Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Red-ROM Oct 10 2009, 03:52 AM

I'm sure this has come up before, and it probably differs from table to table, but i find it hard to reconsile the desire for a well balanced character that can handle the myriad of challenges, with the desire to make him really good at what his focus is. I mean, being average is a 6 DP. And average is not so hot in SR. There are a lot of must have skills IMO, I end up with things like a perception of 2 and negotiations 3(with 2 Cha). Is it a waste of points?should I just do 1 point to avoid the default?I guess Edge is the balance? to succeed when it really counts? how much do the gm's out there let slide/punish a gun bunnie with no stealth or social skills? or a face with no perception? especially when they are game breakingly good at their specialty?

Posted by: TheMidnightHobo Oct 10 2009, 04:21 AM

Most of the characters at the table I play at are pretty average at quite a few things and still manage to be fairly decent at their specialty. I'm playing a (very probably soon-to-be-dead) face who rolls 5 to 10 dice in his non-specialties and 15 or 16 dice in most social skills. Of course, my guy also has 7 Edge, so he can do most things in a pinch. It's the same with the other characters; mid teens in specialties, high single digits in non-specialties.

At our table, lack of social skills hasn't really affected people, but that's because we tend to negotiate in a group, and I've been sent on most people-meeting missions so far. If you find yourself hurting in the social skills department, don't be afraid to pick up some Empathy software. For Perception, I'd grab one point in it and take some Vision Enhancers on your glasses; it'll help loads, and it's pretty cheap.

So yeah, currently our dicepools are fairly low. We're all using our first-made characters though, and with a rogue AI hunting us, it's only a matter of time before we'll be needing new guys, and they'll undoubtedly be more highly specialized.

I guess in the end it really comes down to what kind of game you're playing. We've been doing mostly small-time runs this whole time, so our small DPs weren't a problem. Our GM only recently stepped things up, and, well, the long and short of it is, we're probably screwed. XD

Asking your GM about the power level of your campaign is probably your best bet though.

Posted by: kzt Oct 10 2009, 05:06 AM

Skills are either grossly overpriced or characteristics are far too cheap based on what you get for each. You should put all your possible points into characteristics before buying any skills in a game that hasn't extensively house ruled CharGen.

After that you need to know what the GM and other players are expecting.

Posted by: the_real_elwood Oct 10 2009, 05:15 AM

It all depends on how your group runs their games. In the group I played in, people put most of their points towards their combat, matrix, magic, or build/repair skills. Social skills always got shortchanged, but our GM let us roleplay around some of that. If we could roleplay an encounter well, he would cut us some slack on rolls for negotiation and interrogation and the like.

But in my opinion, as a Shadowrunner your primary job is to shoot people in the face for money. If you aren't good enough to successfully shoot people in the face, you won't even survive to collect the money. QED, your "shooting people in the face" skill is the most important and should have as many points in it as feasible.

Posted by: Wolfshade Oct 10 2009, 05:55 AM

Prolly repeating the mantra, but..... It really depends on the game and how you perceive the character. I have always been against min/maxing a character (its a pen and paper rpg, not an mmo...IMHO) The GM has the pleasant job of mixing you're creation into the current story. If it helps the story line...awsome , otherwise, I just see it as part of the challenge of being the person behind the screen. Most well thought out runners with their skills coming from their background are usually more balanced than twinked. Sure your primary skills will be higher, but any paranoid person with any experience in the shadows will have at least 1 or 2 points of perception (unless their oblivious, which is a negative quality for a reason). Just my thought

Posted by: kzt Oct 10 2009, 05:57 AM

No. Your job it to be able to effectively carry out a task that someone is paying good money to get done. The client probably isn't going to be very happy about your team leaving a trail of bodies into and out of the Evo boardroom that you bugged for him. Being really good at shooting people really doesn't help in stealing data from an Ares computer, it doesn't help sneaking into the pyamid to plant evidence, it isn't very helpful unnoticeable rearranging the furniture in a Wuxing executive suite, etc.

The vast majority of jobs people want shadowrunners to do can be be done by a team that has nobody with skill with a gun. It would be pretty crazy to organize a team like this, but it certainly possible. Particularly if one of the people who has incompetence in firearms keeps a F6 fire spirit handy for those occasions when a stunbolt is too subtle....

Posted by: Marwynn Oct 10 2009, 06:10 AM

Ahh the Wuxing runs. Man, I love those. Spend a week doing legwork to move a potted plant a centimeter to the left, rotated slightly, with the seats set at odd angles.

Specialists are, by definition, great at what they do. But I see no reason not to round yourself out. It does go hand-in-hand with your game and group. Karoline's running a fun Left 4 Dead-ish game and I don't feel the need to round my uber-mage out.

In general, it helps not to think of it is as an "and my character does this too". It should be my gun bunny stealther, an integral part of the concept. Sometimes though you have to accept that your character can't be good or even decent at everything, another part of the character concept. You can point and laugh at the gun bunny who can't tiptoe, but what about the Rigger who has Charisma 2 but Etiquette 3(5)?

Rounding out sometimes has a detrimental affect.

To get by this whole thing I say create a concept for the character, a full concept that addresses each area. Don't go straight to building with just the first initial thought, you usually end up becoming too specialized in that case and end up with a two dimensional character.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 10 2009, 05:18 PM

A good majority of my character's at our table tend to be somewhat specialized with a great deal of rounding out... yes, my primary skill rolls 13 dice, and most of my other character skills are in the 6-9 range...

This is to be expected if you follow the fluff of the skill ratings... it has not been detrimental in our games, even when I was captured and sent to prison (where I am still languishing, waiting for my comrades to break me out)...

this just adds to the game, not detract from it in my opinion... of course, opinion (and mileage) may vary...

Keep the Faith...

Posted by: Glyph Oct 10 2009, 07:09 PM

Being a well-balanced character is not incompatible with being a specialist, because a specialist should, in addition to being good at his specialty, still be capable of functioning outside of a team when he has to. To address the examples - a gun bunny with no social skills or stealth skills can function (for the latter, defaulting to his enhanced Agility will probably be enough for infiltration and palming). However, putting a few points into, say, negotiations, intimidation, and shadowing will help that character immeasurably in being a better gun bunny. The face, on the other hand, is shooting himself in the foot by not taking perception. Perception is a complementary skill in social situations, and sometimes getting a good read on a situation can stop you from doing something that will give you lots of dice pool penalties.

The "game breakingly good" might be a clue to the problem. The system rewards specialization - heck, the entire game's premise is of groups of specialists who work together. However, the game also discourages hyper-specialization by making those last few points disproportionately costly. If you have a primary Attribute of 5 and a skill of 6, you still have plenty of points left. But if you start hard-maxing things, your points will dwindle rapidly. Hyper-specialists are still doable, but they will have a bare-bones assortment of other skills. A specialist will have breadth within his own skill set, and be functional outside of that specialty. The only specialists that really have difficulty being well-rounded are the ones like mages or covert ops specialists - because their "specialties" are actually lots of skills, leaving few points left for other things.

Finally, there isn't really a consensus of how needed most skills are, because it depends on the campaign. For some games, the gun bunnies will run wild, but in other games, nary a shot will be fired. In some games, social skills will be very important, but in other games, the GM will handwave most of it, or such situations won't even come up. So the optimal mix for a character's skills really varies - your best bet is to check with the GM and other players, then make your character.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 10 2009, 07:13 PM

As a rule of thumb, first identify what you will be required to do, then what you will be asked to do, and then what you want to do. It's kind of subtle, but hear me out.

Some rolls you are going to have to make no matter what. For instance, sooner or later, you'll have to try and deal with incoming fire. Do you have high Reaction? Dodge? How's your Armor, and is your Body high enough to soak a hit?

Some rolls you're going to be asked to make. Take out that sniper, protect the mage, turn off those turrets, open that door. This is where the table really comes into play. If you're a specialist, you might be asked to work outside your comfort zone when everybody else defaults. If the party is deep enough, you can be a one-trick pony. If you're in a small group, you'd better be ready to do more then one trick.

