[Glyph]

The way I see it is that social skills should only intrude into the game for certain quantifiable tests, such as getting past a bouncer, getting a mark to follow you into an alleyway, convincing a security guard that you are supposed to be there, etc.  The rest of the time, you should be able to play your character without dice getting in the way - because honestly, that tends to break a player's immersion in the game.  Stats should be kept in mind, sure, but unless the character has a dump stat Charisma and no social skills, the PC should be able to pick someone up at a singles bar, buy groceries, etc. and roleplay it out without getting hassled by the GM.  Similarly, even a dumb character can come up with an occasional good plan, especially if it involves their specialty (a troll ex-security guard might not have an ideas to contribute when the group is planning to mingle with the jet set to get close to a target, but he might have some ideas if they are planning out how to hit a corporate research facility).

Sure, crack down if they are really abusing it - the aforementioned troll constantly coming up with brilliant plans, or the Aspergerin' shut-in nerd decker suavely hitting on an elven simstar hottie.  But otherwise, it can really ruin a player's fun when he gets told "Your character is too dumb to have come up with that plan", or "They ignore your argument, because you only have a Charisma of 2."

[Facemage]

But back to original topic: I think that in different tables players play differently. That's why you can never give a one size fits all answers to anyone. But still we can give several guidelines if we assume something.

I think that build comments in this forum are based on the following setup:
1. No houserules allowed
2. Karma and money rewards are same as guidelines in the corebook.
3. Stay strictly in RAW and RAI (difficult sometimes)
4. Normal level (not prime runner or street levels)
5. Sum to 11 or higher sums are not possible.
6. A typical enemy in first run is at least an archetype character from corebook or even better.
7. There are variation between the interpretation about the attributes. Especially about  the value 1.

And if you look at these points, I think that the typical comments on this subforum looks sensible. Because this list forces you to optimize at least slightly.
So if a newcomer asks help, he should compare this list at his table and if he disagree in some points, the commentators should take into account it in their answers.

And if the gm is also new to the game, I think that the previous list is most common setup for new gms. My new gm needs enemies, what to do? First answer: Use ready archetypes.

[Shadowjack]

I suspect this will come down to a difference of opinions and but if you have a 1 Charisma it doesn't matter what your dice pool is, people are not going to like you. You will do things that rub them the wrong way and they generally won't want to have you around. However, you may still be very socially aware and able to fit in many social situations unless you are discriminated against, which would actually happen a lot. If you actually get someone to listen you might be able to outdo them in a negotiation. If shit hits the fan they might listen to you because even though they don't like you, you have a strong presence and leadership skills. If someone plays this in such a way that the  fact the character has 1 Charisma doesn't matter, only the dice pool matters, I would consider that to be very bad roleplaying and completely un-immersive.

Arbitrary rules like "never take priority B in skills" or "always have maxed out combat skills with perception and sneaking at lower ratings". There is no polite way to address how I feel about such rules but let's just say that I don't agree with them. As a general rule in life it is  a very bad idea to place restrictions on creativity, it's bettter to keep all the doors open than to keep half of them closed.

Glyph echoes my opinion on how social skills should be treated. Only roll when it's important, ordinary tasks should be left to roleplaying but as I said before, if the character in question has a very poor Charisma score other characters are likely to treat them worse than someone with an 8 Charisma. In the real world when you encounter a person who is extremely uncharismatic you will often feel less safe around them, less inclined to approach them or ask them for help, and will probably avoid them altogether give the chance.

Regarding the topic of "dump stats" I have a bit of a different take, one which you might find ironic. There are no true dump stats, there is only a GM that doesn't know how to handle low attribtues appropriately. The player should emulate his character's attributes within reason, if he fails to do so the GM can and should intervene. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are in real life, if your character has a 1 Logic he is unintelligent and should be roleplayed as such. In another game I played a character who was brain damaged as a result of a head wound from years past. For the entire campaign I spoke in poor English and omitted the bulk of my vocabulary. The character was still appropriate and very fun to play, but he had a serious disadvantage and I honored it. Even if some of his linked skills had high ratings I would still roleplaying him as being "slow" because he very much was.

