[Solo]

Hi Guys,
I have been playing RPG for about 25 years and have played a lot of games includes Dongeon and Dragon (the orginal) and SR1-SR2. When creating characters, I have always tried to find a concept and created a believable individual whitout much thought for complete character optimisation. As long as it fitted within it background and intended role(s), i was happy with it. The flip side to this is a long time friend who would read the rules from A to Z and then find the most powerful character possible (or pretty much). Pretty much a question of personal choice, I am not judging him harshly, although sometime he would deserve it  .

Coming to my point. Looking at the characters proposed in this thread, i have come to change my view of character creation and am moving more towards an optimised design. This is presumably because seeing the threads and the comments on characters have made me aware of some point of rules which eluded me before (i am not one who cares most about RPG rules). However, optimising my characters also makes me feel like a sell out to the highest dice pool school of thoughts. Sure, I presume that if Shadowrunners were real they would hone their skills to be the best at what they do but my feeling is that full optimisation make characters lose this more human/flawed element.

Do you guys optimise your PC more because you play Missions in a convention setting or because you just want to be the best or do you create characters that make you smile with too much thoughts on actual effectiveness?

i blurbed a bit but I am not looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist but more to have peoples opinion on the role of optimisation for character creation and if certain campaign settings are more permissive or drivers of optimisation.

Cheers
Solo

[Medicineman]

a combination of Min/Maxing and good,interesting Charconcept (inkluding Backround)
is best ImO
Neither a Powered Up Min/Max Figure thats not muxch more than mere Numbers nor a Char that lacks ability for the Sake of a "Good Backroundstory" (I hope  I made myself clear )

with a combination Dance
Medicineman

[Sacredsouless]

Hmmm...I start with an idea, then I give them what I feel are the minimum stats (I love using that little table on pg 119 of SR4A that gives an idea of how much skill a each point represents for this) for their abilities. I throw in any applicable qualities that seem thematically critical and use gear to cover what my qualities miss (like low-light vision for a leopard theme changling). After that I tweak so that the points all fit, use up any spare cash, and then proceed to play. So mostly theme but I will bow to the realities of the game and when points get tight, I will go for increasing what the character is good at over random skills.

[Thrass]

Is a believable character, ... for example
a hacker/cracker whose life depens upon those gimmicks programs and options he has and his genereal skill
is it not in his interest to become the fastest, best, most brilliant, hacker of all time, so that he never get's cought, does his jobs as expected and generally should be considered way above average?
Is it not that only those people ever have the capability to pick up the fights with the AA and AAA corporations?

Is it therefore not mandatory to build a (still an example here) hacker that packs the best of the equipment, wares and stats to make a truly believable character roleplaying wise?

There are enough 300BP low level campaigns (took part in 2 by myself) to represent more down to earth characters representing more of a normal commoner trying to pick up the fight.

I think "selling out to the highest dice pool school of thoughts" is just what a Character would do in the world itself and so is mandatory roleplaying wise.
Why shouldn't a heavy weapons ork pick up alle the equipment and ware until he finds it as easy to do long bursts as single shots? (aka stacks recoil modifiers until the weapon dosn't even twitch anymore in his hands)

In the end you live in a world of constant trouble and action and want to max your survivability.

For example:
I'm playing a snob elve (face and hacker) who runs around in a tuxedo and constantly get's asked if he wants to put on some ("spare") ammo jacket from one of the team members.
Because in character they can't believe my characters going on runs without at least a bullet proof vest, they want to max out the armor of their whole team character wise, not only rules wise,
because they depend on it ... with their lives.
(he's stacking form fitting body armor actioneer buisness clothing and some other stuff so he's fine but keeps his looks)

[Xzylvador]

To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.

Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality.  For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely dumb and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?

Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But where min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.

[Solo]

To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.

Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality.  For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely done and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?

Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But were min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.

That's an excellent point!

[Kat9]

To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.

Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality.  For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely done and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?

Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But were min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.

Yet another +1 to you sir.

[Stonefur]

With all the games I run, I ask my players to come up with a "concept", and then start writing the backstory and basics before making logistical character decisions.  It helps expose min/max junkies who can't make sense of crazy and illogical choices that don't draw back and evoke the concept of the character.

[Noble Drake]

I believe that optimization is no problem at all, unless that optimization is being taken so far by a player that it limits what they view as "viable concepts."