Finally, what do you want to do? Does your Rigger have Automotive Mechanic at an absurdly high level, despite it never coming up in the game? Do you insist that your paratrooper backstory *demands* that you take at least parachuting 3? Are you the only one in the party with diving? Do you have skills that just plain don't help?

When you're deciding how much to specialize a character, first decide what you're going to have to roll, and cover those bases. Then think about your group and figure out what you're going to be asked to do, and make sure you're competent in those skills. Once you're satisfied with your main skills, start fleshing out the character.

I think the medics call this triage - not every skill is going to survive the build process, and you need to prioritize. When you build a generalist, you're not doing anything wrong, you're just fitting in to a larger number of roles. When you build a specialist, you're setting yourself up to be amazing at one part of the game - make sure it's going to be a big part.

~Mike
DeadMetal: You, Sir, are a Dick GM.

Posted by: Karoline Oct 10 2009, 07:33 PM

I don't see any reason you can't be both well rounded and a specialist. I mean it doesn't take 400 BP to be able to shoot someone in the face. It isn't hard to give yourself good stats, good equipment, a high specialty skill, and still have a good number of other skills. Keep in mind things that would make sense for your character to know. For example, a gunbunny might well have a good shadowing skill so they can follow the guy they need to shoot in the face, infiltration so they can get to the guy without needing to shoot other guys in the face (That should cost extra), hardware to get past a locked door. Negotiation so they can find people to sell them bullets and new guns. Con so they can explain why they have all those guns on them.

So yeah, don't think of it as having to 'round out' your character so much as make him properly believable. And of course, you are in a team, a team of -specialists- If everyone plays a generalist then you are more or less screwed.

Reminds me of a thief handbook I read a long time ago, which talked about how you could have a bunch of low level specialists or a single high level generalist to pull off a big job (A cat burglar to get everyone in the second story window, a guy good at opening safes to get to the goods, a stealth guy to scout out the guards and so on.)

Think of runners in the same way. You have the gunbunny, the hacker, the mage, the infiltrator, the face. Sure, you could have one ultra super prime runner of doom do the run, but why would he bother? It is easier for the J to higher a team of specialists. Now, that doesn't mean that no one should be able to do anything that the others can do. Like in the above example, all the thieves need to be able to be at least a little bit quiet so they don't wake up the whole house, but only one needs to be extra stealthy to go ahead and scout out the guards. In SR it is helpful that everyone else can at least be not giant noisemakers while the infiltrator moves ahead to figure out where the security is and take out the cameras and stuff.

It also helps the face out if the rest of the party doesn't do stupid things in social situations, so a smidge of negotiation/con/etiquette makes sure you don't say something stupid or belch in the Js face or something like that.

Posted by: Thanee Oct 10 2009, 07:53 PM

Yep. I can never convince myself to start out with an attribute of 6 (plus racial mods). It just has too much of an opportunity cost.

OTOH, I rarely take a lot of skills at low ratings (1-2). I would rather choose a few select skills and get them at decent ratings (3-4).

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Weaver95 Oct 10 2009, 10:14 PM

For what it's worth, my group started with a character concept and built 400 pt characters based on/around that concept. they didn't really bother with min/maxing their character out for performance. In fact, they have several glaring holes in their coverage...but the characters they made are what they really wanted to play, and they put some work into making them come together.

i'll smooth over some rough edges prior to game start but basically if your group likes character development, then that's the style of campaign you play. if they want to slaughter massive amounts of corpsec guards, then that's what you write. the point is to have fun after all. that requires a bit of flexiblity.

Posted by: toturi Oct 11 2009, 12:33 AM

While technically all tests can potentially be success tests or opposed tests, some tests are generally success or opposed tests. Shooting someone else in the face is usually an opposed test while climbing down a wall is a success test. If you are a specialist where your primary function is opposed, you'd need more dice than someone specialising in success tests generally.

The reason why most opposed tests specialists have a lot of dice in the primary function is that you do not want the other guy to win the opposed test. So you try hard to stack the odds on your side.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 11 2009, 01:47 AM

It's not coincidental that opposed tests that have lots of potential negative modifiers are the ones where you can start with the highest dice pools. I think those dice pools are considered "game breaking" so often, because some GMs either don't apply negative modifiers, have these prime runners facing mainly cannon fodder, or both.

But if a GM is doing that, a bit of metagaming might be in order. If a dice pool of 15 succeeds most of the time, and a dice pool of 20 makes the GM flustered, then go with the 15 and use the points to shore up a few weak areas. Why go for overkill, if it will only lead to the GM resorting to cheesy tactics to level the playing field? Conversely, if a GM thinks a lack of social skills is a huge, glaring weakness, then a Charisma of 2 and the Influence skill group at 1 might be worth it, not so much for any mechanical advantage in dice rolling, but so you won't be targeted the way you would if your character had a Charisma of 1 and no social skills. Min-maxing is an effective tactic, but it is pointless if you make a character that doesn't fit that particular gaming table.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 11 2009, 02:42 AM

Ain't that the truth...

Posted by: toturi Oct 11 2009, 04:19 AM

The reason why most specialist builds have to go with a pool of 20 rather than 15 is most opposed tests are those that you cannot afford to fail. If you do, really bad things happen. For example, Perception vs Infiltration/Disguise, if you are trying to spot a sniper, or you are a sniper trying to hide from a counter-sniper, failing either way is very bad for the failing character's continued survival. Similar for Spellcasting/Counterspelling, etc.

Opposed test exceptions that I can think of off-hand that doesn't generally have lethal consequences are the Social Skills. Sure, if your GM doesn't want your pornomancer to talk the pants off his CEO NPC, then don't.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 11 2009, 04:40 PM

But how many NPC's are throwing upwards of 15 dice, let alone 20+?
In my experience with SR4 since it came out, I have found that a dice pool of 12-14 is more than sufficient to succeed the vast majority of the time...

On those RARE occassions, where you are going up against a prime runner of your caliber or better, you are expected to fail about 50% of the time (for equal challenge) or even less for the vastly superior challenge...

Stacking your dice pool so high that it becomes increasingly hard to challenge yuor character detracts from the story in my opinion... If you NEVER FAIL, what is the point of playing at all, you might as well just have the GM and you collaborate on a novel and be done with it (and it would be a boring one indeed if the Protagonist is flawlwess in execution of anything that he does)...

Failure helps you to grow as a character... it is part and parcel of character development...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: toturi Oct 12 2009, 12:24 AM

Due to the extreme lethality of the Shadowrun game system, it is unlikely failure in the PC's chosen area will help character development. It may help your character development but it is almost quite detrimental to your PC's continued well being. If you are building a specialist, you should be ready to fail somewhat at other tests not relating to your primary focus, but should your PC fail in his primary focus, then likely the story ends or has taken a very bad turn. Even if you do have more dice, it does not mean that you will always succeed, it simply means that the likelihood of success is better.

Failure only helps you to grow if you survive it.

Posted by: Tachi Oct 12 2009, 02:03 AM

Yeah, that's one of the reasons that I'll usually start a group of "well rounded" PCs in a street level arc and let them grow into the real shadows. They tend to 'well round' themselves into a grave otherwise. I'm not a very forgiving GM, burning edge for survival happens fairly often in my games. But that's just me, YMMV.

Posted by: cndblank Oct 12 2009, 02:13 PM

The BP system encourages hyper specialization with the skills and stats maxed or mined.

It charges any where between 1.5 to 2 times the Karma rate for most skills and stats unless you get really high.

It even cost double to specialize.

I understand why they did the BP system that way, but they should have made it a quickstart option.


Use the Karmagen system if you want rounded characters.

The character will have more low low level skills and fewer very low dump stats, but they won't be so maxed out.

You can also give some starting karma to round the character out. People will use it to get specializations and pick up a few skills at rating 1.

Stuff they should really start the game with but cannot afford with the BP system.



IMHO, a character should have his specialization covered, after all the Johnson is hiring specialist and can afford to hire professionals.

