[All4BigGuns]

And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.

As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.

[Herr Brackhaus]

And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.

As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, for a change. I just don't see how diversification applies to the character generation systems at play where karma generation vs "true" point buy is concerned. There's an opportunity cost to building with Karma because of non-linear progression, but how judging by threads on this very forum most people weren't building with the standard 400BP of 4th Edition either because it was too limiting.

So again, to my mind the issue of diversification, or the lack thereof, amongst players at any given table isn't a system issue as much as it is a table issue. If 4 players build for specialization and 1 player builds for generalization and they all used the same build system, is that a system problem or a table problem?

[All4BigGuns]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, for a change. I just don't see how diversification applies to the character generation systems at play where karma generation vs "true" point buy is concerned. There's an opportunity cost to building with Karma because of non-linear progression, but how judging by threads on this very forum most people weren't building with the standard 400BP of 4th Edition either because it was too limiting.

So again, to my mind the issue of diversification, or the lack thereof, amongst players at any given table isn't a system issue as much as it is a table issue. If 4 players build for specialization and 1 player builds for generalization and they all used the same build system, is that a system problem or a table problem?

With regard to Karma Generation, the exponential cost increases discourages diversification because to hit the benchmarks for a good chance of success, it leaves one with very little to put into other things. This is especially true if one tries to make an Ork or Troll that is good at what their natural talents lean toward (or even an Elf in the case of social oriented endeavors).

A karma total of 1,000 to 1,200 would be better with the way karma advancement works for diversification even if it did lead to heavy optimization people who do so no matter what abusing the ever-loving frak out of it.

[Wakshaani]

And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.

As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.

To an extent true, but also recall that for most tests, which are unopposed, 4 dice total is enough to get an auto-hit and, thus, success at a task. It's when things ge opposed that things shift, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Emphasis mine:

With regard to Karma Generation, the exponential cost increases discourages diversification because to hit the benchmarks for a good chance of success, it leaves one with very little to put into other things. This is especially true if one tries to make an Ork or Troll that is good at what their natural talents lean toward (or even an Elf in the case of social oriented endeavors).

A karma total of 1,000 to 1,200 would be better with the way karma advancement works for diversification even if it did lead to heavy optimization people who do so no matter what abusing the ever-loving frak out of it.

Good chance of success is wholly dependent on table, though. If your opponents are PR0 through 3, you only need 12 dice to be reliably able to succeed. If your opponents are PR5 or 6, you need 18++. So again, isn't this a table dependent thing and not a system issue?

And as for the amount of karma, that's easily house ruled, just like the alternate creation methods (i.e. street/prime, merc/high life/etc). The 800 karma limit is for a certain type of game, and judging by posts on this very forum a lot of people generated characters in 4th Edition with 750 karma instead of the book recommended 600.

[Beta]

One major sting with the new Priority is that you get fewer attribute and skill points than the SR3 version (and SR3 had two fewer standard attributes).

But 2nd gave more than did first, and I think 3rd gave more than 2nd.  Maybe the problem is that it made new characters too good? ;-)

In other words, how powerful/flexible to make new characters is obviously an editorial decision that people aren't all going to agree on.  Being too limited is frustrating -- but on the other hand constraints breed creativity.  I had a blast making a character for a (5th) street-scum level PbP campaign (that sadly seems to have been still born).  When I first looked at BCDEE as priorities I despaired, but as I got into it I still ended up with a pretty interesting character with an interesting set of strengths (the GM did set a target of 10-12 dice for our ‘good’ skills which did really help). 

No game is going to have a power level that pleases everyone, but so long as it can be fairly easily tweaked by house rules they just need to choose one, and make it consistent with the examples and fluff.

[Mirikon]

Elegance surely is in the eye of the beholder, no? Personally, I certainly prefer building a character with the same constraints I'll be using to progress my character later. To my mind, it is more elegant to have the same system for both creation and progression as opposed to having to learn one system to build and another to progress.

