Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: stu_pie Jul 14 2011, 05:50 AM

One of my players asked me why would you pick to play as a human, and only reasons I could think of was

1)You fit in better, fewer people hate you
2)Save you a few BP (though not that true as with other Matetypes you seem to gain more attributes then their BP cost)

But honestly the 1st point doesnt really seem that great and the 2nd point also seems bit dumb as your likely to spend points on your attributes, so playing any of the other metatypes seems to make more sense.

I'm sure this has been raised before, but what could humans get to make them worth playing (some kind of bonus?)? Or least why do you guys think their worth playing?

Posted by: MYST1C Jul 14 2011, 06:44 AM

My reason for usually playing humans is not crunch but fluff: I prefer playing humans. I come from a rather old-school cyberpunk background and tend to downplay the magic aspect of the SR world in games I run. Hence, my own characters are usually mundane humans.

Posted by: Faraday Jul 14 2011, 06:49 AM

1. More edge. A lot of people underestimate edge, mostly because they haven't invested in it. Unlike most attributes, edge's bonus is not linear. It provides not only more uses, but more powerful ones.
2. Most other metas don't have a significant amount of mental stats increased, or even have lowered ones. Humans excel in builds where you need good mental attributes but don't have a great need for physical ones. Mages, hackers, riggers, faces, technomancers, and even adepts/street sams focused on reaction and dodge are quite powerful.
3. Humans are much more powerful by comparison when built in (german rules) karmagen. The karma saved by not paying for race allows for a lot of skills/resources.

Posted by: Medicineman Jul 14 2011, 07:04 AM

Exactly
+1
Mr Lucky (Edge 8 ) really Rocks

with a Dance on the Edge
Medicineman

Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 14 2011, 07:05 AM

What Faraday said, and IIRC humans are the most common metatype of the five and suffer the least prejudices in most cases (the latter being a more important case for one of my players).

Now if you really wanna surprise your players, throw in a human who's an elf/ork poser and a respectable Con skill rating. Heck, you could even use a changeling with neoteny who's a bit husky and claiming to be a dwarf (beards are typical, not the norm). See what their reactions are when they find out that the poser's really a [normal?] human.

Posted by: Aerospider Jul 14 2011, 07:06 AM

Try thinking about all the non-mechanical aspects about your character first. I consider that the numbers add a game to roleplaying, as opposed to the concept adding roleplaying to a game. YMMV.

Posted by: Hagga Jul 14 2011, 07:07 AM

-Is there a translated version of the german rules out there? I'd sort of like to see them. Without learning German.

Posted by: Medicineman Jul 14 2011, 07:10 AM

Errataed(German )Rules say that You pay Attribute x5 and You pay Karmapoints = Buildingpoints for Metarace

with errataed Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Faraday Jul 14 2011, 07:40 AM

Funny that those two things make such a huge difference, but they do. I remember Metatype=BP*2, but that's probably just me.

Posted by: Amazeroth Jul 14 2011, 07:44 AM

Yeah. After the errata the orcs are the master race when building with karmagen
20 karma for body 4 and str 3? nice

Posted by: CanRay Jul 14 2011, 07:47 AM

How about the ability to blend in? Still more humans than other metatypes. And if you're in a city that is policed by Lone Star, well, they still have a (Earned) reputation for being racist bastards.

Also, Japan. Just, Japan. Even Gaijin Norms are treated better than even native Metatypes.

Posted by: Faraday Jul 14 2011, 07:48 AM

Don't forget the penalties to logic and charisma. And trolls get 5 bod/str for 40 karma, an even better deal.
I actually recall that ork costs were dropped in back when 4th ed came out while elves were made more pricey, apparently the game designers didn't want everyone going elf.
Typically, I have elves and orks cost the same as dwarves, with trolls staying at their current cost.

Human looking: 5 BP
I might note that lonestar has a LOT of prison contracts as well. If you're a human on the inside, it's a bad day. If you're an apparent meta, it's a worse day.

Posted by: Elfenlied Jul 14 2011, 08:16 AM

Which doesn't matter jack squat in Karmagen

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 14 2011, 08:17 AM

For hackers/riggers, mages not on a Charisma Tradition, the other metatypes don't really give any bonuses to write home about.

Then there's the racism thing; humans have an easier time of it.

Edge is nice.



But maybe the big one is simply: some people don't want to play a non-human. They like being the human, perhaps even enjoying the feeling of being the "underdog".

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 14 2011, 08:57 AM

I agree basically humans mostly have edge going for them. Not that much else.

I see it as an evolution in the game: Last edition it was dwarves, but at least there was a reason not to play one (you were slow as fuck). Orcs just don't live long and get social stigma. Duh, fluff. I also don't see a lot of fluff difference between humans, orcs and elves - they are basically very similar, and I don't need to change my character mentality for playing either. Now trolls are different, due to their size, mainly.

Mostly when I build characters I assign all the stats and then switch races around to find which one is cheapest, and orcs usually win. It's just the body that does it - if body wasn't required to wear armour and generally not die...

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 14 2011, 09:02 AM

For me there is a huge fluff difference between an Orc and a Human fluff wise. A Orc unless they goblinized late is almost certainly a member of a large family due to the litter factor. Less likely they might have grown up in poverty although that might be the norm for a lot of metahumans.

Elves your fighting a lot of cultural stigma/expectations as well as the fact that a lot of people resent you for damn good reason based on what your elf centric nation states have done.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 14 2011, 09:36 AM

I think the game developers actually did a very good job of balancing the races. Not every person will want to play every race, but for every race, there's enough people who like them and want to play them.

Posted by: Thanee Jul 14 2011, 09:38 AM

If you consider bioelectrics, it could be said, that humans are, in fact, powered.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 14 2011, 09:39 AM

Gaaaah!

Posted by: suoq Jul 14 2011, 09:51 AM

I suddenly have this incredible desire to play an undercover reporter for humanis showing how destructive metahuman shadowrunners are.....

He'd insert himself on a shadowrunner team, record everything, and then leave them cursing his sudden, but inevitable, betrayal.

Posted by: Thanee Jul 14 2011, 10:32 AM

There are way too many people who want to play trolls, though (considering how rare they are supposed to be).

Same with awakened characters, of course.

And then there are all those weird races from Runner's Companion...

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 14 2011, 10:48 AM

I don't think a statistically representative distribution of PC types to setting is really to be expected in any RPG - and not even a good thing!

We want to play exceptional people, we don't want to play representative people



As for trolls: I actually don't really like them. They're an expensive race, and unless you really have a use for Strength 5+, you're paying for something you don't need. Add to that the lower caps on mental Attributes, and they become a very poor choice for non-Sam characters. I think it's a shame that they're so geared to be one-trick ponies.

The other four races all have some bonuses to Attributes that just pull them up to average ratings, for no great cost. If you play an Ork or Dwarf, and have no special interest in Body or Strength, you just leave it at the racial minimum and spend those BPs on something else. If your Elf doesn't need more than 3 Charisma, well, you just leave it at 3 and you're a reasonably personable member of society without additional BP. But as a Troll, you're committed to going physical, because you're capped low at everything else.

I guess trolls are just specialized for a role that doesn't interest me all that much (physical combatant)

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 14 2011, 01:35 PM

Doesn't matter for BP builds either...

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 14 2011, 01:37 PM

Didn't we do this already? If they're underpowered, it's not by enough to matter anyway.

Posted by: Nebular Jul 14 2011, 01:57 PM

I don't see why it matters. Playing a game and a character isn't about having the highest possible numbers, it's about having fun. Some of the funnest characters I've played have been the most screwed-up, mixed-up, and randomly-built things I threw together (or ended up developing thanks to the mind-warping powers in Call of Cthulhu).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 14 2011, 02:08 PM

Heh... This is often very true indeed...

Posted by: toturi Jul 14 2011, 02:15 PM

How can you not see how it matters? Having the highest possible number can be fun, some people are just blind to this and find no fun in it and the saddest thing is they question how it can be so for others.
Most of the funnest characters I've played have been the most min-maxed, optimised things I threw together.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 14 2011, 02:44 PM

Yeah... Unfortunately, I do not find it fun to always Win/Succeed, which is what obtaining a Maximum Dice Pools generally ensures. There is no challenge if you can always just win/succeed. Might as well just write a book at that point.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 14 2011, 02:58 PM

Ok, but seriously a non-min-maxed character needs MORE BPs/Karma to succeed, because he needs to make up for not being a hyper-specialist. Hence, humans suck at this even more, unless you really rely on Edge only. (And some refresh mechanics don't suit those builds.)

Posted by: Nebular Jul 14 2011, 03:06 PM

I'd disagree. If this is how your games are turning out ("your" in the general group sense, not you personally), I'd say you need to find a new GM. The game should be fun and challenging for the players in the group as they want to play/build them, and not force them to hyper-specialise or min-max to some extreme because the GM lacks the ability to adapt.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 14 2011, 03:12 PM

Oh, I am the GM, and for the reasons I've stated we are using Karmagen with the old attribute costs (and race cost = BP cost), which makes for quite powerful generalists. But in a 400BP setting the characters would really suck hard.

I agree you could make humans more attractive with higher race costs.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 14 2011, 03:14 PM

I dunno. I have plenty of situation where I "won" in RPGs without any stats or dicepools at all.

It's called roleplaying.

Note that this is coming from probably one of the biggest min-maxers in this forum.

There are also situations where just having the biggest numbers is just inefficient. If you're hitting regularly with a 12 dice pool, how is a 20 dicepool going to really be better, and how many resources do you have to sacrifice to get that 20 DP?




-k

Posted by: jaellot Jul 14 2011, 03:25 PM

I'd say it probably has something to do with previous editions, and Karma Pool. Humans accumulated it twice as fast as metas.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 14 2011, 03:33 PM

My Elven Wheelman, Nas, punches people in the face when they speak Sperethiel at him. "I'm TEXAN, damnit! Speak American!"

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 14 2011, 03:38 PM

It's funny. My current Missions NPC speaks fluent Sperethiel. But about the only time it's come up in games is to deliberately speak it badly to folks in the Tir, like a tourist who may have read a few English-to-Sperethiel phrasebooks. If you seem like some foolish tourist, people sometimes don't look at you too closely.