But a character should also be well rounded enough to to keep up with the rest of his team if called to fill in some other role.

Posted by: Kerrang Oct 12 2009, 02:51 PM

As many have already noted, it is going to depend on your GM. I am they type of GM that does not care for Power Gaming, and by extension, Min/Maxing. If you come to my table with a min/maxed character, the first thing I am going to do is make an observation that your character looks a bit unbalanced, and that you may want to fix that. Ignore my observation, and you will have a target on your forehead. Others will look at it differently, your best bet is to discuss it with your GM first, and then with your group as a whole. The people you play with should be the determining factor, not the consensus on Dumpshock.

Posted by: Blade Oct 12 2009, 03:17 PM

As a lot of people said, it depends on your table and GM and the average threshold you face.

I have a character who's got an average of 8-10 dice in hacking combat and facing with low Edge. Sure he can't hack the heaviest node, can't handle an army on his own and can't convince the corporate court that he should be in charge but in most situations (in the game I've played at least), his abilities will be enough. Then it all comes down to playing his advantages and working around his weaknesses.

The advantage is that he'll be able to do some dangerous social engineering on his own: get in the place, hack something once inside and be able to fight his way out if needed. He'll also be a very good addition to a small team that can't have specialists in every aspects. He's also rarely left behind as the rest of the team does something.

One of the possible drawback is that he can feel useless if there are specialists to do his work. But you can work around this: if there's a better hacker, my character will focus on the facing and combat or he'll assist the hacker by doing the grunt work. If there are enough fighters on the team or a very difficult opponent, he might avoid combat entirely or use his hacking abilities in combat (mostly for tactical support rather than for aggressive hacking).
You just have to keep in mind (and remind your teammate) that your character can't do everything he's skilled in and play accordingly.

Posted by: Zak Oct 12 2009, 03:42 PM

Yea, or he might not get a call next time a job is up.
Because he is not bringing enough expertise. Of course this is usually not an issue when playing with friends, but 'slacker' chars like this one are dragging team of specialists down.
It gets annoying to have chars who can do their job having to put up with those who can't (f.e. a lousy hacker who might aswell be replaced with a babysitted agent).

As you said, it really depends on the group setup. If everyone is just above (or on par) of average on their field your char would fit right in. If however, the group prefers to get their jobs done - I would tell you to bring another char.

That said, I am not changing the gameworld depending on the dicepools of the group.
I expect a Sam to totally overpower any guard (or even HTR members). I expect a hacker to easily walk into a normal security node and own it. And I expect a mage to not make a scene out of force 3 spirits (as annoyingly powerful those can already be).
So yes, you might get along with your 10 dice. From a group perspective though, i'd rather have you roll 15 if that is the average specialist pool (which it usually is in my starting games)

In gaming groups you can get by with quite alot of slacking. It is pretty unfair to the rest of the team though, if it's not communicated and for a good role-playing reason.

Posted by: Blade Oct 12 2009, 04:52 PM

I disagree. The char I've used as an example isn't a slacker. He's competent, but not a specialist.

He overpowered a few guards easily (though he might have trouble against an elite HTR member) and hacked a lot of security nodes (rating 4) on the fly. What he didn't do was hack a rating 6+ node but he used social engineering to get a legitimate access to that one.
When in a team with a hacking specialist (maxed out hacking stats, nearly nothing else), he was still the one who was sent when you had to physically jack-in since he was able to handle the infiltration on his own and to fight his way out if needed. And while less competent than the hacking specialist he's also less of a burden to the team when he has to tag along.

But then again it depends on the average dice pool on your table. I've mostly played him when the BBB was the only available book and 12+ pools were rare and 15+ even rarer.

Posted by: Zak Oct 12 2009, 05:22 PM

It wasn't meant as a personal attack, I just rolled with the example. Sorry, if it came across in a rude way.

Sure, BBB only some 'specialist pools' are pretty limited and pushing a dp to 12 or even 14 sometimes feels stretching it. With all those splatbooks however 14+ is pretty easily achieved in any given field without much hassle or twinkery. And thanks to easy bonus dice from gear or ware this doesn't even cut deep into your skill point BP pool.

Posted by: cndblank Oct 12 2009, 05:32 PM

Is it power gaming to make sure that your character hold up his end?

Any way what are you going to take 5 level 1 skills for 20 BP which you can pick up with experience for 20 Karma or one rating 5 skill for that same 20 BP that can keep you alive and would cost 32 karma in game?



Given that, you are playing a team of specialist and you have to be able to hold down your specialty.

Jack of all Trades is a specialty too.

And the GM and the group determine what meets the requirements and what doesn't.



Finally SR4 characters are made of glass and carrying hammers.

A GM can whack a power gamer in SR without working a sweat up (given that you can hit a PC with a tax audit, a dragon, and his girlfriend calling up to say "We need to talk" all at the same time.

Just hit them where they are weak.

And as for the pornomancer, you just have to learn to say NO (which it sounds like you have down).

Posted by: Glyph Oct 12 2009, 06:11 PM

@toturi:
See, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said sometimes it's better to have 15 dice in your specialty, and shore up some weak areas, than to have 20 dice. Yes, it's a lethal game where the cost of failure is high, but if the opposition is set up so that 15 dice are going to be enough, and going over 15 only gets you "a target on your forehead", then it's better to go with the flow and adjust your character to the table.

You should always include how the game is being run in your character creation calculations. If it's Kerrang's game, then 15 dice might be wise; if it's Zak's game, 20 dice might be better.


@Kerrang:
Min-maxed characters are ones that are built so that their advantages are optimized, and their disadvantages are minimized. People seem to confuse "min-maxed" with "hyper-specialized" a lot on these boards. Hyper-specialists are the ones that tend to be lopsided, while a min-maxed character will be able to cover his specialty and still be decent in other areas.

Posted by: Traul Oct 12 2009, 06:37 PM

It is not the BP system on its own, but the mix with the karma system and its quadratic costs.

Funny thing: in signal processing, one of the most famous algorithms that uses this mix of linear and quadratic constraints to obtain unbalanced coefficients is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least-squares_spectral_analysis#Chen_and_Donoho.27s_.22basis_pursuit.22_method too

Posted by: Kerrang Oct 12 2009, 07:25 PM

Then we are using differing definitions of min/maxing. The definition I am operating on is the one where you maximize the ratings of attributes and skills you perceive as beneficial to your character, and minimize the ratings of skills and attributes that you feel do not benefit your character. A min/maxed starting character in SR is one which has one or more attributes at 6, a couple more at 5, and the rest at 1. The same character will have a bare handful of skills, all at rating 6, and that is just the tip of the iceberg, there are many telling aspects of gear and magic choices that contribute to the overall min/maxed character. Basically, any character that looks like it could have come from a Dumpshock "Build the Best X" thread, where X is a type of character found in SR, is min/maxed.

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 12 2009, 09:40 PM

I'll start this by saying I'm a min/maxer, by any definition. I'm a player, and a GM, so I get to play both sides of this.

The BP + Karma system does indirectly reward higher starting stats. Going from 1 to 2 in a stat costs 10BP or 10 Karma. Going from 4 to 5 in a stat costs 10BP or 25 Karma. Going from 5 to 6 will cost 15BP or 30 Karma. A savvy player will notice this fairly early in the process, and run their critical stats up to 1 less than max where they can, in an attempt to make upgrading easier in-game and take full advantage of their starting BP allocation.

As a player, I run a Troll Brick. This has caused some problems in gameplay... the GM had trouble balancing combat when I could autosoak most of a Frag Grenade, but stray fire from a Assault Rifle disabled other party members. On the same note, I'm useless in a great many situations that don't directly relate to combat. It's frustrating at times, but I'm coming to terms with the character concept I created. I would have been a bit more apprehensive if the GM had artificially imposed limitations outside of the rules, especially if I had gotten killed because of them. Likewise, I expect the GM to target my weaknesses. That's why they're there... and it gives me something to either fix or mitigate between sessions.