Charisma is considered a dump stat in tons of games and the GM lets the players get away with it all the time until someone in the group gets pissd off and says "Alright, nobody is allowed to have 1 Charisma any more." Some groups insist on 3+. A good GM will teach the player the consequences of attempting to power game in this manner BUT intentionally taking poor attributes can be a very fun road to travel and the consequences can be really immersive and enjoyable.

[gradivus]

Just to make it clear.
Shadowjack:

Are you claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer?

[ZombieAcePilot]

But back to original topic: I think that in different tables players play differently. That's why you can never give a one size fits all answers to anyone. But still we can give several guidelines if we assume something.

I think that build comments in this forum are based on the following setup:
1. No houserules allowed
2. Karma and money rewards are same as guidelines in the corebook.
3. Stay strictly in RAW and RAI (difficult sometimes)
4. Normal level (not prime runner or street levels)
5. Sum to 11 or higher sums are not possible.
6. A typical enemy in first run is at least an archetype character from corebook or even better.
7. There are variation between the interpretation about the attributes. Especially about  the value 1.

And if you look at these points, I think that the typical comments on this subforum looks sensible. Because this list forces you to optimize at least slightly.
So if a newcomer asks help, he should compare this list at his table and if he disagree in some points, the commentators should take into account it in their answers.

And if the gm is also new to the game, I think that the previous list is most common setup for new gms. My new gm needs enemies, what to do? First answer: Use ready archetypes.

Yeah... Seems you are missing the point by making a default assumption. Some of them seem sensible (assumption of no house rules unless told otherwise), but others had me go "huh?" (Assuming that a first run enemy is equal to an archetype). The best advice we could give these people in my mind would be to work with their GM instead of asking random people online.

All that said, your approach could be useful in missions (not sure if it is all true of missions since I don't play in them).

[Facemage]

I suspect this will come down to a difference of opinions and but if you have a 1 Charisma it doesn't matter what your dice pool is, people are not going to like you. You will do things that rub them the wrong way and they generally won't want to have you around. However, you may still be very socially aware and able to fit in many social situations unless you are discriminated against, which would actually happen a lot. If you actually get someone to listen you might be able to outdo them in a negotiation. If shit hits the fan they might listen to you because even though they don't like you, you have a strong presence and leadership skills. If someone plays this in such a way that the  fact the character has 1 Charisma doesn't matter, only the dice pool matters, I would consider that to be very bad roleplaying and completely un-immersive.

Arbitrary rules like "never take priority B in skills" or "always have maxed out combat skills with perception and sneaking at lower ratings". There is no polite way to address how I feel about such rules but let's just say that I don't agree with them. As a general rule in life it is  a very bad idea to place restrictions on creativity, it's bettter to keep all the doors open than to keep half of them closed.

Glyph echoes my opinion on how social skills should be treated. Only roll when it's important, ordinary tasks should be left to roleplaying but as I said before, if the character in question has a very poor Charisma score other characters are likely to treat them worse than someone with an 8 Charisma. In the real world when you encounter a person who is extremely uncharismatic you will often feel less safe around them, less inclined to approach them or ask them for help, and will probably avoid them altogether give the chance.

Regarding the topic of "dump stats" I have a bit of a different take, one which you might find ironic. There are no true dump stats, there is only a GM that doesn't know how to handle low attribtues appropriately. The player should emulate his character's attributes within reason, if he fails to do so the GM can and should intervene. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are in real life, if your character has a 1 Logic he is unintelligent and should be roleplayed as such. In another game I played a character who was brain damaged as a result of a head wound from years past. For the entire campaign I spoke in poor English and omitted the bulk of my vocabulary. The character was still appropriate and very fun to play, but he had a serious disadvantage and I honored it. Even if some of his linked skills had high ratings I would still roleplaying him as being "slow" because he very much was.

Charisma is considered a dump stat in tons of games and the GM lets the players get away with it all the time until someone in the group gets pissd off and says "Alright, nobody is allowed to have 1 Charisma any more." Some groups insist on 3+. A good GM will teach the player the consequences of attempting to power game in this manner BUT intentionally taking poor attributes can be a very fun road to travel and the consequences can be really immersive and enjoyable.

