[Glyph]

The trouble with some of the skill examples, above and beyond the hyperbole for differences of one die (which is only about a third of a success, on average), is that they give examples of people with entire skill sets.  This goes back to the lateral improvement thing.  It's not that difficult to do one thing as good as an elite commando.  But it is difficult to do as many things, and do them well, as a commando.  A starting shadowrunner who is well-optimized can be really good at one thing, and functional in other areas.  The best, though, are really good at multiple things, and functional in more areas.  This is why, instead of limiting characters from having skills of 5 or 6, they limit how many skills you can have at 5 or 6.

[Phylos Fett]

I find that most of the time I can create a starting character that is pretty much exactly how I would like the character to end up. I'm not saying that there aren't areas that said character can't improve in, just that most of the time he's a done deal, and I have to actively look for ways to improve him based on the concept.

[Joush]

In any case, I tend to like broadly skilled characters with modest skill totals. I'm a fan of skill groups (as you can see by using them twice in the skeleton). Starting with Skill Groups Firearms at 3 is flatly a worse idea then getting one firearms group skill at 5 with a specialty and the others at 1. It's much worse, in most combats, then taking one skill at 6 with a specialty and reflex recorder for 28BP and saving 2BP

On the other hand, I'm less likely to need to have a serious talk about what they expect from the game when someone comes up with SG firearms at 3 on the sheet then someone with 19 dice* to shoot their assault rifle.

It comes down to what the skill numbers mean, and how the character creation works.  I just try to spread the idea that is in the books: Skills aren't just a number and represent a large amount of time and effort to acquire, and unless your concept is built around having one at superlative levels, you should keep them at merely professional levels and buy them up later.


*19 because Automatics 6, Assault Rifle specialty(2), Reflex Recorder(1), Smart Link(2), Soft-capped elf agility(6) and muscle toner(2). Aggressive optimization can go higher, but that's already crazy and I wanted to do the example without opening a book.

[Glyph]

I agree with matching skills to concepts - if I played an unlicensed private detective, cat burglar, or freelance journalist, they would likely have a wider, more eclectic range of skills than a street samurai.  Although that wouldn't preclude a weapon skill of 6 - depends on how dangerous their work typically was, and how often they would need to employ violence to escape.  See, three might be "professional" for a beat cop, but it isn't "professional" for a shadowrunner.  Even the archetypes, which are far from min-maxed, have 5's and 6's in them.

It may be partly a matter of playstyle.  I envision 400-BP shadowrunners as either established pros, or people who were at the top echelon of some other line of work (the ganger who is the big fish in a little pond, the wiz-kid corporate hacker, etc.).  I could definitely see you wanting to give shadowrunners lower skills if you see them as "beginners".

[Phylos Fett]

I'm actually thinking about doing up a modified CharGen for "starting characters" right now.

[Preacher]

I don't understand the value of things like this, honestly.

When I'm new to a game system I'd rather see actual examples of characters to help me on my way to creating my own character.  A mash-up of seemingly random abilities and predetermined stats would come across as both noise and railroading to me.  If anything, having a detailed description of what everything costs and why they were chosen would be far more useful.

When I'm an established player to a system, I want full control over every aspect of my character.  When I need or want inspiration, I'd also rather see full examples rather than the aforementioned random blurbs.  At best, they'd be a checklist or reminder of things I need to consider giving my character.  The predetermined packages, however, are valueless to me unless they happen to include some kind of discount or something.  And if they do include a discount, you're all but forcing those packages on players even when they don't quite fit in with a concept.

And finally, if I were completely new to gaming, I don't think they'd be all that helpful either.  I'd rather have someone actually help me with the entire process from start to finish, and I'd rather have full characters to look at so I could understand why I'm making the choices I'm making.  If, instead, I was just lazy or unwilling to learn a new system, I'd prefer to have a premade character just handed to me until such time I was interested in doing so.

So things like this or PACKS really seem like wasted effort.  The only place I could see any value in them is in regards to making NPCs, but even then that's not that useful since NPCs don't use character creation rules.

[Mäx]

So things like this or PACKS really seem like wasted effort.

I heavily disagree with this, especially the PACKS part and i don't even make character with buildpoints(Karmagen is so much better).
Both of the PACKS:s are really good for inspiration on "new" character types to build and give good examples on what is needed for different character types.

[Preacher]

See, that's what I don't understand.

How is that more useful than a full archetype / sample character?  Where you get to see the full picture and, ideally, why the various options were selected.  If they actually told you why they're "needed" -- and in many cases there's lots of stuff there that isn't a barebones necessity  -- I could almost see a use for them.  But compared to a full archetype, or someone explaining why you need to choose specific things, it's pretty darn useless.  Especially for the new or inexperienced users they seem to be aimed at.

"I could use some help building my character."  "Just pick this, this, and this."  "Uhm, okay, but why do I need that middle one?"  "Just shut up and do it."  --Skeletons/PACKS

[kirk]

First: it's a poor tactical stance to claim that since a method doesn't work for you it doesn't work for anyone.  PACKs work for some people. Skeletons work for some people. You're free to not use either. Telling me to quit developing them because you don't like them makes me want to laugh at you, not follow your guidance.