That believe is much less prominent here than on forums that talk about other RPGs, especially class based ones that don't adhere to random character generation - where you end up seeing advice threads ask "How do I make this character concept a little better?" get answered with "Don't play that concept, play this one instead because it is more optimal."

Go ahead and build your concept to be the best it can be at what it does - just don't start thinking one concept is superior to another in any way that matters - that's what I say.

[emsquared]

Like you, I've been RPing across a variety of systems for the majority of my life, I find that I tend to build optimal characters as that's how I challenge myself RP-wise and I enjoy seeing how things can be pushed to be effective where it might not normally be. After 20+ years of RPing, I feel it's easy to fall into "archetypical" aspects of myself in RP, there's the roguish me, the brawler me, the wizardly me, etc. etc., and this cuts across genres (things like alignment in D&D are nice, but really only further reinforce the archetypical RP-aspects, lawful me, chaotic me, etc.). If I want do something really new to me, that will really challenge me to be someone different than I tend to be, the best way to do that is to be a genuine thematic departure - mechanically and RP-wise. Not only does it add mechanical reinforcement to my RP, but also it is fun and interesting to me to push a new aspect of a "same-ole" archetype.

For instance, right now in my Pathfinder campaign, I'm playing a free-hand fighter. It's kind of a crappy alternate class variant on the base fighter class, but if you combine it with the Dancing Dervish feat, and Duelist prestige-class, not only does it make an interesting character, but a pretty freaking effective front line warrior where you might not expect it. No shield, NO armor (literally, he doesn't wear armor because his AC and abilities are best without it), that's interesting and fun (to me), is it optimal? Heck yes, but only because I've taken advantage of certain specialist feats. Does he have an 11 in STR and 8 in CHA (as well as "Abrasive Attitude" trait, and is generally just a cocky bastard), but a 22 in DEX and 16 INT, yes - these are critical to taking advantage of the Dervish, FHF and Duelist - does that make me a min-maxer? I dunno, maybe under X-person's personal definition, can't say I really care though because if you played with me, you'd want me at your table permanently because I still have fun and make every attempt to engineer my playing to make the experience fun for others, whether as a DM or PC.

And D&D/PF is a little different than SR of course as it is more explicitly and mechanically role-focused, but the principle is really the same.

Edit: In SR, I always design my PCs to have at least two roles, one to help in combat, one for non-combat, and some builds you can do three and still be actually useful, but beyond that - you're going to be hard pressed to be effective at much, and having a larger set of crappier skills does not make you a better RPer, it makes you a character with a large set of crappy skills. I don't find that fun to play.

To me, personally, there's a large difference between optimization and min-maxing.

Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality.  For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely done and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?

Optimizing, on the other hand, is something I can't NOT do when making a character. Nobody wants to play an average wageslave. But were min-maxing (to me) starts from the idea "how can I be the best in this particular skillset", Optimization starts from the basic idea and background and then builds on that. "ex-army black-ops sniper" of course means he'll have an excellent skill with a rifle, but part of his knowledge would also be camouflage, infiltration, survival and some skill with other weapons; he'll have some ex-army buddies who can supply him with weapons and put him in touch with some other ex-army mercenaries; some smugglers he might've met in the jungle while on a mission there, a drinking buddy who works for Ares and is a gun-nut too and a contact who can get him some paid work; he'll be pretty average looking and while not a complete genius won't be dumb as a brick neither.

An interesting distinction. Where is the line drawn though? When does an optimal build become min-maxed? Not asking you to give a concrete answer, don't want to derail, more just a rhetorical challenge for the two schools of thought.

[Stonefur]

The line, IMO, is the intent.  Intent to be part of the story, rather than to try and be the story by breaking the game for every one else.  just my 2 pennies.

[Reaver]

wow, some good answers and responses here!

Optimization? Min/Max? What's the difference? Sadly that wil depend on your viewpoint.

For me, the first sign that a character is Min/max'd is stats. are the 'primary' attributes set to the max of initial character creation, THEN enhanced with cyberware? Is there one or more atrrubutes set to the minamum for the race? This is a good warning sign that the player COULD be min/maxing (note i said COULD... some players have a concept in mind and can pull off such attributes, more later)

The next is skill selection and points. People who min/max generally focus only in one select area and ignore everything else. Thus you end up with a character that has his core combat (or magical, or hacking, etc) max'd out, then augmented with cyberware, and a near total lack of skills that don't somehow support the primary role. for example, you could end up with a character that has pistols at 5, automatics at 6, infeltration at 5, dodge at 5.... and nothing for any other skill! This, to me is an example of a min/max'd character.