As a GM, I've encouraged the players to min/max, and have prepared for them to do so. This has backfired a little bit in that the diverse characters are seeing more action during setup. I expect this to change a little bit when we get to the meat of the run and the specialists have more opportunity to show their stuff. I can't really express an opinion until this Thursday.

My general impression is that either way is fine as long as the players and GM agree on it. A min/maxer in a generalist's game will feel resentful for being externally limited and continuously targeted, while the other players get irritated and the GM frustrated. A generalist in a min/maxer's game has a very real chance of getting accidentally slaughtered. In the end, I believe it's the GMs responsibility to balance things so that every player is allowed to play a game they enjoy without being unnecessarily impacted by the play style of the other game members.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 12 2009, 10:51 PM

I guess we agree on the definition, and disagree on the interpretation of the definition. To me, being hyper-specialized to the point that the character has glaring weaknesses is ignoring the "min" part of min-maxing. I don't consider the "most dice for X" builds to be optimal ones for play - they are more number-crunching exercises.

The pornomancer, for instance, I would drastically change if I wanted to play a similar character (entertainer/seductress-style face). I would drop too-costly things like hard-maxed Charisma or the aptitude quality, get rid of a lot of qualities and items that give too-conditional modifiers or drawbacks (pheromone receptors, which can give penalties in places like crowds; the fame quality, which makes it exponentially difficult to function as a runner, etc.), and drop the empathy software, simply because I find it cheesy. I would also buy the Influence skill group instead of pumping up Con. With the points I saved, I would be able to make a far more well-rounded character.

That character still might be rolling social skills in the high teens, though. Characters that could be considered "powergaming" characters don't have to be ultra-specialized. They can get that way when you start going past 20 dice, but before then, you can have characters who are very good in multiple areas. And you don't need to try that hard, or exploit any rules loopholes, to do it, either. Take a human with Agility: 4, add a suprathyroid gland and muscle toner: 4 (both acquired with the restricted gear quality), get pistols at 6, with a specialization in semi-automatics, a reflex recorder for pistols, and a smartlink. That character rolls 20 dice, and could still be good at lots of other things. Indeed, with the boost to physical Attributes to free up points to spend on skills, and the high Agility (which is used with lots of skills), the character could easily wind up with higher dice pools, for more things, than a character built as a generalist.

Would you have a problem with a character throwing 20 dice, if that character didn't have glaring weaknesses in other areas? If you do, it might be wise to mention it to players ahead of time. Some GMs seem to think that players should automatically intuit what an "acceptable" level of power is, but in truth, the rules allow for a very wide range of power. This lets players explore a wide range of concepts, but care should be taken that either everyone is on the same page, or everyone is mature enough to play what they have made, weaknesses and all. This not only means the pistols expert not starting a fight because he is "bored" during negotiations, but the pistols/armorer/demolitions/gunnery guy not whining that the pure combat guy is rolling more dice than him for pistols.

Posted by: Ayeohx Oct 12 2009, 11:03 PM

You're correct; it totally depends on the group. I'm running a 3 player game (1 GM, 2 players) and balanced characters are a must. I run the game RAW and I don't pull any punches. That said, the players take lower level missions that they believe that they are capable of finishing.


Depends on the difficulty level. The game considers a 3 to be professional level (skillwise). The GM should remember this and adjust the game and their NPCs accordingly. Doing otherwise only pushes players to create min/maxed characters.


Not in my campaign. A 5DP is better than none. And if your clever that 5 DP skill can be increased (blackmail, gadgets, or any other sort of edge).


No one should have to depend on their edge to get them through skill checks. That sort of luck will run out. Ever seen someone that doesn't really know how to do their job but they are good at improv and BSing? Eventually that luck will run out. Or they get better before they get fired.


It's like I tell my players "I don't do anything to you, the game world does". Shadowrun is based on gritty realism. The gameworld plays out realistically; it's their jobs to interact with it. If your characters doesn't have the skills to survive in it then you'll be making a new one very soon - better luck next time.

Posted by: Tyraxus Oct 13 2009, 12:56 AM

Can I just throw in a couple of nuyen on the min/max issue?

First, some background. Personally, I have degrees in corporate accounting and finance, as well as further basic background in engineering, process improvement, statistics, and programming (jack of all trades kinda thing during my undergraduate career). I'm also more than passingly familiar with the D&D 3e CharOp forums, a place on the net with a reputation for some of the most awful rpg constructs to ever see the light of day. So I guess I'm predisposed to building those hyper-hyper-specialists that everyone has problems with at the table.

With that out of the way, my perception of min/maxing seems a little different from yours, and I'd like to share it for discussion. I learned, way back when on CharOp, that min.maxing wasn't about making something that focused on one thing to the exclusion of everything else. No, that way lay theoretical optimization, the way to find the constraints of the system. Min/Maxing, on the other hand, was shorthand for minimizing weaknesses/maximizing strengths. In other words (at least as it was explained to me), it's about finding synergies. My Ork hacker, for example, I consider an example of min/maxing, since I get free body and strength points, and the lower logic cap doesn't hurt that much. I minimize a weakness (combat) and spend the points in a more efficient manner in order to better fill my primary and secondary roles (in this specific case, hacking and ranged combat). With the points I saved on body/strength, I was able to pick up a couple of points in the stealth and interaction groups to start minimizing the secondary gaps. I roll 10 dice to hack, 15 to shoot, and can usually at least attempt to help with any task the team tries, save magic.

So... take from that what you will. Not saying anybody else's definitions of min/max are wrong, just that I learned differently.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 13 2009, 01:20 AM

Again... If you never Fail (are never challenged) in your primary specialty, Then what is the Point of the Story?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 13 2009, 01:25 AM

I would disagree with this... when I used Karmagen, the character created had the same skills as in BP (at even higher levels) and a great deal more in the way of support skills and even better attributes... Karmagen was broken in SR4 as it allowed more powerful characters than BP did, leading to imbalance when both systems were in use together... with the increase in cost to attributes, and keeping everything else equal (i.e 750 Karmagen Karma to create characters) this would decrease the imbalannce between the two and bring things back into some alignnment...

But of course, that is just my opinion and some people here on the forums vehemently disagree with that opinion...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 13 2009, 01:28 AM

This cannot be stressed enough... Thanks Blade...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: toturi Oct 13 2009, 01:55 AM

I understand, but unless the dice pools of the opposition is always less than 10 dice, 15 dice is still a dicey prospect. Think of it in terms of survival - if you are playing Russian roulette and there are 2 rounds in the 6-shooter, you have 2/3 chance of not being shot, or let's be even more generous, there is only 1 round, do you want to put the gun to your head even with a 1 in 6 odds? It is not about challenge, it is about survival. Unless I have some suicide fetish, I won't be taking those odds.


The point obviously is to survive and not to fail. The whole point of the story is that you are not supposed to be challenged in your primary speciality if you are playing a specialist. Even if you have 20 dice against 12 dice, there is a still good chance of you failing, much less 15 against 10-12. The challenge in the story lies in other areas. When it is your main schtick, the theme song kicks in and the audience knows you won't fail.

Posted by: MusicMan Oct 13 2009, 01:56 AM

It also depends on the size of the team... a 3 man team will need a broader array of skills per member as opposed to a 10 man team.

Posted by: MusicMan Oct 13 2009, 01:57 AM

It also depends on the size of the team... a 3 man team will need a broader array of skills per member as opposed to a 10 man team.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 13 2009, 02:00 AM

Perhaps... But I find that extremely Boring and predictible... If there is no risk, then there is no reward either... *Yawn*
If I can figure out a novel in the first chapter, there is no reason to read the novel... not for me thanks...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 13 2009, 02:06 AM

I think you're assuming that the GM will fail to recognize your specialty, and present a challenge that either limits or circumvents it. If your game becomes boring because you have 20 dice in a single skill, your GM may need some creative stimulus.

Posted by: toturi Oct 13 2009, 02:12 AM

There is risk - and the risk even at 20 dice is not insignificant. An antagonist with 12 dice has a shot at beating the protagonist at those odds.