Well, the other part of it is that I would have made everything advance as it does in chargen with point buy. The exponential cost is another sacred cow that ought to be allowed to die an ignominious death.

And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.

As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.

To an extent true, but also recall that for most tests, which are unopposed, 4 dice total is enough to get an auto-hit and, thus, success at a task. It's when things ge opposed that things shift, but that's a whole other discussion.

Assuming, of course, that the threshold of the test is 1. That's fine for a data search to get the name of the DJ playing Club Penumbra tonight, but how many of the rolls that matter (combat, legwork, setting charges, jumping from a second story ledge, bypassing security alarms, talking your way past a guard, etc.) are ones that have a threshold of 1 and are unopposed? The answer is almost none of them.

[All4BigGuns]

One hit does not success make in most instances. Thresholds are very rarely at a 1 unless you're talking about things where a PC probably shouldn't be rolling like cooking a meal or some such.

And as for the amount of karma, that's easily house ruled, just like the alternate creation methods (i.e. street/prime, merc/high life/etc). The 800 karma limit is for a certain type of game, and judging by posts on this very forum a lot of people generated characters in 4th Edition with 750 karma instead of the book recommended 600.

The original incarnation of Karma Generation in SR4 was 750 (it became 1,000 in SR4A).

In other words, how powerful/flexible to make new characters is obviously an editorial decision that people aren't all going to agree on.  Being too limited is frustrating -- but on the other hand constraints breed creativity.

No, constraint does NOT breed creativity. It stifles creativity and breeds frustration as it cuts out far more character ideas than it creates.

[Beta]

No, constraint does NOT breed creativity. It stifles creativity and breeds frustration as it cuts out far more character ideas than it creates.

Clearly we differ on this.  Strong chance that when we differ on something so fundamental to the rest of the decisions, we'll come to different conclusions on most other design decisions too.

So rather than chasing you through this thread, disagreeing point by point, please just note that at least one active player and GM sees these issues in an extremely different light than you do.

[All4BigGuns]

No, constraint does NOT breed creativity. It stifles creativity and breeds frustration as it cuts out far more character ideas than it creates.

Clearly we differ on this.  Strong chance that when we differ on something so fundamental to the rest of the decisions, we'll come to different conclusions on most other design decisions too.

So rather than chasing you through this thread, disagreeing point by point, please just note that at least one active player and GM sees these issues in an extremely different light than you do.

It's still a fact that the more constraints, the more character ideas become nonviable.

[FST_Gemstar]

It's still a fact that the more constraints, the more character ideas become nonviable.

Different amounts of infinite concepts...

[Mirikon]

Constraint can breed creativity, if used in moderation. But taken too far, it is basically straightjacketing creativity. Telling a group of D&D characters that they all have to have a reason to be in Luskan at level 1 is a constraint. Restricting the game so that there must be one Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard in the party is taking constraint too far.

[Herr Brackhaus]

And as for the amount of karma, that's easily house ruled, just like the alternate creation methods (i.e. street/prime, merc/high life/etc). The 800 karma limit is for a certain type of game, and judging by posts on this very forum a lot of people generated characters in 4th Edition with 750 karma instead of the book recommended 600.

The original incarnation of Karma Generation in SR4 was 750 (it became 1,000 in SR4A).

I stand corrected. I was misremembering; I saw a lot of characters on these forums built with 600 BP instead of 400. Karma I didn't see much at all.

[All4BigGuns]

Constraint can breed creativity, if used in moderation. But taken too far, it is basically straightjacketing creativity. Telling a group of D&D characters that they all have to have a reason to be in Luskan at level 1 is a constraint. Restricting the game so that there must be one Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard in the party is taking constraint too far.

Exactly so.

Constraints should be applied almost solely at the level of individual tables and done within reason. The system should be set up to give ample amounts of points and/or other resources to encourage diversification while neither particularly encouraging nor discouraging 'optimization'.

