[Dead Monky]

A Charisma of 1 is "undeveloped".  It can be changed into a Charisma of 2 with 10 Karma.  Obviously, it is a weakness, since you can't even default to social skills you don't have unless you have positive modifiers.  But some GMs interpret a Charisma of 1 as "Your character doesn't know not to take a dump in the middle of the street."

For just a Charisma of 1, no I don't think I'd interpret it that way.  Now if they had a Charisma of 1 and Uncouth, then yeah, it's turd in the street time.  Of course with that one-two punch, you're basically either severely (and I mean severely) autistic or you were raised by wolves.

[grimjaws]

Focus of the character comes up in creation.  I put it to them that you can be a katana, a survival knife, or a swiss army knife.  The first does one thing really well but tends not to find function elsewhere and is never really meant to.  So if your a katana character you are like the kensai and seek mastery of one thing and live life in that pursuit.  Survival knives have a group of related skills toward a specific purpose, like most characters.  The Swiss are so busy trying to do everything they barely do anything.  I use the comparison to illustrate proper character balance to any I am building characters with.

A very nice succinct visual representation. I'll be using it for all of my future games during character creation.

[Glyph]

I like that analogy myself, but it does assume players with equal levels of system mastery, making characters equally with (or against) the grain of the system.  That isn't always the case.  For example, someone using augmentations that give big bonuses to Attributes and dice pools can make a "survival knife" character that is both more effective than a new player's "katana" character, and more versatile than another new player's "Swiss army knife" character.

[Triggvi]

It is hard to balance a character out. The best thing you can do is try and give them a soul or style or something real to make them more than just numbers on a page. It is hard to do that when we go through the optimization process. It comes down to giving the Gm hooks that they can use to drawn out the character make him more that the sum of there karma.

[John Shull]

It hard to balance characters out. The best thing you can do is try and give them a soul or style or something real to make them more than just numbers on a page. It is hard to do that when we go thought the optimization process. It comes down to giving the Gm hooks that they can use to drawn out the character make them more that the sum of there karma.

That's the thing exactly.  Character efficiency is nice mathmatical exercise but I want to know more about a characters drives than his dice pools on creation. 

[savaze]

I leave it up to the players themselves. Some people aren't at the level to play anything more than generic, others are min-maxers, others roll players (arguably the prior suggestions), others role players, and others are just along for the ride. I've found that shy of micromanaging you can't make everyone fall into line. It's much more sensible to hold an individual to what they are capable of playing and be flexible to the mood of the game and the desired result.

[Triggvi]

I leave it up to the players themselves. Some people aren't at the level to play anything more than generic, others are min-maxers, others roll players (arguably the prior suggestions), others role players, and others are just along for the ride. I've found that shy of micromanaging you can't make everyone fall into line. It's much more sensible to hold an individual to what they are capable of playing and be flexible to the mood of the game and the desired result.

We all are a mix of all of those qualities, but that doesn't mean we have to be pigeon holed by them. You can't force someone to role player, you can only give them inspiration and encourage them and hope they rise to the occasion. When we started role playing in games, where we the best or did we have to learn grow?

[Netzgeist]

I like to have a chat with the character (mine or the ones my players make) before the character sheet being complete.  Also before. Getting in character before the character is ready seems to me like a good way for the player to feel the way he is being built: always best to go for a test-drive to see if you'll be having some fun.

[KarmaInferno]

Uh...
I know Rule of Thumb is used, among others, to mean using the appropriate set of rules for a given situation, but it has so many negative connotations that it's generally avoided in polite conversation in this P.C. society (e.g. the 18th century English Law that said you were allowed to hit your wife with with a stick no wider than your thumb). I'm not a P.C. person by any means, hence my hitting people comment... I thought I'd pass along that tidbit to fulfill my habit of random posts late at night.

Off-topic here, but...

This is a widespread belief, and not an unreasonable sounding backstory to the phrase. It's appeared in media, newspapers, even school textbooks, but so far there is little credible actual historical record to back it up. English common law at the time did allow for "correction" of a wife, but beating was specifically excluded in the permissible actions.

My own rule of thumb for characters: Make sure you have decent Legwork skills of SOME sort. I've been at tables where, when asked how the runners intend on gathering information, the GM is greeted with blank stares and, "Uh, I guess I can default".

It doesn't have to be a huge investment, but sitting there twiddling your thumbs for a large chunk of a mission is no fun.



-k

[Triggvi]

Uh...
I know Rule of Thumb is used, among others, to mean using the appropriate set of rules for a given situation, but it has so many negative connotations that it's generally avoided in polite conversation in this P.C. society (e.g. the 18th century English Law that said you were allowed to hit your wife with with a stick no wider than your thumb). I'm not a P.C. person by any means, hence my hitting people comment... I thought I'd pass along that tidbit to fulfill my habit of random posts late at night.

Off-topic here, but...