You also seem to have misread the skeletons.  Allow me to explain them.

The problem with the archetypes is recognizing what is essential. When trying to make a similar role but different detail character, the inexperienced player doesn't know what can be changed.

That's the purpose of the skeleton. It is not the whole character. It is the minimums for a role, no more. Glyph did an outstanding face with this principle, showing what had to be there, what was recommended as additional AND WHY, and other things that might be useful AND WHY.

In my teaching experience, giving enough help to prevent people crashing immediately but then letting them find what works best for themselves beyond that point is a successful mechanism. That's what I'm doing here.  PACKS is actually doing similar from a different direction, giving groups of useful packages that work in themselves but are not, individually, the whole. They also allow the student to try various things that, while possibly not ideal, have some chance of working while the student masters other things.

Again, I see you don't like these. That's fine, you don't have to use them. I'd appreciate it if you didn't insist I'm wasting my time developing them, however, because despite how useful they are for you they've been useful for other people.

[Mäx]

How is that more useful than a full archetype

You need to understand that i'm not new to making SR4 characters, so i really don't have any need full sample characters and can get much more use out of smaller packages that i can use as a basic foundation to build my character around or as easy addons to my base build.

Also it's kinda funny that you list multiple downsides to these smaller packages, when all of those are just as true(if not more so) for a full sample builds.

[Preacher]

You need to understand that i'm not new to making SR4 characters, so i really don't have any need full sample characters and can get much more use out of smaller packages that i can use as a basic foundation to build my character around or as easy addons to my base build.

So you don't need any help except that you do?  To each their own, I suppose.  Though I still don't see how a full blown example in context is somehow worse than a seemingly random collection of game stats.

Regardless, at least you seem to imply that you agree that it's not very helpful for newer players.

Also it's kinda funny that you list multiple downsides to these smaller packages, when all of those are just as true(if not more so) for a full sample builds.

Only if you ignore the brunt of what I said in my first reply.  Namely that full archetypes with explanations for why things were chosen, with an emphasis on the essentials, is and always will be far more useful than a random collection of stats with no context or explanation, making it even worse than a barebones archetype without one.   That would be something much more valuable, especially for new players, than this sort of thing.  Doubly so if those archetypes were kept up to date with the newer sourcebooks, while still kept simple and straight forward without trying to be some kind of niche character.

I mean, some of them aren't even good barebone essentials, such as this one:

Positive Quality: Magician (15 BP)
Chose a Tradition (determine Drain attribute).
Softcap Drain attribute (40BP).
Softcap Willpower (40 BP).
Hardcap Magic (65 BP)
High Skills: 10 rating points (6/4 or 5/5) between Spellcasting and Counterspelling. (40 BP)
Additional Skills: Summoning (4), Binding (4), Assensing (4), Ritual Magic (2) (56 BP)
Spells: Heal, Levitate, one combat [choose from stunball, stunbolt, powerball, powerbolt], nine other spells of your choice. (36 BP)

Why should you hardcap Magic?  Why are you taking Ritual Spellcasting (there is no skill called Ritual Magic)?  Why is Levitate a required spell?  How is this helping someone make a quality magician character?

[kirk]

Hardcap magic needs changed to softcap.

Ritual spellcasting (thank you for the error catch in name) came up consistently in query after query as an expected skill. It is, by the discussion, extremely useful in the investigation phase of most missions for most players.

When I asked on several lists what spells everyone expected a mage to have available, those three were always listed. Always, by every respondent who gave a full list.

[Preacher]

The main point I was trying to make is that none of that is made clear in the skeleton itself, and that full explanations and context is much more useful than a random stat block.

[Mäx]

So you don't need any help except that you do? 

Help, not really, but inspiration/ideas for a new character builds are always useful as are examples of whats needed for different parts of a character(these are much simpler when presented in small building blocks, intstead of full character build) , this does ofcource require that one proficient enough at char building to be able to see why the building block in question includes what it does.

and that full explanations and context is much more useful than a random stat block.

And the funny think is, nobody has said your wrong about that
Atleast notwhen talking about totally new players.

[kirk]

That's not what I was taking from what you were saying.

Further, I disagree that a full explanation of why each item is necessary for a beginner. It is for some beginners, but for most it's one method of reducing information overload.

"These are the minimum numbers for the role you want to play. You'll want to flesh them out, and here are some options for doing so. When you've got a handle on the rest of the rules you can use other things to flesh them out, and even intentionally use less than the minimum numbers for the role. But for now these are the minimums and you don't have to figure them out as well as everything else."

Archetypes do the same thing from a different direction. "Here's a fully working character and some tactics for use."

PACKS do it from yet another direction. "Here are building blocks that work within themselves. Combine, mix and match to make your character."

Look, I've got a request. You don't like what's done, fine. Make your own. Make what you think beginners needs and put it up. Let people hammer it to refine it.

But cease with the "you're doing a lousy job and need to quit doing it at all" stuff you seem to be saying. Quit heckling and contribute instead.