The game system is not like D&D where you could well survive a lucky hit from a kobold. You die just like the rest if you get hit by a punk kid in SR. If I can't figure out who is supposed to be the main character in the novel by the first chapter or worse, the person I think is the main character get dead by the 2nd chapter, I'd be going "WTF?" and dump the book.

I trust but verify.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 13 2009, 02:15 AM

That is not what I said, and no I am not failing to recognize this fact... I said that if YOU CANNOT FAIL, as is the purpose of hyper-specializing, then IT BECOMES BORING and predictible, and there is no longer any reason to roll the dice to resolve the conflict... Using others arguments, you are trying to obtain the highest dice pool you can in order to circumvent the oppositions dice in an opposed test, in essence never failing at that test...

By that logic, I should NEVER FAIL in my primary Function... BORING... Even James Bond (or John Mclain, or Quigley, etc) Failed (a great many times in fact) and the results made for an interesting story... you can apply this to a great many of the best movies and even fiction on the market... protagonists that never fail are BORING, BORING, BORING...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 13 2009, 02:38 AM

I agree that if you could never fail, the game would quickly lose it's appeal; although I have a couple issues with the phrase 'never fail'. Even if it's 20 dice vs 1 die, there's still ~5% chance of failure, and I have trouble believing a GM would pit a specialist directly against an incompetent. I also have trouble understanding why a GM would attack a specialist from within their specialty. Carl the Ghoul may be able to beat the mage senseless, but that didn't stop the mage from Mind Controlling him first. No matter how many dice a character has, there's always a chance they can fail... moreso with the Glitch and Critical Glitch rules. This makes it difficult for me to understand your argument.

Posted by: Tyraxus Oct 13 2009, 02:42 AM

Tymeaus: I respectfully disagree. It's not people failing that makes an interesting story, or even simply overcoming adversity, else the Special Olympics would be more highly rated than the Super Bowl or World Cup. And I also disagree that people that don't fail make for boring stories, else Sherlock Holmes (who solved every case he was ever given, IIRC) would never have seen print. No, interesting stories are interesting or not based on a variety of factors mostly independent of whether the protagonist is a pro or not, and interesting RPG storylines depend far more on player engagement than character competence.

EDIT: Rereading, I need to clarify that bit about the Special Olympics. That was meant to be associated with "overcoming adversity," not "people failing." Sorry for not making that clearer.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 13 2009, 02:48 AM

I agree that everyone has a weekness and that they should be properly exploited to maximum usage... however, the argument is that a specialist should never fail, and therefore teams of specialists should never fail any task that the team takes on...

Take your standard team of 6:
Infiltrator: Never fails at Infiltration
GunBunny: Never Fails at Gun Play
Rigger: Drones always cover the team and never fail to do so
Hacker/Technomancer: Never fails to Hack
Face: Never fails to obtain the optimal social benefit
Mage: Never fails to outmagic the opposition...

Where is the fun here... any given obstacle will be overcome by a member of the team, with no significant opposition to stand in their way (Assuming that they never fail)... Would YOU play that game? I would rather have characters that have a substantial chance that they could be defeated than a team of characters that could never fail in anything that they attempted... when this occurs, your choices tend to mean more,, which fosters a better story in the long run... And by substantial chance, I mean that hte dice pools should be considerably closer than 20 to 1... more like on the lines to withn a dice or two of each other, if not dead even...

I play the game for the story that comes out of the playing that the characters are involved in... a good story requires that there be substantial risk/conflict (note that I did not say Combat) so that the reward means something... as I said before, if there is no Risk, then there is no reward either... Without Risk the game quickly degenerates into nothing...

Not everyone agrees with this, I know, but there it is...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Red-ROM Oct 13 2009, 02:55 AM

ok,
thanks for the input folks, I agree with almost all of it. The consensus seems to be that its table specific, which is what I figured. i'm trying to highlight the trouble with deciding on how much to invest in non focused skills.for example:

how many points did you put in the swim skill?

treading water=str +hits in Minutes:

default to str? -1
cyberlimb/torso? -1/ limb
wet clothes? -1
armor? -1/kilo
ork or troll?-1
highly developed muscles? -1
bone lacing? -1

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 13 2009, 03:05 AM

Yeah, I think this really is getting into the realm of personal preference. I think that's the reason pen and paper games are still popular. We're given a framework, and then we can tweak them to allow us to play the game we want to play. For some, the fun may be an unopposed rampage through a corporate lobby. For others, it could be winning despite heavy odds. Or perhaps it's just the joy of spending time with their friends, regardless of the setting or rules. Or maybe the need to create an interesting story. Or solve a numerical challenge.

No matter which variant of SR we choose to play, we win. I say we table this debate for now, and appreciate the game. It did spark a fairly heated discussion that led us to disclose some rather personal views. Here's to a great game.

Posted by: CanadianWolverine Oct 13 2009, 03:10 AM

In my experience this kind of attitude from a GM has resulted in me walking away from gaming with that group. Almost wrote off SR4 altogether till I analyzed the situation and realized it had more to do with someone else's perception of what my character, and by extension me, should be doing. It just wasn't any fun for me as a player to be scolded for roleplaying that my character not interested in doing a dangerous job on short notice and my adept gunslinger to be targeted by a hidden camo sniper with no surprise test, nigh instantly offing the character to the words of the GM going "Eagle Eye, we hardly knew you...", with a roll of his eyes. Yeah, that's gonna leave a chip on my shoulder, so I figured my gaming days with that particular group were done for the mean time.

My impression is that in a game of such widely differing roles for characters, every player's character should be allowed a moment to shine / slip on a banana peel and have it be accepted rather than frowned upon. Being targeted by the facilitator of the setting doesn't exactly come across as accepting of another player's fun.

Posted by: Karoline Oct 13 2009, 03:28 AM

I believe that part of your problem is that you don't know basic probabilities. There is far far far far far far less than a 5% chance to fail in a 20 DP v 1 DP situation. Try it some time, roll 20 dice 20 times and see if you ever even only get two hits, much less 0 which would be required to even have a chance to lose to someone with a DP of 1.

(Here is a hint, the odds of rolling 0 hits on 20 dice is .66 to the 20th power * 100% For those without a calculator, that is a .025% Yes, that is less than 1/10th of a percent of a chance of complete failure. That is less than 1 chance in 1000 of rolling all failures)

The same holds true for 12 v 20. The 20 is going to win -alot-, not just some of the time, not just more often than not, but most of the time. Don't feel like doing the math for the exact odds, but I'm guessing the 20 would win at least 9 times out of ten, if not far more.

Posted by: Sponge Oct 13 2009, 03:33 AM

Not really sure where you get that 5%.

Chances to get certain numbers of hits w/20 dice (from http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20110):


Assuming a straightforward opposed test, you'd need 2 hits to guarantee success against a 1 die pool, which is a 99.7% chance. I'd call that "never fails", especially since you can reroll with edge if you're spectacularly unlucky.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 13 2009, 03:37 AM

The assumption of well rounded is by nature having enough skills to do what you want in most situations. This does not mean specialization or professional level for each skill. There is a reason you can default on skills and why a skill at 1 is not hard to get. A well rounded character is probably one who has put most of his effort into stats of at least 3. This gives 2 dice which means you can succeed in most easy tasks given enough time and by focusing on you putting things in your favor.

You can always buy up skills later to a 1 level to get to 4 dice, which would make almost any simple task a default success.

Posted by: Karoline Oct 13 2009, 03:43 AM

Bit more to add. I've got to agree with the other poster that said that min/maxing is maximizing benefits and minimizing weaknesses. The fact is that this is exactly what people who make rounded characters are doing too. They view not having any stealth/social/other skill as a weakness, and so minimize it by spending a few points to cover those areas, while generally trying to keep good in their specialty.

I don't believe anyone isn't 'guilty' of min/maxing, because no one goes out and says 'Okay, I'm going to create the weakest character possible.' Sure, they may bar themselves from certain things that could make them -more- powerful (Like creating a non-cybered mundane), but they are still going to try and make their character as good as they can within those bounds, and will generally be even more careful to sure up their weaknesses.