-k

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Jul 14 2011, 03:54 PM

You can roleplay just fine with good stats. You don't need bad stats to pull that off. And when you need to roll, it is nice to have some stats to back it up.

Humans are probably the weakest race, but I don't think the difference is that large if you are not in a min/max group. And as long as everyone is on the same page it should be fine. The problems come when half the team min maxed their characters and half didn't. Then it is a pain in the butt for a GM to build an appropriate challenge.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 14 2011, 04:02 PM

Bad stats can be roleplayed too. And "good stats" is relative. PCs are generally "better than average" in most RPGs. As I said, that 20 DP sometimes is just extreme overkill.

Disclaimer: I do play characters with 20+ DPs. But it's not to "win", whatever that means. It's way more than is actually needed most of the time. I just like showing off.






-k

Posted by: Lantzer Jul 14 2011, 04:31 PM

My personal take on the whole powergaming issue:

Optimized characters can be fun or boring.
Non-optimized characters can be fun or boring.

Either can be fun for the player and boring for the group.
I've never seen one that was fun for the group but boring for the player.

I've never seen a fun (according to the group) character of any power level considered useless by the group.
I have seen over-specialized characters regardless of power level considered useless by the group.
Not all characters are appropriate for every game.

Character Power levels are not particularly important unless it negatively impacts the group's fun. High or low.
The GM is part of the group.

I don't mind characters who are good at what they do.
I find that most people who like optimizing characters underestimate the power of versatility because it's harder to crunch the mathematical effect of it.
I like optimizing characters too.
I have little patience for the idea that unless you are fully optimized you are useless.

Posted by: Aerospider Jul 14 2011, 05:31 PM

Optimising builds can be fun, but it's not communal and defies the nature of RPGs, by which I mean it's crunching numbers regardless of what they might represent. Given that the GM will in all likelihood tailor the opposition to your power level, you theoretically don't gain anything by being more efficient anyway.

Personally I'm in the camp that likes flawed characters and care more about my guy's story than my progress as a player. More than once I've deliberately had my character put himself (usually unintentionally) in mortal danger and said to myself 'Yeah, this will be a fitting way for this guy's story to end' only for the GM to go out of his way to keep him alive. Hell, it's not like there are a shortage of character concepts to try and making them interesting and credible is much more challenging than optimising the build.

But then YMMV, as always.

Posted by: DamienKnight Jul 14 2011, 06:09 PM

Exactly. This means I get to engage in epic combat with multiple HTR ops teams, rather than pew-pewing back and forth with a 2-bit security guard. Yay for high power!

I think the biggest problem is not low powered chars or high powered chars, its having a group that has a mix of both. As a GM you have to ramp up the danger level in order to challenge the high powered charcters, but the less pimp of the group are going to be in very deadly situations.

A couple of the players in my group get their Joy from number crunching out power heavy characters. Rather than deny them this, I just assist the other players to make sure they are combat effective with their build so they can keep up.

I tried a low powered game once. Within a few sessions the powerplayers had found ways of eeking up their combat effectiveness, while the rest of the players floated around their starting ineptitude. Forcing weak builds at the start just meant that within a few sessions, the gap between high and low powered characers became even greater than in games where everyone started out fairly high powered.

One useful thing about low powered starting characters is that if someone comes in with a new character, I can alter the starting restrictions in order to allow the new character to be more up to par with the more aged characters. No extra BP, just less Nuyen/Skill/attribute limits.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 14 2011, 07:17 PM

"My hovercraft is full of awakened eels."

"I will not buy this BTL, it is scratched."

Posted by: Irion Jul 14 2011, 08:25 PM

Well, there was a huge miss with gene ware. I really wished they would have flashed it out a bit more.
Making it easyer to get for vanilla humans but more complicated for the rest. (Espacially you know whom)
(Because this are the little tweaks making the game world feel right and alive. But this has actually not much to do with the topic I guess)

@Ascalaphus
Yeah, and as soon as you got yourself a GM considering wight limits and doors, you get fucked.

@stu_pie
The main problem is, that it is hard to make humans better without making them overpowered.

Giving them one free to select bonus point?
Hello, only race with logic +1, reaction +1 or Intuition +1.
Giving them an other point of edge?
Who the hell would not take the guy with easy 7 edge to go?
Giving them a reduction in Cyber or Bioware essence costs?
Hell, good for every build.
So I guess the only way would really to give humans a bit of a bonus to Geneware, since it is the most uncommon type.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 14 2011, 08:42 PM

Humans should probably be -10 BP. Although I'm sure that would ruin a lot of people's roleplaying fun.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 14 2011, 09:50 PM

Then he should check this link... In America!


Mind if I use this in my upcoming game?

Posted by: stu_pie Jul 14 2011, 10:02 PM

Irion (and everyone else who had this point) I agree humans are not massively under powered, but unless you are going for fluff or have a concept of what your character looks like, going human seems a bit dumb. I was thinking of something little in game tweak, maybe like reduced cost of life style (people more likely to want a human to move in then trolls) or maybe extra 5BP on qualities limit. I know it's not all about numbers and the best characters are sometimes ones who are lacking (I had a character who manged to loss everything and for several run was a homeless bum with an old beat up shotgun that often misfired). But for new players higher dice is nice, and when asked by my players why play a human I could not think of any real reason why they would want to.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 14 2011, 10:16 PM

The extra build points are nice, to be honest. That's extra gear, skills, spells/adept powers, etc. 30 BP on an elf? that's 150,000 nuyen that might have been available (if you hadn't already capped out), or 7 skills and a slight improvement of a contact. 20 BP for Ork str/bod is nice, but that could have been 2-3 very important and useful contacts. Humans aren't underpowered, their power is where it's classically been: versatility.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 14 2011, 10:26 PM

Rubic: It's only 20 points for an Ork if you planned on having Body + Str of at most 3. I suppose you could want to do that, but unless you plan to bomb pretty much every single attribute or you have 6+ Edge, it will save you points (or, at most, cost you nothing for some of the less-efficient ones like Elf) to be a metatype.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 15 2011, 12:27 AM

My current missions character speaks sperethiel pretty solidly because he grew up int he tir. The few times i'ts come up it's got him some funny looks as he's an ork.

For the record i find human balance to be just about right for what their supposed to be. I could stand to see them have something a little more intangible like an extrapoint of essence or a higher edge cap (since they gave one of the metavarients a human like edge bonus) but other then that caveat I think their fine.

The thing is I've always felt game balance should mirror the setting conventions. For example if mages are supposed to be so rare in the setting why si it so cheap to become a mage build point wise. There are enough advantages to the metatypes that i'm seeing all ork and troll tables and that makes me a bit concerned.

Posted by: Udoshi Jul 15 2011, 12:45 AM

This.

Maintaining party balance is a problem in -any- rpg system. When you have some party members outshining everyone else, it becomes difficult to balance encounters so everyone is having fun.


Onto the subject of humans being weak, I've often considered writing up some house rules to balance starting races a bit more - basically, removing the Rarity Tax from the equation, and making sure each races comes out a bit ahead, so there's less reason to play any given race for the idea/character you want.
During the course of this, I realized humans were less attractive, and had to think of ways to make them more attractive without flat out making them more powerful, while still maintaining the 'humans are resouceful, common, and often exceptional people'.

I can post the idea, if people like.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 15 2011, 01:38 AM

Please do, or PM me. I would be interested...

Posted by: Rubic Jul 15 2011, 01:45 AM

second! We can haz exposition?

Posted by: suoq Jul 15 2011, 02:27 AM

I'm not sure the humans are underpowered. Personally, I think the orc (and the troll) is simply broken. For 20 points of race and 200 points of attributes you get 250 points of attributes AND free low light vision. With 250 points of attributes, you can put the points into your specialty and still not have a dump stat.

If you have a use for strength (either melee or athletics) and you're willing to take the charisma limitation of 3, then for 20 more points, you can take troll and get 30 ore points of attributes, +1 reach, +1 armor, and upgrade that low light to thermographic. The one downside is that, unlike orcs, you need to get your gear fitted. (And personally, I like 4 charisma, so I tend to go with the orc...)

When a game designer is handing out 30 points to play an orc and bumping up the attribute limit by 25% at the same time, they're really encouraging you to go orc.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 15 2011, 03:09 AM

I find that in build points, I will often be tempted to "go ork", because it is a lean char-gen system where getting a net 20 build points (50 in bonuses, -20 cost to be an ork and -10 losing a point of Edge) is tempting - and I find that happening more for well-rounded builds (detectives, covert ops specialists, etc.) than specialist ones. Also, a lot of times I want decent Attributes all around, rather than good physical or mental Attributes, and 200 points is, frankly, not quite enough. If there was one tweak I would make to humans under BP, it would be to let them spend up to 220, rather than 200, points on Attributes.

In Karmagen (yes, using the German errata), it seems like humans have more of a niche. When I pick a metatype, I usually boost the stats that they get a bonus on, and in Karmagen, that is actually more expensive. Combined with the cost of the metatype itself, I find that my humans actually save points, which translates either to a higher Edge score, or significantly more breadth of skill or contacts. It's funny, because Karmagen gets reviled a lot for being too metatype-friendly, but I like humans in Karmagen a lot better than humans in BP.

Posted by: toturi Jul 15 2011, 03:09 AM

The player's roleplaying skill is not dependent on the character's stats. But the roleplaying of the character however may well lie with the character's stats.

If the game does not have any social stats/dicepools, then there is no limits to how the player wants to roleplay his character. But if there are social stats/dicepools, then is it good roleplaying to "roleplay well" a (stats-wise) socially inept character or vice versa?


Unless the player finds not having a challenge fun. In most situations, a maximum dice pool ensures that most of the time, you succeed. Generally speaking, you do not always succeed even with a maximum dice pool. You only ensure that your chances of failure to be minimal, unless you do not roll dice or have loaded dice (perhaps not even then), you cannot always succeed.