I think that your interpretation is already very clear from your previous comments. So why to repeat? I disagree in some points but who really cares? I think that the most important thing for any new player is to fit his character to the table. If your table punish hardly cha 1 or log 1 characters, do you really think that it's wise to create a character with log 1? Who ever want to do it? It's also optimization (or powergaming). Select those values that give you most in the table,  i.e. powergaming in your rule settings and table. In other table low attributes are doable (sometimes maybe difficult), because their interpretation is different.

Finally to conclusions: What do you think about my previous comment? You can't assume that everything plays similarly, but you can do mental exercises: If the table plays this way, what is the best strategy? Sometimes you don't want the best strategies, but some advices are still maybe useful. I would even say that in your table everyone should avoid the lowest values in their attributes. It's very useful advice for everyone in your table. But only in your and otherwise similarly playing tables.

[gradivus]

I believe more than one person has repeated their views.
It's not a crime.

[Facemage]

But back to original topic: I think that in different tables players play differently. That's why you can never give a one size fits all answers to anyone. But still we can give several guidelines if we assume something.

I think that build comments in this forum are based on the following setup:
1. No houserules allowed
2. Karma and money rewards are same as guidelines in the corebook.
3. Stay strictly in RAW and RAI (difficult sometimes)
4. Normal level (not prime runner or street levels)
5. Sum to 11 or higher sums are not possible.
6. A typical enemy in first run is at least an archetype character from corebook or even better.
7. There are variation between the interpretation about the attributes. Especially about  the value 1.

And if you look at these points, I think that the typical comments on this subforum looks sensible. Because this list forces you to optimize at least slightly.
So if a newcomer asks help, he should compare this list at his table and if he disagree in some points, the commentators should take into account it in their answers.

And if the gm is also new to the game, I think that the previous list is most common setup for new gms. My new gm needs enemies, what to do? First answer: Use ready archetypes.

Yeah... Seems you are missing the point by making a default assumption. Some of them seem sensible (assumption of no house rules unless told otherwise), but others had me go "huh?" (Assuming that a first run enemy is equal to an archetype). The best advice we could give these people in my mind would be to work with their GM instead of asking random people online.

All that said, your approach could be useful in missions (not sure if it is all true of missions since I don't play in them).

Hmm, I cannot make default assumptions because they don't exist. It's only a suggestion, the sixth point could be also:
The first enemy is a street level runner. And then the gm may say: No, it's not, it's more difficult normal level archetype character. But what really changed? Nothing.
I formulated the list this way because in very many character build threads the writer uses this kind of list.

I can give advices also to the table which uses different strategy than our table. It's called simply an ability to adapt your skills to different rules. So if we know what rules the table uses, we can still give something else than ask your gm. Or should we also shut down the character creation forum, because everything we can give is: "ask your gm"?

And note also that the gm may not know neither? He is also maybe a new gm.

In addition to,  a newcomer's first build contains often real misunderstandings. Like my first build here, who tried to buy adept powers after char gen with karma (he was mystic adept). Moreover I thought that it's possible to cast an increase intuition spell such that it give you max +9 to your intuition, if your intuition is 1. The final result is not higher than 10=6+4.

[Haywire]

In the CRB, it NEVER states a 1 Attribute is a serous disadvantage. Maybe the 1 Log troll is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and struggles to do basic math without a calculator, but is NOT a mentally challenged (or retarded) guy. How many people you know find difficult to divide a bill of 143 dollars among 6 people without resorting to a calculator? They probably should have Log 1 or 2.
A mentally challenged character should have Log 1 plus a negative quality.

[Gatlack]

I take issue with some of the words being thrown around here. Power gamer and optimizer aren't synonyms for each other.

A power gamer is someone who builds the strongest character to show off, not just building a "skilled" character. He is disturbing the fun at the table. That's why it has a negative connotation to it.
An optimizer is someone who is just trying to build the best character fitting his concept. Everybody is an optimizer, some are better, some are worse at it. That is why many seek advice here on this forum.
Why should that be a bad thing?
Also I assume that everyone who is seeking advice is capable of thinking for themselves and can decide what they want in their character and what not.

If someone asks for roleplaying advice, give it to him by all means, but since most are mechanical by nature, why shouldn't we?

[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.

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.