Personally I hold a great belief in specialization. Why should I hire a lackluster gunman that might be able to hit the target, vs someone who will almost certainly hit that target? Sure, maybe the first gunman can hack in an emergency, but I don't really care because that is why I hired a hacker.

I'm currently running a sniper who is a true specialist. If she is in a sniping situation, she -will- kill her target, but if she is outside of a sniping situation, she is slightly below par with another gunbunny. I should point out that I managed to do that while keeping up her ability to do plenty of stealth, a bit of negotiation, and a handful of 'just in case' type things. She isn't great at them, but she can do them in a pinch. This works because there are other characters in the party who generally does them. There is a face, so I don't generally need to worry about being social, but the ability to do so if pressed isn't bad. Same with hacking, that is why there is a hacker in the group. Unskilled hackers set off alarms, so as long as there is a real hacker along, they should stick to their other specialties.

I think the biggest thing that has to be remembered is that you're part of a team. If the team is working together well, each person should be doing their specialty, and doing it well, and generally not need to worry about doing other things. But it is still a good idea to have just a touch of backup skill for if you get separated or something happens to the specialist in question.

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 13 2009, 03:49 AM

You're right; I was in a rush, didn't bother to plug it into a binomial, and made a rookie mistake. I sorta thought we were past the point in the conversation where the numbers mattered. My bad.

Was the definition of min/maxing always minimizing weaknesses? If so, i've had that definition wrong for a while.

Posted by: Tyraxus Oct 13 2009, 04:01 AM

For anybody who wanted to know, I played around with a Poisson Binomial distribution for a bit and discovered that, in the 20v12 situation, if the guy with a 20 pool rolls <=5 hits (~30% of the time), the guy with a pool of 12 is statistically gonna beat him.

As far as from a base level win percentage, I can't remember the formulae and don't feel like coding a simulation, but I'll eyeball it at roughly 65% wins for the 20 pool, hardly a sure thing when you remember that 50-50 is equal skill.

Gah, ignore that, I did it wrong. I'll try to set it up right tomorrow when I've had more sleep.

Posted by: cndblank Oct 13 2009, 04:37 AM

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think that a bunch of professionals would expect that if everything went according to plan on a run then none of them would fail in their specialty.
If a hacker says he can open a door and surpress the alarm then he had better be able to pull it off.
Otherwise they would have to come up with a different plan or give it up as a nut too tough to crack.
I mean they are risking jail time or worse here, so everyone had better be able to pull of their part of the plan.

Now how many times does everything go according to plan?

Rarely, cause no plan survives contact with the enemy.

I can count on one hand the number of times that has happened in my group.



I think we can all agree that to have a good story you need something to go wrong.

So something will go wrong.

And if something has gone wrong then the specialist is going to have to take risks.

Posted by: Blade Oct 13 2009, 08:54 AM

I see where you come from and I somehow agree with you. But I think that a team of specialist will always find a challenge in their league. They'll be sent on runs where each part is very difficult. The problem will be that the gun bunny will be the only one who's able to survive (or do anything useful) in a firefight against the guards, only the infiltrator will be able to infiltrate and so on.

They will still be able to do the run (for example the infiltrator will infiltrate in order to get the access to the internal network to the hacker who'll disable security so that the rest of the team can infiltrate too) but each runner will act on his own. Some players will enjoy it, but some won't like having to play in a turn-based game.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 13 2009, 10:55 AM

I think Karoline hit it on the head. It is the group that needs to be well rounded not the individual characters. Now players should be able to fill a secondary role else I would view them as too specialized.

Posted by: Tachi Oct 13 2009, 03:19 PM

Like Soylent Green, stories are made of people. It's not the risks that make a story, it's how the characters deal with the events thay face, three dimensional characters make a game interesting. And remember, no matter how good you are, there is always someone better, something that will push your limits. And, as you said yourself, use their weaknesses, or, just take away their toys once in a while. Make the run so involved that they have to split up to cover all the bases, remove the comfort zone entirely. Create situations that prevent mutual support. There are a lot of ways to test even the best without going to extremes. But hey, that's just me, and no one cares what I think anyway.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 13 2009, 07:18 PM

In defense of some of the other posters, this is the first time I've ever heard Min/Max used as anything but a spiteful epithet on the worst kind of munchkin - the kind of unbalanced melee powerhouse who technically can't order food or dress himself, and whose player doesn't mind since those aren't important actions. Seriously, I have never seen it cast in a positive light before, and I've been playing RPGs since the late 80s. The explanations you give make a lot of sense and are a completely rational way to approach character building, and I want to thank you for explaining it to me. I do think you may be using a loaded word in a lot of communities, though.

On the subject of unbeatable specialists, that's entirely up to the GM. The GM has access to every loophole the player does, as well as corporate budgets, whimsical dragons, and four flavors of crazy mage. If the GM wants to put you in a position where only rolling really well is going to let you survive, he's got all the ammo he needs to build that scenario. The question becomes: are you going to adjust your character to fit the story, or is the GM going to adjust the story to fit your character?

In my experience, even powergamers need to prove they're the best by beating the best - by all means, let them do their thing, but make them work for it occasionally. If you bring a guy to my table that rolls 20+ dice, I'm going to assume you expect to need them, and I hate to disappoint my guests. If you bring a guy to my table that ruins the game for the other players, well...that's something else entirely.

First rule of RPGs is, was, and always shall be: It must be fun for everyone.
Break it at your own peril.

Posted by: Karoline Oct 13 2009, 08:07 PM

Maybe I've had a different upbringing into the RPG world, but min/maxing wasn't considered a bad thing in the tables I've been in, it was just what everyone did, tried to minimize weakness and improve strengths. Characters that focused only on the max where called munchkins, and while they excelled alot at the max, they tended to fail horridly when presented with anything that wasn't combat. Characters that focused only on the min (ie they have no weakness, but they aren't really good at anything without being a proper jack-of-all-trade) where called gimpy.

To be honest, some of the greatest characters I've ever played where ones that were virtually reliant on another character to be fully effective.

Posted by: toturi Oct 14 2009, 04:09 AM

I agree. Where I game, min-max is considered to be good etiquette and considerate behavior. No other character has to carry your ass. Munchkin (as in only maxed) is mostly looked upon as stupid. Min-ed guys, frankly, I have very rarely seen, and those that I have seen were all jack-of-all-trades.

Some of the best characters I have seen were created as part of a team and work as a team.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 14 2009, 04:09 AM

I think min-maxing is something that has become a pejorative, mainly due to people who either buy into the Stormwind fallacy (that you need to gimp your character to be a "real" roleplayer), or who think that roleplaying and effective character design are mutually incompatible. Shadowrun characters can go all up and down the power scale - mainly depending on their concept.

My personal opinion is that good character design and roleplaying can be complementary. I also think, though, that while the system lets you make nearly any kind of character, it is still there to make characters to play in a game. It is not simply a creative writing exercise - I feel that the player, while not compelled to min-max, should still make a character that can function within the context of the rules, and within a game played with other players. Realize that the system is designed to showcase transhumanism, and make specialists who function in a team. It is more difficult to make a Jack of all Trades, or a mundane unawakened character, because you are going against the grain of the system.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 14 2009, 04:20 AM

If you look at other systems such as D&D then you will see each player is inherently a specialist and by nature were inherently min maxed. This promotes group play and allows each player to shine if they fit a particular niche. The specialist approach is one reason I moved over to skill based systems rather than level based systems.

A well rounded character is one that seems able to actually function in normal society. Defaulting in skills doesn't make this unreasonable. A min maxed character in shadowrun has their attributes at the two extremes of 1 and 5. Charisma, logic and intelligence of 1 all make for a character that is unplayable because defaulting in those attribute based skills is worthless. Also players who don't play their stats deserve to be keel hauled. These are the types of characters I modify when I play and as a GM forbid.

