[baronspam]

Fun and mechanically effective ARE two different things.

I like to think that Fun trumps Rules Lawyering every time.

But be advised, many, many players would find being given a clearly mechanically inferior character to be "not fun."  In fact, i think that someone who doesn't is in a small minority.  Im all for RP.  I like RP.  I like a good story.  I have been guiltyof more than my share of theme builds.  But if you have new players, which this thread was about, and one has a character that is clearly mechanically inferior to everyone else at the table, odds are strongly in favor of him not likeing that.  And when a game is just getting off the ground not liking often equals not coming back for more.

Also, mechanics should mimic story elements.  Its hard to RP an elite covert operative if mechanically he isn't any better at his job than fred the mall cop.

Being good at the Game part of a game doesn't make you any less good at the Role Playing part of the game.  Its not Rules Lawyering to build an effective character.   

Its also a real pain in the rear for the GM to have radically differnt power levels in a group.  A combat challenge that is good for one guy either murders the other or is not threat at all.  Like I said above, the key thing is that no matter where the power level for the campaign shakes out to be you need to keep the characters roughly in the same range.  This can sometimes be putting a cap on a power gamer, but in Shadowrun because its honestly so easy to make a flat bad character until you learn the rules a bit it is often making sure that the newbie does not completely stink up the place.  All RP purity aside, a hacker who can't hacker, a fighter who can't fight, etc, is just not good for the game in any way.  Its harder to GM, its harder for the other players who are relying on that character to cover his role. 

[Critias]

Not every line of every character for every game needs to be "optimized."  It's a game.  If you're so worried about being "good enough" or being "the best" that it turns into work, or that building a character turns into a rote addition of must-have items with nary a character point left over at the end of it, you're just not playing the same game as I am.

Most players want their characters to be good, sure.  But you know what?  A game can run just fine on characters that are just good enough.

[baronspam]

Not every line of every character for every game needs to be "optimized."  It's a game.  If you're so worried about being "good enough" or being "the best" that it turns into work, or that building a character turns into a rote addition of must-have items with nary a character point left over at the end of it, you're just not playing the same game as I am.

Most players want their characters to be good, sure.  But you know what?  A game can run just fine on characters that are just good enough.

I agree.  Like I keep saying, the important thing is to keep the characters at a particular table roughly in the same power band.  Its having one character that is markedly less efffective than the others that tends to upself players and make the GMs life more complicated.

[Critias]

I agree.  Like I keep saying, the important thing is to keep the characters at a particular table roughly in the same power band.  Its having one character that is markedly less efffective than the others that tends to upself players and make the GMs life more complicated.

I would amend that with "...one character that is markedly more or less effective than the others," personally.  If most of the group, GM included, is content running an assortment of archetype-level characters that are new to the shadows and feel some moderate danger from the NPCs in the core book, the "outlier" character being a min/maxed to hell and back uber "optimized" murder machine can be just as disruptive to the game.

[baronspam]

I agree.  Like I keep saying, the important thing is to keep the characters at a particular table roughly in the same power band.  Its having one character that is markedly less efffective than the others that tends to upself players and make the GMs life more complicated.

I would amend that with "...one character that is markedly more or less effective than the others," personally.  If most of the group, GM included, is content running an assortment of archetype-level characters that are new to the shadows and feel some moderate danger from the NPCs in the core book, the "outlier" character being a min/maxed to hell and back uber "optimized" murder machine can be just as disruptive to the game.

Agreed.  The guy with 19 dice may cause hard feelings if everyone else has 11.  He also one shots the things that are a challenge to the rest of the group. 

[Cantor]

I think this whole party balance thing doesn't jive with the suggestion that everyone has to make specialist characters. So the sammy has a million dice to hack and shoot with. My hacker doesn't. The face doesn't. Does that mean that the combats have to accomodate them? I say no.

[UmaroVI]

Yes, but you can see how it might be a problem if one person brings a face who also has 15 dice to shoot people, and one person brings a street samurai who has only 12 dice to shoot people and doesn't have any real skills other than that.

[Critias]

I think this whole party balance thing doesn't jive with the suggestion that everyone has to make specialist characters. So the sammy has a million dice to hack and shoot with. My hacker doesn't. The face doesn't. Does that mean that the combats have to accomodate them? I say no.

Which is why I'm not a fan of insisting everyone needs to make specialist characters, personally.

As always, though, and with everything else in Shadowrun (or gaming in general), it's an attitude that's going to vary from table to table.  Not all the advice you'll get on these forums is going to jive with all the other advice, but that doesn't make any/all of it "bad."  It just means different folks have different ideas about power level, expectations, dice pool requirements, and how to handle the game.

[Cantor]

Yes, but you can see how it might be a problem if one person brings a face who also has 15 dice to shoot people, and one person brings a street samurai who has only 12 dice to shoot people and doesn't have any real skills other than that.

If he has no other skills, what the heck did he spend his BP on?

[baronspam]

Yes, but you can see how it might be a problem if one person brings a face who also has 15 dice to shoot people, and one person brings a street samurai who has only 12 dice to shoot people and doesn't have any real skills other than that.

If he has no other skills, what the heck did he spend his BP on?

Look at the weapons expert sample charcter in the book.  An extreme example I know, but thats a 400 bp character that tops out their best attack at 10 dice AFTER the smartlink and has  has 1 IP.  And thats on a character that is supposed to be a combat expert.  What did they spend it on?  CRAP THAT DOESN'T HELP.  Not yelling at you, just yelling.  Shadowrun character design has more traps than a North Vietnamese game trail in the late 60's.  Its really easy to do things that at first blush sound like they should be something good, but in practice add up to a pile of pooh.  There is very little forced game balance in this system.  You can build characters of wildly different effective power levels for the same build points. 

Now if everyone is built to the level of the weapons expert, where 10 dice is good and 12 dice is great and extra IPs are rare, that character works.  But if you show up at a table where the face shoots better than you and the mage is better at hand to hand (I have seen it happen) and then they have the things that they are actually good at on top, you might feel robbed.