Posted by: Teulisch Jul 15 2011, 03:15 AM

orks... their cap for logic and charisma is lowered by 1 each, thats 10 points of negative quality there and low light vision is a 5 pt positive quality, and edge is 1 less than human, so its more like 15 free points instead of 30. but yes, its unbalanced. most metahumans are unbalanced one way or another.

the Ogre metavarient is even more unbalanced, adding the ogre stomach for no additional cost.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 15 2011, 03:44 AM

Generally, lowering the maximum in an Attribute is a 5-point flaw, while raising it by one is a 20 point positive quality. But that is when they are taken individually by a player, who presumably takes the flaw for a less-used Attribute, and the positive quality for an Attribute that is important to the character concept.

Metahumans, by contrast, are a package deal. You get a net 20 points for being an ork, and a net 30 for being a troll, but they are not a straight-up bonus - you have points that basically have to be assigned to certain Attributes. Similarly, elves are the only metatype with a net loss compared to humans, but for certain builds, it is worth it for the boost to two of the more important Attributes.

Despite giving 10 points less in bonuses, and not giving advantages such as +1 reach or dermal armor, I consider orks slightly more optimal than trolls. A Body of 4 and Strength of 3 are things that are useful even for non-combatant types, while a troll's Body and Strength of 5 are a bit much if you are not playing a combat type. Plus, orks don't have as many disadvantages - their mental penalties are milder, to the point that they flat out won't even come into play for some builds. They aren't conspicuously large, don't need gear specially made for them, and they are not penalized in one of the most important Attributes (Agility).

Ogres and satyrs are also good choices, being a bit better numbers-wise at the expense of being more conspicuous. Oni, however, are puzzling (I will note that the 25 point cost of oni can often be as inflammatory as Ares Viper Slivergun threads in SR3). I would probably house rule them to either cost 20 points, or cost the 25 points but have the crunch match the fluff, and give them a +2 bonus to intimidation.

Posted by: PoliteMan Jul 15 2011, 06:06 AM

I don't think it's really metahumans, just Orcs.

Trolls and Elves are fairly expensive and have very defined nitches: Trolls go Sam/Adept and Elves go Face/Charisma-based mage/techno. You can build them outside of that but it really isn't optimal.

Dwarves are fairly underwhelming. You don't really use them for physical builds (Ork and Troll are generally better for that) and the +1 Willpower is nice for mages/technos but it's not that impressive, You're basically paying 5 BP for to increase your max Willpower by 1 and to get 3 strength which is fairly pointless. So for intuition or logic-based mages/technos they're probably a good choice but even that is fairly niche.

Orks are just a great steal for the points. They can do everything but face and they're a little suboptimal for mage/technos (Intuition generally being a weak tradition because it's hard to boost).

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 15 2011, 08:53 AM

Ok, I have to jump on this, I apologise in advance:

Roleplaying and Rolling literally have nothing to do with one another. You cannot solve a mechanical problem with roleplaying, because roleplaying should never allow conflict resolution. Basically roleplaying just decides what conflicts you are going to end up with, because you roleplay what your character does, and what kind of tasks he wants to undertake, and what kind of trouble he ends up in. And then you need mechanics to resolve those conflicts. If you are doing anything else you're in GM-fiat land, or in "I always win" land.

And this is from a guy who played diceless freeform roleplaying for years. But guess what, it's a game without conflicts, because you literally always win, unless you want to lose. And if two PCs end up fighting each other you often end up in a flame war, because there is no satisfactory way of resolving conflicts.

Basically it's perfectly fine to have minimalist mechanics: Toss a coin, and either you or I win. But you need at least that.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 15 2011, 09:22 AM

For Orks and Trolls, I mentally insert "And due to racism, you'll usually be at -4 dice for social rolls." Elves and dwarves would veer towards -2, because that racism isn't quite as severe.


The only real issue for me is the 50%BP->Attributes thing; that makes Orks/Elves/Dwarves useful, because you were generally going to buy those Attributes anyway, but now they don't count towards the limit.

I like the "Humans can buy 220BP of Attributes" variant, but you might also:
* Include Edge in the Attribute Limit
* Put Race Costs in the Attribute Limit

Posted by: suoq Jul 15 2011, 11:16 AM

-4 dice for social roles with whom? I have to assume you mean with humans because if you're telling me orcs are racist against other orcs, I'm really going to need an explanation. And I don't think elves are getting a -2 in the Tir...

The problem with racism is that it goes both ways. If the orcs are -4 against the humans, the humans are going to end up being -4 against the orcs. Orcs can be racist too. In a campaign like Seattle that amount of racism can cripple the human character (no Orc Underground for you!).

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 15 2011, 11:50 AM

Humans aren't 'broken' so long as you're not just mini/maxing. You play what you want, what character you want to connect to. Beyond that humans are the most common and therefore meet the fewest prejudices, the world is made for them. Trolls and dwarves should be paying extra to have gear altered for them.

Posted by: Elfenlied Jul 15 2011, 11:53 AM

Well, you could make the relevance of the subgroups proportionate to the BP advantage to even out spotlight distribution. In this example, the main source of information would come from human friendly groups, with only occasional contributions from the orc underground.

Posted by: Aerospider Jul 15 2011, 11:56 AM

-4 is a bit severe, especially if it's a blanket modifier.

'Prejudiced' confers a -2 penalty and 'Hostile' still only confers -3. -4 is only one point below a personal enemy.

Having all humans (and dwarves and elves?) be more than hostile towards goblinoids throws up a lot of questions. Like, why aren't there constant race-riots in every metropolis? Goblinoids have been around for decades – I haven't done the maths, but I'm pretty sure the ork populace must have achieved 4th generation by now, if not higher.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 15 2011, 12:01 PM

The exact amount of Racism Modifier isn't really the point. What I'm trying to say is that as long as you don't assign some sort of mechanical value to it, it's easy to claim "Orks are superior" based on numbers, because you don't have numbers for these disadvantages.

Posted by: suoq Jul 15 2011, 12:06 PM

My gut feeling is that the introduction of that much racism in the system may simply result in a move towards intimidation. I'm not sure racism is still an effective modifier against intimidation because the belief that someone a person hates may well use that custom look (+2 intimidation) longblade in the manner they're threatening to (especially with those pheromones kicking in) becomes even more believable. That's what the racist was trained to think the orc would do. It's really believable now.

I wonder if I could get away with a custom look gas can and the scene from Reservoir Dogs.

That's the point. Orcs ARE superior, based on numbers. And that superiority shows up at tables. Orcs are the baseline characters, followed by trolls when high body/high strength is desirable. Each of the other main races are niche races for when you want edge, charisma, or willpower.

Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly fun to play a non-standard niche character. A dwarf face could be fun and might actually have a high enough char/willpower to survive unarmed against some spirits, but I'd expect to see the majority of characters built the way the game designers laid the numbers down.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 15 2011, 12:08 PM

It only works if you're 'role' playing. If you're just bothering with numbers, what gives me the most pluses, which give me the fewer minus then it doesn't matter. Play trolls for muscle, elves for magic everyone.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 15 2011, 12:19 PM

Stuff like racism is described as being a real issue, but it's not quantified. Purely on numbers, orks are superior, but the numbers don't say everything.

Posted by: Aerospider Jul 15 2011, 12:20 PM

Thoroughly unconvinced and I think you contradict yourself – you say they have nothing to do with one another, yet admit that roleplaying determines the conflicts for which you are to roll (and that presumably includes the balance of the roll). And have you never been awarded bonus dice for, say, a negotiations test based on the spiel you give the GM? And what about being awarded bonus Edge for good roleplaying?

Yes, without mechanics you are in GM-fiat land, but isn't that still the case with the mechanics? Who do you think decides on the strength of opposition and challenges?

With regards to diceless freeform RPGs, suppose your character opens a box and a booby trap kills him. The GM laid out plenty of clues along the quest indicating that this box must not be opened and you either ignored them, didn't see them or failed to interpret them correctly. Right there you have a losing situation that was not caused by any mechanics and not completely dictated by the GM. The outcome was uncertain and went against the player because he roleplayed his character a certain way, such as being offensive to the guard who could have warned him or choosing to respect the wizard by not ransacking his study for intel on the rest of the dungeon.

Posted by: KCKitsune Jul 15 2011, 01:51 PM

You know there is one thing that might a bit of a balancer for humans... allow them to spend up to 45 BP for positive qualities. That might make humans something that people would want to play.

Posted by: suoq Jul 15 2011, 02:33 PM

The problem is, that as an issue, it is a double edged sword. It's not just an issue for orcs, it's an issue for everyone. If the character was just trying to be accepted into one society, and that society was primarily human, then yes, it would be a disadvantage to be an orc. But in the world as written, the character is spending a large part of his life in the world that society ignores. As such, being a victim of the society's racism gives you something in common with all the other victims of racism.

There are places Starsky & Hutch, Columbo, Baretta, Kojak, Magnum P.I. and others can't go. The hero in those places is John Shaft. And he's a bad mother....

Posted by: Rubic Jul 15 2011, 02:43 PM

WATCH YOUR MOUTH!

Posted by: Kyrel Jul 15 2011, 04:04 PM

"If I said you have a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"

"My nipples explode with delight!"

Gotta love the Pythons

Posted by: CanRay Jul 15 2011, 04:13 PM

We're just talkin' 'bout Shaft, whose a Troll in Shadowrun.

Posted by: stu_pie Jul 15 2011, 06:27 PM

I think I might use this, I feel this is a nice balance

Posted by: Mäx Jul 15 2011, 08:25 PM

I would be very very careful with this, as it allows for some very nasty combos that aren't meant to be possible.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 15 2011, 08:26 PM

My point is, you don't need uber stats to "win". You are right in that roleplay determines what conflicts you face. But it can also affect the difficulty of the conflicts.

With a little planning, in-game and out, even mediocre stats can be effective, or at worst "good enough".

Good stats mean that you can, in fact, murder everyone in the room in a fight.

Good roleplay can mean you can, in fact, murder everyone in the room before you even enter it.

Controlling what conflicts you encounter is sometimes a lot more effective than just relying on stats to win you through.