The idea is to have a well rounded party and to have players fill a secondary role. A sniper without perception and stealth is fairly worthless at finding his target. A hand to hand specialist without stealth may never get close enough to his target. Not everything involves combat. So if a player doesn't want to sit out a session then it is in his best interest to be well rounded enough to do more than 1 thing.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 14 2009, 04:41 AM

But again, those kind of characters could more accurately be called munchkins, rather than min-maxers. Those examples that you give are of characters who don't even have the full skill set of their own specialty, especially the sniper (a sniper without stealth skills or perception isn't much of a sniper, in my opinion).

Posted by: toturi Oct 14 2009, 07:30 AM

Yes, I agree. A character with Cha 1 and Logic 1 can presumably function if he has Etiquette 1, Negotiation 1 and Intuition 5 and this would likely be the case from a min-maxed point of view. Such a character could be a person who has had minimal human contact and behaves very instinctively.

If the character cannot or is not likely to function in his own chosen field, then he has neither max-ed his strengths nor min-ed his vulnerabilities.

Posted by: Thanee Oct 14 2009, 09:01 AM

Hmm... I always see the "Min" in MinMaxing as minimizing the "costs" of stuff you do not need for your specialization (or for basic defenses; like Will in SR).

Social skills (and attributes) can often be left undeveloped for this purpose. Especially, since social situations are often handled by roleplaying, and you don't need high stats for roleplaying. I despise the Cha 1 Combat Monster Casanovas.

Low social stats are fine, just roleplay them as they are (which can be a lot of fun) and don't (ab)use (characteristic-defying) roleplay to cover your social bases.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Karoline Oct 14 2009, 10:21 AM

Hehe, yeah, this has always been one of the biggest problems I've seen in any RPG, is the disconnect between character and player intellect and social skills. I'm not a very talkative person, yet when I play a character with huge social abilities, my GM has occasionally given out penalties because I couldn't give a convincing speech or tell a good tale or whatever. Meanwhile most of my GMs haven't had a problem with a character with no social skills and low charisma basically being the party face because the player is very talkative and convincing. Same thing with intellect. Always weird seeing the 8 int fighter coming up with plans instead of the 18 int wizard, just because the person playing the fighter was smarter than the person playing the wizard (Or at least better at coming up with plans).

Unfortunately it is just one of those things that most GMs don't think about alot. For some reason you need to be smart to play a smart person, and social to play a social person, but you don't need to be good with guns to play a gunbunny.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 14 2009, 10:38 AM

I dock Karma if people don't keep in character when they have chosen low stats. I also reward 3 dimensional characters with backstories with karma. So the fastest advancement goes to the players that play what they have on their sheet. It helps keep everything in check

Posted by: Thanee Oct 14 2009, 11:15 AM

Yep, I generally try to keep an eye on stats as well, even if they are not mechanically used all the time (though I would always allow a less outgoing player to just roll the dice, if that's what's prefered, and just describe the desired effect instead of trying to "mimic" it). Also, I generally do not give experience points (or Karma ) for roleplaying. Experience is gained by the character and not by the player. Roleplaying is about having fun, and that's enough of a reward.

Also, I like the method of rolling first and roleplaying second. Otherwise, it's often that the rolls do not really fit the roleplayed scene for some reason. If a player makes a really cool speech, and then rolls crap, what do you do with that? Ignore the speech? Seems a bit harsh. Ignore the rolls? Why roll in the first place, if you are going to ignore any non-fitting result, anyways? Either way, something will feel wrong.

As for planning... I think that's fair game. Planning, in general, is a group affair. If the player of the Logic 1 Troll Butcher always comes up with the smartsy plans, then so be it. It's not necessarily the character who had the idea. Group mind, so to say.

Okay, but that's going a bit off-topic now, I guess.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Blade Oct 14 2009, 12:13 PM

What happens when a player say his PC is shooting someone with his pistol? You have him roll Agility+Pistol to check if he hits.
What happens when a player say his PC is jumping from one roof to another? You have him roll Agility+Gymnastic to check if he's able to.
What happens when he say his PC has come up with a plan? You have him roll Logic+Inuition (or Logic+skill if a skill applies here) to check if he was able to.
What happens when he say his PC say this and this to convince someone? You have him roll Charisma+Con to check if he was able to think of saying this or if he was convincing enough to say it.

It's not because the last two can be roleplayed that the rules aren't the same.

Posted by: Karoline Oct 14 2009, 12:19 PM

I've -never- seen this happen. I've -always- seen 'if the player is smart enough to come up with a plan, the character automatically is as well.'

Posted by: toturi Oct 14 2009, 12:33 PM

You've never played in my games. If a player is smart enough for the plan but the character fails the roll (if the character has poor mental stats), then either the PC doesn't think it is a good plan (and the player takes the hint) or if the player insists on going ahead with the plan, then it backfires. Or if the character is a karma intensive one, he doesn't get roleplay karma.

Posted by: Thanee Oct 14 2009, 12:35 PM

Does that work well in practice?

Basically, this playing style would require the GM to lay out the plan for supersmart characters (with an average player with average 'IQ'), or not?

Or at the very least give substantial hints.

I definitely prefer to keep things a bit metagamey here and have the "group mind" as explained above.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: toturi Oct 14 2009, 01:01 PM

I do not need to do so most of the time (given my players are pretty experienced in the genre). Suuuuper geniuses are more likely to come up with plans that go smoothly or at least have contingencies in place. So in essense, high Logic and Intuition (together with high Knowledge skill levels) can really help in making sure nothing major goes wrong and everything proceeds according to plan.

I have always been a proponent that it should not just the NPCs that should be able to say, "Everything is as I have foreseen. Everything is going according to plan. Mwahahaha!" and PCs should be able to do so as well. If you created a mastermind-type character, you'll get your fun and run rings around my NPCs(if you want to).

Posted by: Thanee Oct 14 2009, 01:05 PM

Heh, I once GM'ed a run, which worked completely smooth with basically no obstacles (that weren't considered).

The players found it quite refreshing, that something actually worked as planned.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Blade Oct 14 2009, 01:19 PM

I do it myself (rolling to check if my character comes up with a plan), as a player, when playing character less clever than I to see if they could be pondering what I'm pondering (or if they think so but wonder where they could find pants large enough to fit a horse). When planning, if I get a good idea but can't have my character come up with it, I usually tell the player whose character is most likely to think of this. I also encourage this as a GM, so that player who play "dumb" character can still have fun when planning.

As a GM, no matter how good the RP is, I often ask the player to roll their social skills to check if the character is convincing enough. I also ask for the players to roll when they come up with clever tactics in combat to check if their character could have think of it in the middle of the battle.

On the other side, when the character's abilities are superior to the player's I either let the other players help, or be more "easy" on the player: if he can't tell me a convincing story I still let him roll his social test and if his plan has holes I'd let him roll a logic test and tell him what's wrong with it and some way his character can see of making it better.

Posted by: Tachi Oct 14 2009, 01:38 PM

Narf... Hehe.

I'll allow a little metagaming like this, especially if the player with the dumb character is the only one who can think of anything. But I keep it to an absolute minimum. And, I still make him roll a social test to see if he can convince the others it's a good idea.

Posted by: Orcus Blackweather Oct 14 2009, 03:41 PM

Wow I got to this one late, lots of stuff to reply to.

My definition of Min/max:
Adjusting minimums and maximums to greatest effect. One fine example, Stephen Hawking. Another excellent example, Jessica Simpson. If the effect you are seeking to achieve is having a well rounded character (well rounded is defined as having some capability in all roles), or a specialist, you will min/max differently.

The premise of minimizing is that you want to achieve a goal, but do not wish to be penalized too heavily. You can be so dumb that boxes of rocks occasionally give you advice, but this will leave you in great difficulty. If the difficulty is considered acceptable, put on a bikini and smile for the camera. If that level of penalty is too severe, you adjust until it will meet your needs.

The premise of maximizing is similar. How good do you need to be? In order to be the most brilliant man on Earth, under these rules, you will need a lot of flaws. If you don't want to be wheelchair bound, you might want to settle for low grade MENSA member instead.

