limited or sheltered background (troll who was dumb muscle, decker who used to be a sheltered corporate citizen), or I might deliberately give the character a weakness - but I won't neglect something I consider necessary just to squeeze another couple of dice onto my specialty.  I think people tend to have very different opinions on this second category of skills, which is why builds that seem fine to some people might seem drastically bare-bones to other people.

I don't have a standard formula for making Street Samurai, which is one of my favorite archetypes. I have built some with skill sets that are more standard and others that would probably give power gamers a fit, such as having only rating 4 in all my combat skills and not having a vast agility to accompany them. However, I did learn the hard way the price you pay for doing that, which is penalties, exactly what you said. That particular character would function incredibly well in the campaign I was playing, right up until he started taking some damage or dealing with visibility modifiers. He was a well armored Troll, too. I would allocate my skill points in any way I saw fit. Assuming 22 skill points that would includes arrays such as 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 1 or 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2 or 5, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3. I also don't always take specializtions in key skills, it really depends if I feel it's appropriate. How extensive my optimization is solely depends on what is needed to have a character that I can achieve deep immersion with. I would avoid taking a 6 over a 5 in my main skill if I felt it would betray the character concept, even if I had a surplus of points or karma.  I will also intentionally play weaker characters for various reasons, characters which many people would consider to be terrible.

There have been quite a few good points raised regarding dice pools. I am not nearly as blind to reason as some may have concluded. Success percentage versus particular thresholds, penalties being more prominent in certain areas of the game, the example karma rewards in the book being quite low, advancement post char gen being very expensive, etc. I see the motives here. It also depends on long term plans for the character, or likely plans, and approximate campaign length. I hope this post isn't too jumbled, I'm very distracted at the moment.

Got to go but skimmed your post, Gradivus. Excellent points!

[All4BigGuns]

You must understand that sometimes people want to be as good as they possibly can be starting out so they don't have to worry about advancing their specialty as things progress and can concentrate on 'spreading their wings' into other areas before doing so.

There is also the fact that teamwork is very important in this game. The team shouldn't be a bunch of people who can pretty much do everything themselves (otherwise why be on a team rather than a solo operator?), but rather it should be a team of highly specialized individuals who can get through most situations together but probably wouldn't do so hot on most jobs alone.

[Herr Brackhaus]

There is also the fact that teamwork is very important in this game. The team shouldn't be a bunch of people who can pretty much do everything themselves (otherwise why be on a team rather than a solo operator?), but rather it should be a team of highly specialized individuals who can get through most situations together but probably wouldn't do so hot on most jobs alone.

Seriously, though. Just because you have a preference for playing a certain way doesn't mean you should state your opinion as fact.

I prefer games where there's overlapping skills amongst characters, because it means players have to cooperate and overcome obstacles they couldn't normally handle on their own. That doesn't mean I think this is the only way to play, or that I look down on you in any way for playing specialized characters. It's just my preference.

[All4BigGuns]

It is, however, a fact that anything that requires an opposed test needs a higher dice pool for a good chance of success than a threshold test. Since most specialties (notably Decker, Combatant and Face) face more opposed tests than otherwise, they need to specialize (necessary to reach those higher pools, in general) or they'll end up seeing an, at best, 50/50 shot of success. Probably around 16 in one's specialty would probably be a good point for a starting character.

[Shadowjack]

I have to agree with Herr Brackhaus on that one. I actually think that the majority of rpg players are missing out on a lot of fun by always trying to play powerful characters. Some of the best times I've ever had were on my weakest characters because it was really challenging and every win meant something. Just like movies with underdogs as the heroes, underdogs in rpgs can be a LOT of fun. Shadowrun may be an intense game but weaker characters are totally viable. I have said this a thousand times on this forum "a good GM will be able to create a campaign for just about any group composition and powerful characters are not required." If you can only have fun in campaigns with epic plotlines I guess you might not be as interested in such characters but I try to get as many different experiences as I can in this game. It is extremely rewarding to take a a weak character and watch them develop into a powerful during the game.

[Herr Brackhaus]

It is, however, a fact that anything that requires an opposed test needs a higher dice pool for a good chance of success than a threshold test. Since most specialties (notably Decker, Combatant and Face) face more opposed tests than otherwise, they need to specialize (necessary to reach those higher pools, in general) or they'll end up seeing an, at best, 50/50 shot of success. Probably around 16 in one's specialty would probably be a good point for a starting character.