Or, sometimes, total lack of control. I recall a few times when playing a particular barbarian winning the day by roleplaying up his awesome levels of stupidity.



-k

Posted by: Rubic Jul 15 2011, 08:43 PM

I can dig it.

Posted by: Miri Jul 15 2011, 08:48 PM

Are those quality combos better then or on par with some of the synergy you can get from the other metatypes?

Posted by: Apathy Jul 15 2011, 09:25 PM

I think that part of the issue is that not all attributes are created equal. Orks and Trolls get lots of discounted strength, but so what? Strength is the least used stat. It's also the cheapest and easiest stat to augment. Just because they all cost the same to raise doesn't mean that they're all equally valuable.

Posted by: Irion Jul 15 2011, 09:32 PM

Well, they should be, anyway.
(Thats why a lot of people changed the max. amount of armor from body*2 to str+body.

Posted by: stu_pie Jul 15 2011, 09:46 PM

Not true. I find most players who play trolls are playing street sams or adept, so strength is pretty handy. Though I do agree it is easiest to boast, but if you pick troll you start off with large amount and can boast it pretty high (and as you point out fairly cheaply). It also used for most the athletic skill group. I would not say it is the least used stat (but maybe that just in my game). Think all attributes have their uses and if your playing a troll then you most likely plan on beating someones head in.

Posted by: pbangarth Jul 15 2011, 09:50 PM

The most useful Attributes are the ones the GM makes most useful.

Posted by: Mäx Jul 15 2011, 10:26 PM

Well an adept who has a 60% essence discount for basic bioware and 10 for cultured can be pretty nasty.
As can a one who has a 50% essence discount for basic bioware and also follows a way giving discount on his adept powers.

Type-O System as an example becomes much more attractive when you can have 15B:s worth of other qualities too. instead of the normal 5BP:s.

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Jul 15 2011, 10:33 PM

Adepts with higher attribute maximums are also nasty. For me the metatypes advantage isn't the slightly cheaper out of the gate costs though that helps, it is the long run they will always be superior benefits.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 15 2011, 10:42 PM

Type-O system+ Magician. I don't know just how powerful that is, but methinks, it might be something to check out.



Also not true. I would be perfectly happy playing a Troll who is the team's face.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 16 2011, 01:10 AM

I have that concept in the work up stage right now. Runner name Kavorkaman

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 16 2011, 01:20 AM

I did up my original Troll Face as an NPC for a "Fraud Investigations" firm that was going to hire the Runner team. They themselves were a runner team that advertised as something more legit, but had too many calls following another event in the game (not an effect of the PCs), so passed on the buck. His team included an ork female Rigger, who liked to follow the drones and clean up shotgun style if necessary; a human male Gun Bunny; and a female human Black Mage, who has a penchant for defensive-type spells.

Posted by: PoliteMan Jul 16 2011, 02:18 AM

One of the things that annoys me about the "Orks save BPs" idea is it leads to lots of fat, out-of-shape orks. If you want to save BPs as an Ork, that means you look at Body 4/Strength 3 and say "good enough" and spend the rest of your BP elsewhere. And Body 4/ Strength 3 is fine for a human, by Orc standards it's the same as a Body 1/Strength 1 Human, a weakling with health issues. If you actually had an Orc with comparable stats to the average orc, you don't save BP, you're just a bit tougher and stronger than all the non-Trolls. However, I don't think many people go that way.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 16 2011, 04:09 AM

I get the impression that Type O is as BP-expensive as it is specifically to PREVENT it from being combined with other high powered Qualities, like Magician or Technomancer.





-k

Posted by: LostProxy Jul 16 2011, 04:16 AM

Technomancer is 5 BP isn't it? Would fit just fine.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 16 2011, 04:25 AM

Huh. I suppose so. So would Adept.

Maybe just the spellcasters were intended. or I could eb just reading too much into it.



-k

Posted by: LostProxy Jul 16 2011, 05:06 AM

I'm a little dubious with Type O. Delta is nice and all but I've yet to run out of essence and I've never used anything above Alpha. Seems like quite the hefty investment for such returns. If you could at least buy the standard bioware second hand I could see the appeal but you can't even do that. You have to buy it full price and it does nothing for cultured bioware. I could think of a lot of more useful things to do with 30 BP.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 16 2011, 05:34 AM

Nothing wrong with out-of-shape Orks. Surely that's a more common average than the numeric one?

Posted by: Glyph Jul 16 2011, 05:35 AM

I agree. It could be useful for a highly optimized adept build, but most of the bioware a mage would want is cultured.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 16 2011, 11:34 AM

Maybe. Just from SR4A, however, I could find uses for several bioware items, especially to a combat mage. Although, you are right, much of it would be very situational.

I do find myself wondering, however. How much would a mage benefit from the complete biological ultrasound system?

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 16 2011, 12:05 PM

Not at all, at least for spell casting, it's still not line of sight in my opinion. Just like mages with implanted UWB can't target with that.

If it's the implant i'm thinking of it's actually an adjustment to your hearing.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 16 2011, 01:05 PM

The way I understand how magic works, is that the sense isn't important (blind mages can still cast LOS spells, after all, even if they have to be using Astral perception), as long as they can pinpoint a target using natural senses.

Technological sensors don't work because the mage isn't actually making a connection naturally, but unlike most UWB, this wouldn't be an overlay on top of what you are seeing, it would be an "natural" understanding of the area.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 16 2011, 01:38 PM

I will double check but I'm pretty sure your understanding is false. A blind mage HAS to astrally perceivce, that and vision replacement paid for with essence are the only loopholes.

Otherwise magic rules would not be Line Of Sight. They'd be line of hearing.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 16 2011, 01:41 PM

Except Line of sight is the catch term for an unbroken line between the start point and the end point. Line of hearing would imply the spell could turn corners, as long as you could hear the target, which it can't do.

It's also stated that Astral Perception is not sight, either, that is just the most effective way of describing it.

Posted by: Irion Jul 16 2011, 01:56 PM

You need line of sight and you have to "see" the target naturally.
The ONLY loophole are vision enhancements paid with essence. (Thats why cybereyes are so good for mages, since it enables them to reduce vision modifiers on spellcasting.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 16 2011, 02:20 PM

Visual only this kind of thing is pretty much why my sig is what it is.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 16 2011, 02:31 PM

You're right. I should've known anyway, based on other things that are possible (Magesight goggles).

Posted by: Hound Jul 16 2011, 08:07 PM

if you're going full power-player, and your GM doesn't do much with racism and such, then yeah going human is almost never worth it. The +1 edge is nice, but unless you're going to bring it up to 6, it's not really important. If you intend to use all of the stat bonuses that the metas get, then it's definitely worth it from a stats-per-point perspective.

I play humans almost exclusively, for a variety of reasons: my GMs usually enjoy playing up racism, I have a tendency to make mages and other mental-based characters, I like to try and respect the fluff (which says that humans are still the dominant meta by far) and most of my teammates commonly make non-humans.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 16 2011, 08:53 PM

I try to play up racism, but I also tend to create a lot of NPC`s that are metatypes. I do that partly because I like the metas, but also because it`s more likely to be down and out as a Troll or Ork. A lot of my influential NPCs are human or Elf, and Dwarves tend to get stuck in between somewhere.

That said, many of my players play either elves or humans, so most of my applied racism could be seen as poor-on-rich(er) violence. "Go away, Pinkies"

Posted by: Cain Jul 17 2011, 04:30 AM

I've tried a couple of character types, and I always come back to humans. Why? Because they're solid performers all-around. Sure, Orks and Trolls get bonuses to strength and body, but they're equal to a human in Quickness. And Quickness is required for just about any combat skill. You can get away with a low strength quite easily in Shadowrun, and a higher Reaction cuts down the need for a higher Body.

While I can get some very extreme combat monsters out of orks and trolls, they can be taken down easily by well-designed humans. Humans also make decent mages as well, especially if you have an Intuition-linked tradition.

And then, there's Edge. A human with 6 Edge is nasty, 8 Edge is nearly unstoppable if the build is done right.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 17 2011, 04:32 AM

Agility.

But the point about Orks is that you basically *do* need that much Str and Bod for everyday running, so it's not really a problem. For some builds, sure.

Posted by: Irion Jul 17 2011, 06:27 AM

Depends very much on how players regain edge...

Posted by: Irion Jul 17 2011, 06:27 AM

Depends very much on how players regain edge...

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 17 2011, 10:43 AM

The Strength is highly subjective. Sure, it's useful for melee-oriented characters, but otherwise it's minor. But the Body rating is important for Armor.

Posted by: Cain Jul 17 2011, 10:47 AM

I'm a grognard, it's Quickness, dammit!


Actually, it depends on how much the players spend. If you have 8 Edge, and are reasonably competent without it, you won't be using it any faster than other characters. That means when they run out, you've still got some left. Even if you dramatically slow down the Edge refresh rate, characters with lower Edge scores will run out first.

In my games, I refresh Edge at the start of every session (usually) and at the start of every story arc. I only award bonus Edge if the players do something extraordinary. That's right, the *players*, and not their characters. I run a high powered game, so tremendous critical successes aren't impressive enough. Gonzo stunts can get an Edge refresh, if they're amazing enough. Even with that, typically they'll go through 3-4 Edge per character in a story arc. The Edge 6 character almost always has Edge left over. When I played an Edge 8 character, there was only once when he didn't end the Missions module with at least two Edge points left.

Higher Edge is not only useful because it gives you more dice, it means you can use it more often. Slowing down the refresh rate actually hurts low-Edge characters more.

Posted by: Irion Jul 17 2011, 01:13 PM

Well, but the orc will have a body of 6-8 while you only have a body of about 3 (since you spend around 100BP on edge).
First: You will be using the edge faster, since your overall dicepools are lower. (You are more often in need to spend a point of edge to soak or something)
Second: If you are out of edge you are likely to die.


It really depends. If you only regain one point of edge each session the low edge(1-3) won't be hurt that much, while the high edge character take quite a hit.

If you regain all your edge after 3 sessions but nothing in between, the low edge characters will be fucked.
If you regain your edge every in game day, all characters will have it easy to survive but the high edge ones will be, lets say, superior.