Take one of the most common concepts generally seen for this game--the ex-military guy/gal. With points as they are, you have to seriously curtail or even cut out entirely skills that the character should be at least at the Trained (possibly even Proficient) level in just by virtue of making it through Basic Training and AIT just to make a mechanically legal character. And this doesn't even include the skills they'd have naturally learned over the course of their life before entering the military. Heck, even taking the level of firearms training such a character should have (the Firearms group) is heavily looked down upon by many because the number of points given makes looking at efficiency essential to many and even preferable to many more.

[MijRai]

Yeah, I agree there.  As a Marine (been out for a bit over two years), here's a good example of what you 'need' to succeed (or not get reamed).   
Your base-line enlisted 'mook' should have a dice pool of around 6-10 for Automatics, Gymnastics, Perception, Running and Etiquette.  Those are your baseline necessities to do the job as a basic rifleman (and I mean basic, not 0311 Rifleman), and the variation in dice pool goes from your barely passable folks to the ones who are good, but not quite up to elite standards.  There might be some higher or lower by sheer talent or suckery, but the latter tends to not be enjoyable. 

They should have base familiarity (1-2 Levels in the Skill) with First Aid, Computers (everyone should have a point or two in that in Shadowrun), Leadership, Instruction, Con (some Con helps get access to the Skate-r-ade), Swim, Survival, Tracking, Sneaking, Free-Fall, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Heavy Weapons, Clubs, Blades and Navigation (that last isn't required for Lieutenants).  Everybody is shown basic first aid, trained in basic hand-to-hand with and without weapons, given the opportunity to fire an M240 and M203, etc.  Again, it could easily be higher for those people who are talented or interested, or someone got away with never being able to throw a grenade more than ten feet (you never want to be that guy, as funny as the videos where luckily no-one got hurt are). 

This doesn't get into whatever your actual job is.  Some folks are using Chemistry for CBRN or water purification, Electronic Warfare for your antennae huggers, Demolitions for EOD, Industrial Mechanic for engineers, other Mechanics for personnel who maintain vehicles, Pilot for drivers (if you're operating an aircraft, you're not a mook), Pistols if you're lucky to get sent for qualifying with them.  There's also people whose jobs focus on skills already mentioned; a guy who's been in the turret on an MRAP or HMMWV for ten months probably has decent Heavy Weapons/Gunnery skill. 

I mean, let's count this up for your baseline average-achiever.  Average Attributes, so all of them are at 3, has a dice pool of 4 for his familiar things (to buy 1 hit) and 8 for his day-to-day duties.  4 Points into Automatics (3 Automatics, 1 Specialization in Assault Rifles as they've only ever let him regularly shoot an M-16), 5 in Gymnastics, 5 in Running, 4 in Perception (3 Perception, 1 Specialization in Searching), 4 in Etiquette (3 Etiquette, 1 Specialization in Military Culture).  22 here.
Now, we've got 1 point in First Aid, Computers, Leadership, Instruction, Con, Swim, Survival, Tracking, Sneaking, Free-Fall, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Heavy Weapons, Clubs, Blades and Navigation.  16 more for a total of 38, to keep count. 
Now there's this guy's job.  What does our average-achiever do?  Let's say he's Comms.  Now we give them 4 points in Electronic Warfare (3 Electronic Warfare, 1 Specialization in Communications) and 4 Points in Hardware (3 Hardware, 1 Specialization in Radios).  That adds 8 more to a grand total of 46 skill points.  The only Group that would be completely applicable is Athletics, so if you put 5 points there you could say 35/5.  Puts what you need to make a 'basic' person at a level really close to Priority B in Skills.  And this is no Special Forces guy.  This isn't even dedicated infantry/machine gunners/mortarmen/assaultmen, who train for their shit a hell of a lot more.  This doesn't even factor in for hobbies/interests/activities that are represented by active skills instead of knowledge skills.