This is a widespread belief, and not an unreasonable sounding backstory to the phrase. It's appeared in media, newspapers, even school textbooks, but so far there is little credible actual historical record to back it up. English common law at the time did allow for "correction" of a wife, but beating was specifically excluded in the permissible actions.

My own rule of thumb for characters: Make sure you have decent Legwork skills of SOME sort. I've been at tables where, when asked how the runners intend on gathering information, the GM is greeted with blank stares and, "Uh, I guess I can default".

It doesn't have to be a huge investment, but sitting there twiddling your thumbs for a large chunk of a mission is no fun.



-k

Thanks for defending "the rule of thumb" tag.

I can be as big a power player as you have ever seen. Knowing that, I usually look at my character drafts and ask myself as a Gm "would I want to have to deal with this character?" If the answer is no, I start modifying until I can honestly say I would want that character in my game as a GM.

I am a believer that a character should be build with fun factor. Fun and laughs for everyone at the table including player and the GM.

[Glyph]

Even from a purely selfish point of view, that's a good idea.  From a numbers perspective, you can take things to an extreme level of effectiveness.  From a metagaming point of view, you need to consider how the GM (and possibly the other players) are going to react to it.  If you seem to be invincible, the GM will go out of his way to "challenge" you.  All your extra dice have done is put a target on your head!  So ask yourself which scenario is better:

A) The character rolls so many dice to soak damage that he is invulnerable to small arms fire, and can usually soak heavy weapons fire.  The GM resorts to all kinds of methods to damage the character, becoming increasingly frustrated, as well as going out of his way to attack every other weakness that the character has.  The other players are a bit upset, too, because the GM has been upping the difficulty of every encounter, and their characters are getting hurt a lot more.

B) The character rolls lots of dice to soak damage.  Small arms fire can occasionally give him a light wound, and heavy weapons can potentially hurt him more.  The GM is secure, because the character isn't totally invincible, and he could hit him with heavier stuff if he really needed to.  So the character takes the occasional minor damage, but otherwise does quite well in his role.  The other players like the character, because he is their big meat shield who draws the most fire while they do their own jobs.

Even though the character in A) is technically tougher, the character in B) has less problems.  If you really want to optimize your character, a bit of metagaming is crucial.  A pure number crunching exercise might have the most dice, but get targetted, if it is even allowed in the game.

[John Shull]

Even from a purely selfish point of view, that's a good idea.  From a numbers perspective, you can take things to an extreme level of effectiveness.  From a metagaming point of view, you need to consider how the GM (and possibly the other players) are going to react to it.  If you seem to be invincible, the GM will go out of his way to "challenge" you.  All your extra dice have done is put a target on your head!  So ask yourself which scenario is better:

A) The character rolls so many dice to soak damage that he is invulnerable to small arms fire, and can usually soak heavy weapons fire.  The GM resorts to all kinds of methods to damage the character, becoming increasingly frustrated, as well as going out of his way to attack every other weakness that the character has.  The other players are a bit upset, too, because the GM has been upping the difficulty of every encounter, and their characters are getting hurt a lot more.

B) The character rolls lots of dice to soak damage.  Small arms fire can occasionally give him a light wound, and heavy weapons can potentially hurt him more.  The GM is secure, because the character isn't totally invincible, and he could hit him with heavier stuff if he really needed to.  So the character takes the occasional minor damage, but otherwise does quite well in his role.  The other players like the character, because he is their big meat shield who draws the most fire while they do their own jobs.

Even though the character in A) is technically tougher, the character in B) has less problems.  If you really want to optimize your character, a bit of metagaming is crucial.  A pure number crunching exercise might have the most dice, but get targetted, if it is even allowed in the game.

Really think just working on characters with the GM at creation gets good balance doing up front.  They can also be helpful on having skills and gear for your character type and his type of adventures.  Only time GM's have issues with players is when they try and beat the GM and not the adventure.  Don't play that game, no one wins that one.

[Triggvi]

Really think just working on characters with the GM at creation gets good balance doing up front.  They can also be helpful on having skills and gear for your character type and his type of adventures.  Only time GM's have issues with players is when they try and beat the GM and not the adventure.  Don't play that game, no one wins that one.

I think you are right in that a Gm should be involved at all levels of character creation. Not building the character for the player, being there when the player starts to go over board. It is a lot easier to stop it then than when the character is totally build and the player in emotionally invested.

I have seen the reverse where the Gm is trying to beat the players instead of running the adventure.

[Longshot23]

What about character completeness from the get-go?  I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished).  Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)

I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.

[Triggvi]

What about character completeness from the get-go?  I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished).  Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)

I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.

You are Right, there is no such thing as perfect character. What we talking about is not perfection but play ability. You want a complete person when you are done with the character creation process. A character that fits well with a team and plays well with others. Growth potential is a great thing in a character i look for it in the characters I create.