Posted by: pbangarth Jul 17 2011, 01:32 PM

Irion is right, I think, that if you use a high Edge to make up for other low stats, then it is not much help in the long run. I don't think that is how Edge should be used. If you use it to make a splash at just the right moment, it can be an amazing force multiplier, and be a game changer.

For example, in our home game a while back a critical moment came that boded ill for some of our team. My PC, who did not have Stunball at the time but has a high Edge, multicast three Stunbolts, each bolstered with the use of a point of Edge. All of us, GM included, were impressed with the results. We all agreed that it was silly(impossible really) to behave that way all the time, but it came at just the right moment to save the team some serious grief.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 17 2011, 01:35 PM

In my current group we decided to have edge refresh just BEFORE the next run, but not any time in between. The result is mostly that high edge characters (we have two humans with 7 edge) have maybe 1-2 points left to use during downtime, which they can spend because they know they'll start again fresh. I find this to be a very nice arrangement.

Personally, if we refreshed every session, almost every character could put edge in every second roll, because we don't even roll that often. Also, I would have to have NPCs use edge a lot more, too, which is just more rolling.

The problem remains that humans could use a minor boost. Perhaps a +1 to an attribute of choice? After all, humans should be the most diverse metatype out there, since there are so many.

Posted by: pbangarth Jul 17 2011, 01:40 PM

This is how we do it too, so the left-over Edge can be very helpful for acquiring difficult to find stuff or performing a difficult extended task in time.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 17 2011, 01:43 PM

I agree. Edge should be helpful, but it shouldn`t be a replacement for other stats.

Posted by: pbangarth Jul 17 2011, 01:50 PM

My sense is that the 'edge' for being human has been greatly reduced in SR4 from earlier editions. The Karma Pool of earlier editions grew twice as fast for humans, so in the long run a human PC could do many more extraordinary stunts than the other PC sub-species.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 17 2011, 01:51 PM

If a human has low stats, that's a problem with the chosen build, not with the metatype.

It's pretty darn trivial to get very impressive stats AND high Edge.




-k

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 17 2011, 02:38 PM

Except that MOST Mr. Lucky BuildsI have come across have Piffle for Skills, and they use their Edge to make up for THAT.
It is a fine line. Cain's Original Mr. Lucky had 5 Skills. A Mr. Lucky at our table has 8 Skills. Mine had 15 Skills. I prefer Mine over Cain's because there were less things that I NEEDED to spend Edge on than Cain's Character had. Yes, Judicious Edge expenditure can get you a long way. But when either your Attributes or your Skills suffer, that Edge tends to evaporate quicker than a more Broad Character's Edge.

In the End, well, you play what you find fun.

Posted by: Irion Jul 17 2011, 02:58 PM

Of course a MR. Lucky build has lower stats.
Darn it, that fucking obvious. You pay around 100 BP alone for Edge 8. There is not much left to go around.
(Yes, if you keep Edge 6 you might have some more points to throw around. But anyway: A human won't touch the soak pool of an orc.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 17 2011, 03:06 PM

Well, Cyber/Bio makes up a lot of room for Attributes... My Human Mr. Lucky has Physicals of 5/3/7/2. Exceptional in Body and Reaction, where they are needed for his concept. Slightly lower in Agility and Strength (Ran out of funds, but will be fixed upon first significant infusion of cash, and they were not as important) End result after about 50k in Funds will be 5/6/7/5, which is not insignificant, and costs absolutely 0 Karma.

But you're right. A human will likely not compete against a similar Ork Build. But that is the same regardless of the concept. The Ork's higher base physicals in Body and Strength see to that.

Posted by: Irion Jul 17 2011, 03:15 PM

@Tymeaus
And how are the mental attributes?
You said it yourself: If you want edge 8 you have to take cuts. (Be it skills, gear or attributes.)

With the human having a max edge of 8 it is quite balanced.
I have seen several house rules giving humans two points of bonus edge.
Thats asking for MR Lucky light (7) or MR Lucky Luke (9).

All I am saying is that the MR Lucky build is nice but not overpowered, unless edge regenerates very, very fast. Like I said, once per day and every point of edge is worth a freaking lot.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 17 2011, 03:27 PM

Yeah, Edge refresh has a lot to do with the effective power of Mr Lucky.

Over in Missions, Edge refreshes basically every day, as most Missions are self-contained and are designed to be played in a four-hour session. So it's VERY effective.




-k

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 17 2011, 04:22 PM

Average Stats mental. I always start at average and work from there. Since the character is still young (16), his Charisma Suffered a bit (he has a 2). Otherwise, average.



Agreed, Edge regeneration at Daily is crazy powerful, if you have High Edge.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 17 2011, 07:44 PM

The whole point of an effective Mr. Lucky is to not need that high Edge most of the time. Generally, it is a character with one thing they have an 18-20 dice pool for, and enough skills to get by in other areas. The Edge only comes out when they suddenly need a good roll in something they are only passable in, or they need an overwhelming success in their specialty. Personally, I prefer humans with an Edge of 6, since those last two points of Edge cost 35 (the points) and 20 (the quality), or 55 points that could go to other areas. But you can certainly make a viable Mr. Lucky build - he will survive a campaign with a low Edge refresh rate, and be very powerful in a campaign with a high Edge refresh rate.

Posted by: Irion Jul 17 2011, 08:09 PM

I agree, that edge 6 is quite ideal for a human.
Edge is (taken at high levels) one of the best attributes since it can be applyed to everything.

Posted by: Cain Jul 18 2011, 02:32 AM

I'm not allowed to comment directly on Mr. Lucky. However, it is trivial to get a human with base 4's and 5's in body and reaction; and if you're going the cyber route, you can get them much higher easily. A base reaction of 8 means you'll be avoiding the worst of the shots, so you don't need as much body and armor to soak. You can also do that and get 3's and 4's in all your mental stats, so you're no worse off than a comparable street sam. The trick is that you don't actually make any major sacrifices to be good at what you do.

A troll with a body of 9 has to spend 80 points to get it: 40 to be a troll, and 40 to raise the stat. Orks are a little cheaper, only costing 20 for the race, and 40 points to raise it to an 8. That's a decent difference, but the human will only be three Body points behind them if they're equipped with similar 'ware and armor. That translates into one box of damage difference. So, you're not as worried about taking a hit as you might think. You don't actually need the Edge to soak any more than a comparable ork or troll. Similarly, if your primary dice pools are high enough, you don't need to rely on Edge to do your job.

Over the years, I've seen many variations on the original concept. My build is off-limits, but I've seen builds that incorporated a lot of low-level skills. They were enough to get by, but in a pinch, the dice pool suddenly increased by 8. The mage-killer variant had a decent willpower, but also could add 8 dice to spell resistance tests (and hand a bundle of anti-magic edges as well). You can't directly use Edge with skillwires, but you can get a Skillwire Expert System, which allows you to reroll failures in a pinch. Assuming you've got a decent set of skillwires and reasonable stats, that should be all you need for secondary skills.

The truly nasty part about Edge is when you combine it with spellcasters. I've never made a functional mage with an Edge of 8, but I've done some very successful Edge 6 builds. The trick here is that Edge removes the success cap on spells, so when you really need it, your spells are just that much more potent. I can comment on that build: weak physical stats and high mental stats are par for the course for spellcasters, so you're no worse off there. You might shave a point off of strength, since that won't affect you much. You can still afford to start with a 5 Magic easily, and be just as good at spellcasting. You might not be able to be as good at summoning, but that's okay. Take Incompetences in Ritual Sorcery and Banishing, since Banishing is useless and Ritual Sorcery depends on rather or not the GM is going to give you a team of NPC mages to work with. Mages don't need much gear, and I find that starting with foci is often a losing proposition. Except for a Rating 1 sustaining focus, we'll save foci for the long run. Now, we will scrimp a bit on spells: instead of taking 10 or so spells, we'll cut it down to the 5 most useful ones. That's a 25 BP savings right there.

The net result is this: we've got comparable physical and mental stats to a low Edge mage, only down one or two points in Strength. Mental stats are right alongside them: Elves might get a bonus to Charisma, but we'll select a tradition that uses Intuition as a Drain stat, so we're still close in the Drain dice pool and have a better Initiative. Spellcasting is equal. They're maybe one or two dice better at counterspelling, summoning, and binding; but that's not really a big deal.

How does this all work out? The low Edge mage might use a bound spirit to help his dice pool, but he's bound by the Edge cap. He has to overcast to get the most use out of his spells. The high Edge mage can have an equally-powerful bound spirit (same Magic), but with probably fewer services. It doesn't really matter in this case: the mage can add both the spirit's dice and his Edge dice to his spellcasting dice. Since there's no cap, he can cast it at a lower force and get a greater effect.

Basically, you don't need to sacrifice a whole lot to get a high Edge, especially if you're a human. If you do the build right, an Edge of 8 is nearly unstoppable.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 18 2011, 03:20 AM

Humans have the power of being the lowest common denominator!

...

Well, it seemed to help out people when I was in school and at some jobs...

Posted by: Miri Jul 18 2011, 03:44 AM

Wrong thread.. ignore this.

Posted by: Mäx Jul 18 2011, 03:55 AM

More realistic scenario is that the human takes 3 point of damage more on avarage as the ork and the troll have 6 points more armor(as there's not much sense in them only wearing as much armor as the human can wear)[actually with WAR they can use their higher strength to widen that cap even more], so actually you do need that edge for soaking, adding the edge of 8 to soak pool still leaves the human with 1(or more) dice less then the ork/troll.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 18 2011, 06:45 AM

But the human will have the cover and barrier modifiers for hiding behind the troll.

Posted by: Irion Jul 18 2011, 07:23 AM

I agree that the troll should not be used as example here.
The possibility for the human to take cover where the troll can't may change situations.

Anyway: Yes, the human mage with edge 6 is quite a soild build. High edge is quite good for beginners too, since it helps you to get out of stupid situations.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 18 2011, 08:32 AM

Ok, this is being posted about three days late: I forgot to post it on Friday. Well....