The point was made earlier about metagaming, and this is important. If you bring a well balanced jack of all trades to a table with John McClain, Neo, Jessica Simpson, and Stephen Hawking, you will not fit in. It is important to know your game, and adjust accordingly. All of that aside, I have noticed trends. I have only been in 3 or 4 different groups (plus convention gaming which is different), in these groups, you make your first character. That character might be min/maxed, or might be some version of rounded. Which ever you built originally, all of your Karma goes to fix your initial mistakes. Your 20dp gun bunny starts adding all of the skills he doesn't have with karma. The 9dp Jack of all trades starts speciall6izing in whatever he perceives as "The Important Skills". Very rarely does the Jack continue spreading his points, and very rarely does the specialist put more into his specialty. This leads me to conclude that both approaches are somewhat correct. If you have nothing that you can do really well, your character is not finished. At the same time, if there are things that you cannot do at all, you are equally not done. I believe that character growth is the most fun you can have in RPGs.

I have also noted that it is easier to challenge a group of specialists than to do so with a group that is more flexible. What happens when your only mage glitches and knocks himself out? What happens when your technomancer gets shot early in the run? Answer is you fail the run in many cases. Sometimes you can improvise, instead of hacking the system, we steal the hard drives, or intimidate the spider into getting you the pay data. With a more rounded group, if one member is incapacitated, there is another to replace him. Hope that helps.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 14 2009, 06:05 PM

Hang on...so they players come up with a good plan (Let's hijack a delivery truck, let the Face finally use her Disguise Skill, and bring in our guns in scanner-proofed boxes!) and then you say, 'Somebody roll me X hits on a Logic+Intuition' and if nobody can do it, the players have to scrap the plan?

...is that more fun?

If my players wanted to go all A-Team and for some reason nobody had the smarts to roll it, I'd keep the plan intact and give a 3rd party credit for it. Like Dilbert's Garbageman, for instance. Some random NPC overhears and says, 'Hell, just take one a dem Fedex trucks inna front gate. Nobody messes wit a guy an' a clipboard.' For extra comedy, the NPC becomes a recurring character and unwittingly the brains of the team, despite being a drunk and a little confused by all the attention. Have other NPCs refer to him reverently, and spread rumors about the tactical genius - he's a prototype cyberlogician, he's a renegade AI, he's a great dragon, he's the lost son of the Emperor...everyone wants to know who is coming up with these plans and what dark bargain the PCs had to make to score this ally... Turns out a six-pack of PBR will gen'rally do it.

...kill the PCs, not the plan.

Posted by: Kerrang Oct 14 2009, 06:13 PM

I have had one person walk away from my group recently because of my preferences as a GM, but I have no lack of players at my table. In fact, I typically have 8-10 players at my table so most of the people seem to enjoy my style, which emphasizes RP over stats. The one player who did walk away is still a good friend, and we enjoy playing WH40k together, though he always beats me, as he can power game the hell out of that system (or seemingly, any system). He is looking at starting his own SR group now, and he even asked me for advice on the setting the last time we got together for 40k. It is all in ones preference, if you don't like the way your GM and/or group plays, find another group, or start one yourself.



That is just it, the moment for everyone to shine is why I don't allow power gaming. The vast majority of my group has been playing with me for years, and they know that I actually enjoy Role Playing in my Role Playing Games, so they bring characters that are quirky and fun, not statted for maximum benefit. When the power gamer came along, he stole the show by min/maxing his character, and the rest of the group felt marginalized. For the record, he was a Mage, who focused entirely on Control Thoughts/Mob Mind, resisting the resulting drain, and high initiative/ max IPs. Every situation they encountered while he was in the group, except for one run centered around matrix action, devolved into his character controlling thoughts on one or more individuals before anyone else could act. It was not fun for me, and it was not fun for the rest of the group. The others complained, I nerfed his spells, and he quit playing. He was given the chance to produce a new character more in line with the rest of the group, but he apparently could not resist the urge to power game.

Posted by: Kerrang Oct 14 2009, 06:42 PM

Let's put the debate on what exactly constitutes min/maxing to rest. The consensus of what the term means can be found on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing

Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields.

If you are not using the above definition, you are talking about something else, so please don't call it min/maxing, as this will only lead to confusion.

kthxbai

Posted by: Jay Oct 14 2009, 09:48 PM

Since min-maxing has also been tied into power gaming in this thread, I think it is only fair to include the paragraph that follows your quote found on the same page.

Min-maxing is usually associated with powergaming, though the two are not necessarily the same; min-maxers often min-max during character creation but play the game the same as any other player, and powergamers often create characters within the normal scope but then proceed to build them up by earning their power-ups during gameplay. A certain amount of min-maxing is expected and even desirable, as it indicates interest in the game, but beyond a certain threshold it becomes destructive to the game.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 14 2009, 10:11 PM

At the end of the day I believe every player should have a spotlight moment. A point where they are useful and a valued member of the team. This doesn't mean the characters have to be the best, but they have their chance to contribute to the story.

As for the plans with a stupid character. I will let the player make up plans then I will let him burn a point of edge for an auto success. If a player wants to get 1 karma per session because I can't give him roleplaying, heroism, good plan, etc. That is fine, but it will self regulate in about 5-10 sessions when they are 30-40 points behind the rest of the group.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 15 2009, 12:19 AM

I have to agree with this... There is no skill for planning in any of the games that I played over the years; that was always up to the players...

Keep the Faith...

Posted by: toturi Oct 15 2009, 12:19 AM

Oh no, they needn't scrap it. Maybe they just think that the plan is lousy but they can still keep it and things just don't go according to plan.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 15 2009, 02:37 AM

Personally, I would lean towards keeping a character's mental and social game stats in mind as I run the game, but rolling dice as little as possible, for situations where the game mechanics can intrude into the actual roleplaying.

When I do need to determine a characters likelihood of knowing something, I would find knowledge skills to be even more important than mental Attributes. Someone with Logic of 2 but the knowledge skills of Mafia politics: 4 and Italian cuisine: 3 might have an easier time dealing with the Don than the charming but clueless face.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 15 2009, 03:02 AM

Amen to that... I would have to agreee with you on this one...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 15 2009, 01:45 PM

Shadowrun demands specialists who are also capable of operating independently. You're in a team, so you need 'your thing', but you ALSO need to be able to operate independatly. If you're caught by yourself you need to able A) Spot the ambush B) Defend yourself C) Escape and Evade - every character needs to be able to do that stuff.

Posted by: CanadianWolverine Oct 15 2009, 03:02 PM

Yeah, been trying to find various ways to get me SR4A fix, so no worries on that account. Glad to hear everything worked out.



Whoa. Devil's in the details, huh? I didn't even realize that was possible in SR4A, guess that just goes to show what I noob I am with it. It makes me wonder then, maybe if I ever did get the chance to have your style as a GM, would my character even be targeted? If that is the extreme it takes to be targeted, perhaps then your way isn't so bad as I first thought. I hope you understand I was just looking at it with the perspective my own experiences have given me.

Quirky and fun characters don't mean not being powerful aka specialist, right? I would tend to think from a role playing perspective that a specialist is more likely to be quirky to have gotten that way.

Posted by: Kerrang Oct 15 2009, 07:20 PM

Specialists in general, I have no problem with (is that a great sentence, or what?). The player who thinks the only way to make a specialist is by min/maxing (using the generally accepted definition, of course) is the player I have a problem with. There are many ways to power game, but min/maxing is the easiest thing to spot at character generation. I only wish I would have caught this earlier in our current campaign, then maybe we could have avoided losing that player.

Previously, I was able to control most power gaming by requiring detailed backgrounds on characters, and making sure the character sheet meshed well with that background. I could make observations like "Why would your character have such a low rating in this particular attribute, when according to your background this is something that they would definitely have a use for?" At the outset of this campaign, though, we had several players who were entirely new to SR, and I was new to SR4 myself, so I backed off from that, which led to the situation I described earlier. It is hindsight that now informs me as to what to look for in SR4 when new players join the group, or as current players build new characters.