It's appropriate for opposition with dice pools of 10. The PCs should always have higher pools than the opposition, so if the PCs' pools are in the 12 range, the opponents should have around 6 to 8. This is because there are more NPC rolls made than PC rolls, so this gives the NPCs a higher chance of getting a lucky roll and the higher pool gives the PC more chances to succeed on theirs.

[Herr Brackhaus]

It's appropriate for opposition with dice pools of 10. The PCs should always have higher pools than the opposition, so if the PCs' pools are in the 12 range, the opponents should have around 6 to 8. This is because there are more NPC rolls made than PC rolls, so this gives the NPCs a higher chance of getting a lucky roll and the higher pool gives the PC more chances to succeed on theirs.

I'll just repeat myself one last time, because I honestly have given up hope that you'll actually understand the difference between a personal opinion and a fact that is generally accepted.

And again, that's just your opinion, not a universal fact. Different tables, different power levels.

And with that, I'm out.

[Hobbes]

I suspect this will come down to a difference of opinions and but if you have a 1 Charisma it doesn't matter what your dice pool is, people are not going to like you.

By that logic someone with 1 Agility, but 6 dice in a gun skill, specialization, smart link, Reflex Recorder, up to 12 dice still can't hit a target? 

You can house rule min stats and min skills, but they're absolutely house rules.  The rule book does not support your interpretation at all. 

[FST_Gemstar]

Shadowjack - why aren't people going to like you if you have Charisma 1? Some people like introverts/shut-ins/jerks/whatever... Charisma is not described as likeability in the core. It is "force of personality," kind of how your look, and natural persuasiveness. It could be argued that a Charisma 8 elf can roleplay a really mean person, who gets his way by sheer intimidation (Intimidation 6 too). He could look really look the part: hardened, face tattoos, scars, bitten off elf ears, deep voice, etc. He also maxed his Agility and pistol skill to do trick shots for people who give him lip before giving him his way. This is a reasonable way to play a face - a character with super high charisma but if people meet him, they'll think he's a terrible person. 

Shadow, I am thinking your concepts of these numbers are limited/fixed. It's ok to play them how you think at your table. But it really is not the rules that they have to be/should be.

 I've posted elswhere that limits are a better measure of broader concepts like sociability (social limit), as they take in more factors than just a single attribute and reflects how well a character could perform on a range of related tasks (in this example social tasks). Unaugmented humans start with a social Limit of 3. An intuition mage can dump Charisma to 1 and still start the game with a Social Limit of 5. I would argue that they are reasonably more likable than the Social Limit 4 Street Sam who has Charisma 2 but lower Willpower and Essence. This of course isn't spelled out in the rule book, but a character who can never get more than 4 social dice hits is going to be less socially capable/likeable than a character who could get 5 hits. Regardless of skill, the social limit 5 character has an attribute configuration that allows them the capacity to be more successfully social even though they have Charisma 1.


Facemage:
I would add to your list, and I really don't know why I do this: That I expect my RAW characters be at least able to go toe-to-toe and with Professional Rating 4 NPC at character generation. The examples from the book are more about plain fighting, but if you replace highest attributes and highest skills to another archetype (face, for example, there are no face examples in this section of the book), your PC should be able to confidently, though perhaps with a little trepidation, take on such an enemy. I guess it's arbitrary to pick Rating 4 enemies, but it just seems like where an experienced/shadowrunner should be. Elite Corp Security and Special Forces are going to be really tough enemies, but I believe a runner should be able to outclass regular night guards and private police forces. I say this because your team is going to likely run up against a lot of regular gangers, security, and potentially cops who may outnumber the team significantly. The rating 4 examples, Organized Crime gangs/syndicates, seem like they have similar starting attributes and skills to distribute as shadowrunners, and that these organized gangers are not all that different from Shadowrunners (criminals making a living taking a slice from the corporate pie). Just my opinion, I find generally an experienced shadowrunner will probably not feel outclassed by a standard lonestar cop, will be respectful of organized criminals, and be legitimately afraid to have to engage with Elite Corps Security and will try to avoid doing so. I'd shift street scum down one or two ratings (built to be able to take on regular corp security lieutenants or cops) and Prime Runners up a level (matched with Elite Corps Security).  Again, just an opinion here for where I think the power level should reasonably start for standard build characters.

[Whiskeyjack]

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.

You have yet to explain how this actually matters