Those are mostly bad rules, because there is no such thing as "good" roleplaying, at least there are no criteria to measure this by. (Yes, most roleplaying rules in SR4 are very poor, because they are entirely tacked on to the mechanical construct, with simple requirements, but no definitions or explanations.) Basically, with rules like that you are relying on your GM to like your way of roleplaying your character, when you in fact can just view him differently. For instance, your GM thinks all Orcs are more feral, primal variants of humans, you don't think so. He thinks that your depiction of a happy-go-lucky orc is bad roleplaying, whereas that actually IS your character.

Good rules that might reward roleplaying will generally remove any quality criteria, or introduce a table vote on who gets what reward. Impressing people is an objective criterion, "good" ist not. This doesn't protect you from gaming with idiots, but even among friends you often want clear rules as to what works and what doesn't.

And so, no, I have not been given bonus dice, threshold benefits or other bonuses by being a good actor, nor do I award these as the GM - at least not intentionally. I am not immune to being impressed of course. In the past, I have played in groups that have used systems of rewarding "good" roleplaying, and the results were usually terrible: blatant favouritism, personal taste obscuring judgements, etc.

Also, a modification of a mechanic based on rollplaying necessitates having a mechanic in the first place. With roleplaying you determine that it would be appropriate for your character to begin a conflict, and you decide upon your methods, goals, and try to determine the risks and dangers involved. Now you can of course act out every stage, too. But factually, the entire conflict is resolved using game mechanics, and that's how it should be. The acting shouldn't influence the mechanics. (But of course strategies and tactics do.)


Fiat is understood as resolving conflicts based on a whim, without rules that are understood by all sides involved.

Good games will have guidelines on how to properly challenge a player. These may or may not be bunk,obviously, but even if he mucks up the challenge, at least with rules you will understand where the outcome came from. Also, clear rules make it easier to gauge the difficulty of a challenge.



Most diceless games I played had one basic rule: NOONE can affect your character without your permission. Not even the GM. I would never play a game where the GM can affect my character as he likes. He has to convince me that what he has envisioned is what should be happening. Unlike what you may think, this rarely resulted in total anarchy. However, as I said before, especially PC vs PC were a big problem.

Posted by: Korwin Jul 18 2011, 09:08 AM

Its cheap? Do you play mages much? When I build an mage, I dont have enough points for all the things I need to be a mage... (400BP)

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 18 2011, 09:23 AM

I disagree with that. Game balance should have only one goal: to make sure everyone has fun. Making a player's character weaker than the rest for "setting purity" makes the game less fun for that player, and that's bad.

Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 11:12 AM

Where does that come from?

Posted by: Faraday Jul 18 2011, 11:46 AM

Right out of the core book. Edge dice used as part of the casting test ignore the max hits=force rule.

Posted by: Cain Jul 18 2011, 11:58 AM

I'm familiar with a couple of diceless games, most notably Amber and Everway. In both cases, the GM could affect you in many ways. If you're referring to freeform, that's somewhat different; but the GM still has a lot of ways to affect your character if he so chooses.



Main book. SR4.5, page 182:


Most starting magicians have a Magic of 5. That means they'll typically be casting at force 5. So, a normal mage stands very little chance of killing a Will 3 victim with a Manabolt: he can only score 5 successes. If the victim gets even one success, he'll survive. The magician has to overcast in order to take people down reliably. An Edge 6 mage, however, can easily bypass this limit. One-shots are much more likely when you spend Edge on a spell. Heck, I've even seen players lower the force on their spells, because they were spending Edge. With a high enough dicepool, you can throw a Force 3 spell and get ten successes, which is more than enough to take down anyone without really any risk of Drain.


I don't allow War! at my table, and I do come down on characters wearing heavy armor in a street situation. Most characters are going to be restricted to normal-looking armor, and not full-body suits. If the ork or troll take advantage of their ability to wear more armor, they're also going to stand out more, and be a bigger target. So, no, you don't need to soak any more often as a human; in fact you may be soaking less since everyone is going to shoot the biggest-looking threat. That's usually always the troll.

The trick is, you give yourself a good Reaction, and you don't have to worry as much about soaking. You can also get away with decent body and decent armor, certainly no worse than a dwarf or elf in this regard. Even if you're a frontline combatant, you shouldn't need to soak damage any more than the ork or troll, and probably less. You're assuming that the Edge 8 character is getting shot at just as often as the trolls and orks are, which might not be the case. Heck, what happens if he's a rigger? He could be back in the van, controlling drones, with no chance of getting shot at.

Posted by: Mäx Jul 18 2011, 12:14 PM

You pretty much need to be mister Lucky IRL to pull of 7 successes from you edge dice.

Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 12:42 PM

Thanks. I was searching the Edge chapter, didn't think of the magic chapter

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 18 2011, 01:08 PM

I've (almost) excusively played freeform games from "www.mysteryandmagic.com". They have a basic rule 0, which says that a character is sacrosanct. I used to argue against this, too, but that's how it was, and basically it makes sense: You just have to persuade a player that affecting their characters in the manner you wish makes sense.




The free hits rule is one of the reasons why magicrun is so effective: Get a Force 3 sustaining focus, and basically sustain anything you like at many hits. (Improved Reflexes, I'm looking at you!)

The other thing is that basically manabolt is a useless spell, so any magic 5 mage can knock out anyone who doesn't have a crapton of spell defence dice. (12 dice on the budget, 2-skill mage, easily, and a force 9+ stunbolt.)

So you don't even need edge on that one.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 18 2011, 02:08 PM

I thought Rule 0 was 'the player is stupid and a baby'. Mechanics are what let you convince players to 'let' things happen to them.

Personally, the Edge-breaks-Magic-limits rule is a bad one. Edge is great enough without breaking the magic rules. Anyway, are we really talking about humans any more? They're only 1 Edge luckier than anyone else… anyone can be Lucky.

Posted by: Cain Jul 18 2011, 02:13 PM

I don't know about useless. I've certainly seen the spell be very useful. But I picked the spell because it's common, and the drain is easy.

The problem with the trick you describe is the Drain. You're looking at 4P drain, which isn't too serious, but can be a bit hard to handle. If the same mage with Edge 6 wanted to, he could cast it at Force 5, and get more than enough successes to incapacitate anyone without a ton of magical defense. And afterwards, he's only looking at 2S Drain.


It's the Edge 8 characters that can be game-breakers. You can create an Edge 8 character that is hyper-specialized in one area, decent in the others, and then has an Edge of 8 to use when it counts. The trick is to be decent at everything you need, just not spectacular. You end up a point or two behind an equivalent build, but it won't matter much in actual play. I mean, every character needs social skills, but if you've got a Face, you can let them do the talking and your skills are just for backup. If every non-face on the team has seven dice in social skills, and you only have five, you're really not hurting that much. You're still far from helpless in the social arena, you won't need Edge on a regular basis.

Dodging is another one. With a higher or equal Reaction to orks and trolls, you'll avoid the worst of a shot right there. Your soak roll is smaller, but with body 5 and decent armor, you can handle normal hits without spending Edge. If someone breaks out the rocket launcher, yeah you're in trouble-- spend Edge. But the troll would be in just as much trouble, and he doesn't have as much Edge to help out.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Jul 18 2011, 08:18 PM

Our group's Roleplay karma/xp awards always come as a group bonus. If the group roleplayed well, stayed in character, and interacted well (meaning believably, not necessarily playing nice or anything), then the good roleplaying credit gets awarded to everyone.

@Brain: If your GM thinks you're playing your character wrong, it's because you two never talked about what the character was like, which should have been the FIRST thing that was done after the character stats were written down. In every game I've ever run or played in, it's a requirement before proceeding with play. As a GM, I always ask: "So what's your character like? What's his/her story?" and give the player a few minutes to tell me about them and give me an idea of how they act. Future roleplaying rewards will be based off of how true to that synopsis the character is played.

And I'm so glad I don't play in diceless games. I've met too many players that if the rule existed that nothing could happen to a character without that player's agreement, then the character would never get hurt, would always be perfect, etc etc etc. It's just another way of being a munchkin or powergamer.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 18 2011, 09:09 PM

That's not a bad idea.


Ok, but that still boxes me into the characterization I came up with in 5-30 minutes while writing up the character synopsis. So what about growth? Also, I haven't had a single character yet that hasn't significantly changed in personality in play - simply because he wasn't quite hashed out, and he reacted to the stimuli present.

Look, in Germany there is a game called "Das Schwarze Auge". It's got a horrible tradition of huge metaplot that you are railroaded through on the "epic" adventures. It also has weird character ethos ideas, even weirder than code of conduct in D&D or stuff like that. And I've have several (horrible) GMs tell me that "no, your character is a noble whatever, he would NEVER do that". Whereas he totally disregarded what we had experienced.


Yeh, except they have no fun, and quit after five minutes. It's really not a problem, unless they are the GMs special friends, and it's a PvP game, as I said earlier.

Posted by: suoq Jul 19 2011, 01:03 AM

Notes on Orcs attributes vs human edge.

For 260 points, Orcs can get every attribute to 4, one attribute to 5, and Edge to 5 (soft cap).
For 240 points, Humans can get half their attributes to 3, half to 4, and edge to 6 (soft cap)
Spread evenly, the orcs get 1 less die every time they edge, offset by 1 more die on 5 out of 6 of their stats.
The humans get 1 more edge, and 20 build points. The orcs get 1 more die on every non-edged roll on 5 different stats.

The edge on humans is nice, but it's not the all-out advantage some people seem to think it is because of the affect attributes have on rolls and the disparity between human and orc attributes.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 19 2011, 02:05 AM

There is a difference between orks and humans, power and aptitude-wise, but in an open build system, it is, like suoq just said, negligible. The thing is, with an open build system, you can get much, much more severe differences in power between two characters who are the same metatype and profession.