Now, what about an Optimizied character? well, I'll put my own Face up to the acid test. The concept was a Face/pistoleer elf build. as such, he has good Charisma and agility (after racial bonuses, they are both 6, not including cyberware) his weakness is strength at a 2, body 4, willpower 3, initition 3, logic 2 (first thing I raised with karma). so as you can see, while he is pretty, and agile, he's not overly strong and initially not very bright... but can take a punch (or a bullet).
From there we move onto skills.... Since his primary role was as the group face, I decided to take the influcence group at 5, THEN pistols at 5. from there I spread my points around (pilot ground craft 2, armed combat (clubs) 3, infeltration 3, computer 3, hardware 1, and a couple other skills...)
From there, I picked out some contacts (ended up with 6, plus a free one from the GM, all at ratings 2/3/4)
and then cyber and equipment... first i got my equipment including 2 pistols ammo, armor and then my cyber... all said while the character wasn't 'Ideal', he was functional and useful to our group.


I think the biggest determination of min/Max Vs optimization is not actually the characters, but the GM and his style of play. some GM's are brutal in their style, throwing mooks equiped with betaware, security armor, automatics and dice pools of 16+ at their players (lets not talk about what they feel are ACTUAL challenges!) or have a simple, straight forward run'n'gun style to their games. These types of games promote Min/maxing simply due to either ignoring other aspects of the subtles of the game (sneaking,planning, schmoozing past the guards, instead of gunplay for example) or force the players to min/max (Tim's GMing this game, and I KNOW he will be giving his mooks wired reflexes 2, LMGs and dice pools of 14+. So in order to survive, I NEED to be better then that!)

If the GM is leveling the opposition of high caliber at the party from the get go, it forces players to Min/Max more then they Optimize. same with only focusing in on a single or dual aspect of the game while ignoring other aspects.  Of course, the opposite is also true. If the GM is facing a game where the players are rolling 20+ dice from character creation, have nothing but combat skills and equipment to level a small city, he has only a few choices. Bore the party with card board targets, fustrate the party with social and stealth missions, or throw up challenfging opposition and ignore everything else.

Shadowrun is one of those games that is extremely hard to GM due to the wide differences in characters right from creation. Unlike pathfinder/D&D that has challenge rating for every monster, Shadowrun has "threat raatings" which really tell you nothing about the actual difficulty VS your players to any meaningful degree. I have seen a bunch of challenge rating 1 mooks TPK a party of 4 runners... and I have seen a dozen challenge rating 5 mooks get taken out in the first initiative pass by a party of 3...

If you are the GM and you are feeling that Min/Maxing is out of hand at your table, look to your GMing style and see if you could change up your style some. If you are the player and feel everyone else is Min/Maxing discuss with them why they are building their characters a particular way, or suggest to your GM to throw in a few little social/matrix/etc curve balls to the party (nothing extreme, but enough to show that having a more rounded character is to their advantage).... or, maybe it's time for you to find a new group of players that fits YOUR play style more? after all, we play this game to HAVE FUN! And if you're not having fun.... what's the point?

[Kat9]

Oh you get it here too.

"Your character is suffering from the 'why is this character not an ork' flaw," is one that I was told once.
"Take a 1 Agility  and get a cyberarm with enhanced agility that'll give you 22 for firearms."


Any character I see that has a 1 attribute makes me want to sort of cry.

[All4BigGuns]

Min-maxing means pumping all resources you find into one or two specialties and dropping everything else, often even using cheesy exploits get met more max without the min. In the end, you'll get a character that's completely uber-skilled inhis 'thing', but is usually not a credible personality.  For example: An "ex-army black-ops sniper" who can kill you from 3km distance and shooting through 5 walls while doing so, but who despite the "army blackops" thing has no skills or training whatsoever in another type of combat, survival or other firearms, is asthmatic and most likely in dept with one group or the other and has no contacts that could actually get him gear, a job or useful information. He'll also be ugly as hell and be completely dumb and probably doesn't even have the strength required to properly carry a rifle, but who checks that crap anyways, right?

Nope, sorry. I don't know who told you that is "min-maxing" but they lied to you. That is creating wide, deep weakness in the character, which is anathema to "min-max". MINIMIZE WEAKNESS and maximize strength is what min-max is, so by virtue of putting such glaring flaws in, the character can not be considered "min-max".

[Crunch]

I really don't have a problem with optimization unless it either exploits holes in the rules or results in a bunch of characters who look strangely similar.