And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels. My last campaign had all players start with dice pools less than 12, and they did just fine because I don't put them up against PR5 opponents until much later.

In fact, statements like that is, I believe, precisely why Shadowjack started this whole thread, and in this case I very much agree with him. Present your opinion as your opinion based on your experiences, that's fine. But please don't try to pass opinions off as facts, because they aren't.

[ZombieAcePilot]

It is, however, a fact that anything that requires an opposed test needs a higher dice pool for a good chance of success than a threshold test. Since most specialties (notably Decker, Combatant and Face) face more opposed tests than otherwise, they need to specialize (necessary to reach those higher pools, in general) or they'll end up seeing an, at best, 50/50 shot of success. Probably around 16 in one's specialty would probably be a good point for a starting character.

And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels. My last campaign had all players start with dice pools less than 12, and they did just fine because I don't put them up against PR5 opponents until much later.

In fact, statements like that is, I believe, precisely why Shadowjack started this whole thread, and in this case I very much agree with him. Present your opinion as your opinion based on your experiences, that's fine. But please don't try to pass opinions off as facts, because they aren't.

A lot of this comes down to the specifics of the game and the desired level of competence. Unless you are advising based on a known factor (missions play for example), this is very hard information to guess correctly. Building in a vacuum will get you in trouble more often than not. My suggestion would be to sit down with your GM.

Many games gloss over the importance of working with your GM. Shadowrun is very much like hero system in that is has no inbuilt balance. If you let each player make their own character with no guidance, it would be a disaster. One person might show up with a 20+ dice combat monster and another might have single digit pools. Unless this decision was made on purpose by all involved, someone is liable to end up unhappy.

[Facemage]

Maybe there should be a mention in the builds that they are planned against for example street scums or archetype characters. In our table a typical enemy is an archetype character, so we need to plan characters to fit in this setup. If you slightly optimize your character, it's possible to almost always win archetype characters because your dice pools are higher. But if your build is as powerful as archetype characters (measured by dice pools), you have severe difficulties to win them constantly. But it's indeed possible to play like that, if for example the enemies are street scums.

It's possible to use team work tests to get better results. But how often can you really use this strategy? The very basic build in this forum has always:
Combat skills (shooting/spellcasting)
Stealth skills
Perception
Social skills
(Other skills)

I think that if you shoot with an assault rifle you cannot use teamwork tests. If you try to hear something difficult (4  hits needed), it does not really help if even 4 runners are listening, each with 6 dices in their perception pool. Yes, the gm can reduce the needed number of hits (3 or even 2 hits needed), but if the runners try to notice a gunslinger adept archetype character from the corebook, the threshold is on average 4. The adept has 12 dices in his sneaking pool, even more if he used agility attribute boost (10 dices ability).

If you look at the list above, I think that only social and sometimes the other skills (depending on skills) can benefit from teamwork tests. But the problem is that if you try to build a character which is enough powerful against archetype characters, you have sometimes used almost all your resources when you create characters with 12-16 dices in their combat, perception and stealth dice pools (no teamwork benefits). And after some social skills (etiquette, con) and athletics skills there is nothing left in your skill points. Ok, I have because I prefer higher skill priorities (B or even A), but many here think that you have to had at least 2, preferably 3 in all atributes, which means that you need at least B to your attributes. This means that B in skills is seldom possible. And with C in skills you can create 4 skills with 6 and specialization, which are sneaking, perception and 2 combat skills. There's not anymore room for teamwork skills. And I see here many builds with D or even E in the skills...

[Facemage]

Another interesting topic is how do you interpret the situations in which you do not need a test. How do you roleplay a character in a shop buying food? Do you use:
1: Your charisma,
2: a suitable skill (here maybe etiquette) or another attribute or
3. both

to define your level of competence. Your roleplaying should reflect that competence level.
In our table we use always the option 3.

So, technically cha1 etiquette 6 character is as good in the shop as cha 6 etiquette 1 or cha 3 etiquette 4 characters. That's why we can use low skills or low attributes because only the final result (the number of dices in your dicepool) matters! This means also that int 3 log 3 character is as intelligent as log 1 int 5 character in intelligence tests. YMMV.