Cain hinted at it - sometimes points matter a lot, and sometimes they don't. Take two players, one playing Mr. Lucky, and one playing a human who "only" has an Edge of 6. So the second player has 55 more points to spend. So maybe he gets a Charisma of 5 instead of 2, and gets the influence skill group at 4 instead of 2, and adds the first impression quality. Wow, what a difference - that second character has basically added a secondary specialty of face to his character! But maybe instead of that, he decides to raise Charisma and Logic from 2 to 3, raise Intuition from 3 to 4, get an extra 3 connection/2 loyalty contact, raise three skills from 2 to 3, and pick up the medicine: 2 skill to go with his first aid. Now yeah, he did still spend 55 points, and get 6 more points of free knowledge skills to boot, and he'll be rolling an extra dice or two for some things. But overall, if you compare his performance to Mr. Lucky, you won't see that much difference... until the Edge dice come out.

Posted by: Cain Jul 19 2011, 04:43 AM

The difference here is in how Edge works. Going from Edge 5 to 6 not only means you get an extra die, but you get to use it more often. Also, in your example, what is that human going to spend his extra 20 points on? If you're smart, you spend it on skills or 'ware to boost your dice pools. You're also forgetting the most important advantage of Edge dice: they explode. That means you can get a really incredible number of successes if you roll well. I've personally had a Ares Predator do 30P damage with normal ammo.

Like Glyph said, sometimes points matter and sometimes they don't. SR4.5 really rewards system mastery: you can create many hyperspecalized builds without sacrificing much. The last pornomancer build I saw had something like 52 dice in a social test, and was functional everywhere else. Now, true: an Edge of 8 alone isn't going to cut it. You do need good base dice pools for your characters specialty. But you can have that, and a high Edge to boot. Having a high Edge won't gimp a character, if you know what you're doing.

Now, certain races are going to be better than humans at certain roles. Orks and Trolls are always going to be better at tanking than a human. So, the moral of the story is, don't build humans to be tanks. You'll get shot at less, so you won't have to worry so much about needing a high Body and armor. Instead, build humans to take advantage of their advantages: Edge 6 human mages are killer, and Edge 8 anything can be unstoppable if done right.

Posted by: Irion Jul 19 2011, 06:15 AM

Well, Edge 5 to 6 is not a big jump, I do agree.

If you are in the high end area of dice pools (which can come quite fast if you consider all the different boni dices.)

Shooting someone:
Agility+Skill+Smartlink+Tacnet+skill increase by magic or ware...

But the best example is binding a spirit:
Having Magic 5 and Binding 5 you may end up with:
5+5+2(mentor spirit)+2(Homeground)+2(positiv BC)+2(spec)+4(Powerfocus)=22 dices.

The point about humans is, they are the only one (exept pixies and free spirits) who may aim at high edge characters (7+).
An edge of 6 or even 7 for an ork is not worth trying. The building points you waste to not come back to you. (You might in game raise your edge from 5 to 6, but thats about it)
With the human and Edge 8 the investment pays off since you not just get one more dice each roll, you also get an other roll. Translating in 15 additional edge dices (starting from 49).

(On lower edge scores it is not that big of a deal, because rerolling is much better than adding edge!)

To conclude it:
Are humans the better characters:
No, nobody is saying so. There is this special build for humans allowing them to fuck the rules a bit, if the GM is handing out edge like candys he does not like.
Because such a build will probably not run with the edge 5 ork, but more likely with the edge 3 ork. (Since he thought increasing body from 6 to 8 is a much better deal)

The point a lot of people are trying to make is, that making humans better is not an easy task, because they are almost in line.
Giving them an other point of edge and increasing their costs to 10BP would probably break the balance.
The most you might give is an additional advantage for around 10 BP. (But if you allow surge, this won't be worth much)

The only character better with edge are free spirits in karmageneration + starting karma.
(Since they get 4 times the reward:
1. additional powers.
2. Additional dices for using those powers.
3. Additional dices, when using edge.
4. More uses of edge)

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 19 2011, 07:29 AM

Yep it's kind of a BS magicrun rule so they wouldn't put it under the edge chapter.

Posted by: Cain Jul 19 2011, 08:03 AM

Humans aren't better characters, but they're also not underpowered. You just have to play to their strengths. You shouldn't try to make a tank sam with a human, leave that to the orks and trolls. But speed sams? Humans and elves do very well there. Why soak when you can dodge? Riggers, deckers, and mages? You definitely should consider going human for those builds. There are advantages to going human, and they can be quite powerful if done right.

Posted by: Udoshi Jul 19 2011, 08:03 AM

I have to admit, you nearly lost me here. I was incredibly tempted to link a certain lovejournal community called Bad Roleplayers Suck, because there certainly ARE good and bad roleplayers out there.




I have played in a setting where this is the norm, and it actaully works out fantastically. It has a lot to do with the setting in question - because its a multi-gm environment, where anyone can basically run something within the loose guidelines of the settings. Social factors have made it incredibly cliquey (people tend to play with people they get along with) but the idea of consenting changes to a character being a basic rule does a lot to get players into a more detail-oriented style of play where they think about what is going on and react appropriately instead of Rollplaying all the time.
That being said, some players are better than others at playing realistically, especially in a fantasy setting.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 19 2011, 08:52 AM

Oh, there certainly are, but you are still going to have to give some criteria what makes a good and what makes a bad roleplayer. You can't just write in a rulebook "Reward good roleplaying", because that is just an empty, meaningless statement.




In a multi-GM, non-PvP environment I have had very rewarding experiences, and have myself probably done the best roleplaying I've ever done. (This was of course play by post, so you have more time to get into the character).

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 01:20 PM

I don't see the problem. The GM knows good roleplaying, and rewards it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 19 2011, 01:31 PM

Indeed... Kind of like that Supreme Court Judge and his definition of Pornography. You know it when you see it.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 01:37 PM

Yes, except much less ambiguous. The players also know good roleplaying. It would be unreasonable to provide a definition, and 'good roleplaying' is far from meaningless. If pressed, we could all certainly come up with a list/definition, but why?

Posted by: DamienKnight Jul 19 2011, 02:26 PM

Yes, for shame that we would expect a book that outlines how to play a ROLE PLAYING game would try and define Role Playing.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 02:28 PM

It does have a whole section explaining what an RPG is. And again, we all know. It's hardly "empty, meaningless", nor is there "no such thing as 'good' roleplaying".

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 19 2011, 06:26 PM

Ok, you seriously haven't experienced enough bad GMs. If you had, you would know that there DOES need to be a definition. GMs that tell you how to play your character, for instance. That's NOT his business. Or GMs that always reward the table clown, because "oh, when his character does these crazy things that shouldn't work, it's funny and whacked, but if YOU DO, IT EVIL POWERGAMER, it totally won't fly AT ALL!" Or GMs that are biased towards a certain type of roleplaying. Or GMs that don't stand up to the table "actor", who can therefore hog ALL the fricken spotlight simply because he's a bit more outgoing than the rest. And yes, that guy might be totally playing his character well, but that's still not how things should work.

So, against all these things you DO definitely need definitions, and even better, rules. If there were, then everything would be natural and fair. And it's a damn shame that roleplaying games that are sold for hundreds of dollars provide SO LITTLE gaming/roleplaying theory. Fact is, they didn't even want to bother with it. And arguably you can say, hey, it's a thing that every gaming table should work out for themselves. But factually, you should then not mix rules and roleplaying at all.

And the GM is just a player, with admittedly more work. He isn't supposed to be the judge (in a well-designed game, which doesn't have roleplaying as a tacked on feature to a bunch of mechanics).

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 06:40 PM

Sounds like they need a section explaining what a good GM is, then. I don't really see the relevance, though. You're saying that they need to spell out what good roleplaying is for the benefit of *crap* GMs? You're already screwed with a crap GM, regardless of any other factors.

Honestly, there don't need to be rewards for roleplaying, XP or otherwise. I agree.

On the other hand, see *my* Rule 0 above. There are players who play their characters wrong. Etc. The group can deal with it, naturally, and I don't think XP incentives are effective or desirable, but I understand why that 'rule' is there.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Jul 19 2011, 07:35 PM

Brain, I never said you would be boxed in to a specific characterization. Wow, you really have had some shitty GM's to make you automatically jump to that conclusion. Your character should evolve over time. Hell, it's practically required in our games. We play some oWoD games, and you can't even advance unless your character grows (in our games anyway... in Mage we tie Arete advances to character growth, no amount of xp can raise it).

However, if you go from "Happy perky Sunny-Ork" to "evicerating a random bystander" in the same 5 minute span with no justifiable reason, you're not gonna be considered good roleplaying. Same in reverse: If you're a trigger-happy monster, suddenly giving a person a kind smile and a sucker is going to be very out of character.

Growth of a character generally happens slowly over time, just like with people. Also, just like with people, a major event, trauma, or revelation can spark a sudden and radical shift in a character's outlook and belief system. Reacting to the events in the game in a believable manner is the core of "good" roleplaying. Staying true to what the character is, letting that truth evolve, and keeping things as real as possible.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 19 2011, 08:24 PM

Yeah, consistency of character isn't really stasis, but a moving average. If you're way off your center mark, you're out of character. If you're reasonably close, but often erring to one side, your average is slowly shifting. Trauma or other major events, like Jhaiisiin mentions, will cause introspection and can shift it substantially. So your initial concept is never immutable.

Posted by: suoq Jul 19 2011, 08:28 PM

One thing I always liked about Grimjack (yeah, I'm old). Every story brought growth in two directions. We learned what happened to him in the story and how it changed him and we learned what happened to him in the past and how that made him the person he became.

I have no problem with a character's backstory growing in the course of play, just as the things he encounters will also cause growth and changes.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 19 2011, 11:20 PM

Hah, I am positively scorched with bad GMing!

The damnedest thing is that usually I played my best characters with the worst GMs. Usually because they made their lives so unbelievably hard that I myself had to fight every inch of the way.

Hmmm... I don't find randomness to be necessarily conclusive of bad roleplaying. Destructive, usually, but... hey, you just forgot to mention that personality disorder in the backstory. Both consistently random and inconsistently random have a place.

Fact is, I don't like having to summarize a personality before play. Hell, I don't even know the guy I'm going to be playing, yet. Who knows what he'll do? I'll keep a rough image/outline to myself, but the rest of the table, including the GM (and maybe me), is just going to have to find out.



I think as a player I should have the choice of how, when, and how quickly to grow, or change. I don't need reasons, either, because mechanical psychology does not a good character make. People usually are quite different from what we want them to be, so realism isn't necessarily a goal. Now I'll grant you that generally the kind of people you have in mind probably won't have even thought about this much, but... I just want to keep the theoretical possibility open. Because it's MY character, and I can play him like I want to. He can snap without a reason, he can do stupid, inconsistent things, and I don't have to justify that in the least. I generally will find an explanation for myself, but that, too, is mine alone, because only I can look into that character's head.

IMHO, bad roleplaying just mostly happens when people metagame their decisions to get the most of certain mechanics, without thinking enough about believable reasons. But then believable is a very relative term again.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 19 2011, 11:24 PM

Humans are one of the most powerful groups in the game universe!

Especially when they got all their buddies together and put on the white robes and pointy hoods.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 20 2011, 02:23 AM

You mean the druids?

Posted by: CanRay Jul 20 2011, 02:26 AM

The midgets that almost crushed Stonehenge at the Spinal Tap concert?

Posted by: Cain Jul 20 2011, 03:12 AM

Brain, I think you're kinda missing the point.

First of all: Yes, bad GM's exist, we all know that. Hell, back in the 80's, I was one of the worst. I didn't really come along until Shadowrun first came out. Not coincidentally, that's when I learned how to roleplay.

Second, if you as the player are deciding what the character is doing, something is amiss. When you're truly into roleplaying, the *character* will start making decisions and you'll be along for the ride. This doesn't happen automatically, as other people have attested, but characters do grow and evolve over time. It's happened to me many times: I as the player will say my character is doing something, while my mind is going: "What the hell? Where did that come from?"

Now, no one has the right to force your character to grow or develop. I really don't like the idea that you could be judged or ranked or advanced based on that, because many of a character's changes are internal. That's why I'd never play in the oWoD game previously mentioned. But if you're truly into your character, he should grow on his own.

Posted by: KCKitsune Jul 20 2011, 03:19 AM

Not a cool comparison. There's plenty of assholes in EVERY race. Just because the KKK is the most famous doesn't make them unique.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2011, 03:22 AM

Quoted For Truth...

Posted by: Mäx Jul 20 2011, 03:28 AM

Nothing unique, but Humanity Policlub is the most powerfull organization of it's kind in the sixth world.

Posted by: Medicineman Jul 20 2011, 04:55 AM

.....oO(the KKK ain't the most famous.....there's this Bunch with the "upside-Down buddhist Sign of Life"....I think They're even more famous....)

with a "not-so-famous" Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: KCKitsune Jul 20 2011, 03:02 PM

Yeah, the Nazi's are more famous, but still the KKK are evil enough that if they could pull a Hitler, they would do it in a heart beat.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 20 2011, 03:20 PM

And yet, Westboro Baptist Church is nasty enough to be denounced as evil by the KKK. To say nothing of other supremacist organizations of every race and nearly every religion under the sun, each just about as vile as the others.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 20 2011, 04:08 PM

Can we not go down the "X real-life thingy is more famous/evil than Y" path?

It never ends well. Ever.




-k

Posted by: Critias Jul 20 2011, 04:29 PM

Unless you count "getting a thread locked for talking about politics" as "ending well."

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jul 20 2011, 04:31 PM

I put on my robe and wizard hat...

Posted by: CanRay Jul 20 2011, 05:09 PM

*Sighs*

The Humanis Policlub, people? I *WAS* keeping things in-universe.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2011, 06:10 PM

Huh... The Humanis Policlub Members wear White robes and White Pointy Hats? Who Knew?

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Jul 20 2011, 06:18 PM

Cain, the Arete stat is overly powerful in oWoD mage. It's the only stat whose power can grow exponentially. Keeping it contained proved to be a necessity to prevent power gaming and keep characters well rounded and growing. In a decade of gaming, no one has raised issue with it, and it's been fantastically useful. But each table rules their game differently. I'm sorry the limitation of one single stat would turn you off the game so quickly.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 20 2011, 07:34 PM

oWOD was pretty unbalanced all around, and while each game had its own internal power balance, cross-game balance was non-existent. Even nWOD didn't take away Mage's OP endgame, though they raised the risk significantly and made the path more expensive, thus slower. But we're not here to bicker and argue about who in WOD was most overpowerful. This is supposed to be a happy occasion, where we bicker and argue about who in Shadowrun is more OP!!

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 20 2011, 07:49 PM

By some artwork humanis looks very KKK inspired which is odd but then again it's supposed to make them easily identified as the bad guys I guess.

Posted by: Mäx Jul 20 2011, 08:41 PM

I did atleast

Posted by: suoq Jul 20 2011, 08:58 PM

SR1A (1989) Pg 168- Humanis Politiclub Member contact. Certainly looks like a white pointy hood, but it could be grey, clear plastic, or maybe someone pulled Patrick Star's (Spongebob's friend) pantyhose over his head. Hard to tell. I kind of like the idea that it's Patrick's pantyhose.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Jul 20 2011, 09:24 PM

This is true. It can be overpowered. One thing I neglected to mention. While we tie Arete to character development, we *don't* charge any xp cost for it. All Arete increases are free after character generation in our games.

Posted by: Cain Jul 20 2011, 11:09 PM

I played Mage extensively, I do recall how powerful it was. But what I don't like is tying its advancement to visible character "growth". Not all characters "grow", some regress over time. That's character development too, but it's not the kind you usually like to see. In the same vein, many characters only grow internally, never showing much development on the outside. It's not fair to restrict their growth, simply because they're not making visible changes.

Also, character growth is highly subjective. How much character growth is required to advance? What ends up happening is what I've seen too much of in oWoD LARPs: Character advancement is tied to what the GM likes to see, and not what's actually happening. In many of those games, the Storyteller's friends got more XP for roleplay than others, because they're the ones he interacted with the most. It is blatantly unfair to say: "Your character grew and changed, so you become exponentially more powerful" and then turn around and say: "I don't care how cool your internal monologues are, I didn't see it, so you don't advance."

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Jul 21 2011, 04:37 AM

Okay, LARP's are the devil. NEVER EVER EVER worth the nonesense they cause. (Sorry, bad experiences, and those are a class of geeks even I don't understand)

Lemme take our discussions to PM. We're really staying off topic in here.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 21 2011, 04:45 AM

Awww but i like mage discussions, it makes me all nostalgic. For the record our group also didn't boost Arete with experience but when the storyteller felt you had grown enough in your understanding of the arts. Ditto with Scion and legend.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 21 2011, 05:22 AM

I would point out that Shadowrun LARPS tend to be very very different than what you might have encountered in WoD stuff.





-k

Posted by: Cain Jul 21 2011, 06:07 AM

I've played in a few different LARPs, including one post-apoc/cyberpunkish one. We used either birdseed packets or nerf guns to represent firearms. I was basically playing a street samurai, heavily chromed and carrying a big gun. The big nerf blaster I carried had a pump action and an electronic motor, that made a huge racket whenever it whirred to life. Intimidating as all hell. I named it the Vindicator minigun, after the Shadowrun weapon.

We actually brought a lot of Shadowrun ideas into that game. You could get cybereyes, with "smartlinks": I can't remember what they were called, but they meant that you did more damage on a successful hit. Full cyber bodies were possible, but uncommon. The game didn't last for more than a year, which was a pity. I've thought about adapting the rules and adding more Shadowrun elements, but it's never been worth the effort.

And to bring things back on topic: humans were actually one of the more powerful races available. Instead of getting a special ability, you got 10 extra points to build your character with, and had no particular costuming requirements. Those 10 points didn't count against your advancement, so you were always more capable than someone else of an equal level.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 21 2011, 06:26 AM

I'd try a Shadowrun LARP but I seriously think the police might have issues if I were to load up a van with machine guns all over it...

EDIT: There's also that whole "I don't have a full driver's license" thing, too...

Posted by: Cain Jul 21 2011, 08:10 AM

It's a really cool idea, but I think we're dragging this thread off topic. I'll start another one.

Back onto topic, do people *still* think humans are underpowered? With Edge 6 for cheap, and Edge 8 possible, have I convinced everyone that humans are a competitive choice?

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 21 2011, 10:23 AM

It's not that humans aren't a competitive choice, but that humans with edge below 6 aren't a competitive choice. I tend to think that's bad; it's odd that human PCs are all some flavor of Mr. Lucky.

Dwarves and Elves have similar problems, but not as pronounced; Dwarves with less than 6 willpower and Elves with less than 6 agility and less than 6 charisma are similarly not competitive. Orks and Trolls don't have this problem because they give you a larger amount of stats for free.

Posted by: Cain Jul 21 2011, 11:06 AM

You play a race to its advantages. In my current game, there's a troll, and elf, and three humans. The humans include an Otaku, a rigger, and a mage. They're all very good at what they do, and other races couldn't do their job noticeably better. The troll is the tank, pure and simple, and I don't think any other race would be better suited for that. But the elf mystic adept has serious issues: he's not good enough in melee to compete with the troll, and he's not good enough at magic to compete with the mage. I'm probably going to allow him to rewrite and go pure adept, since that's the side he uses more. He's pretty good as an infiltrator, but he took Uncouth, so he can't talk his way into a building.

Overall? The humans are doing much better. None of them have an Edge above 4, and they keep up just fine. Ironically, it's the elf, supposedly the best race for combat, that has the most difficult time with it.

Posted by: Traul Jul 21 2011, 11:26 AM

Humans stats should not start at 1. Since they are supposed to be average, they should have at least 3 everywhere so that the other races' penalties are real penalties and not just lower maxmima to stats you were going to dump anyway.

Posted by: Mäx Jul 21 2011, 11:45 AM

So you mean to say that humans should get 160BP worth of stats for free, yeah that wouldn't be unbalanced at all

Posted by: Elfenlied Jul 21 2011, 11:53 AM

I believe he said everyone should start with stats at three, and then have modifiers applied. Of course, that would mean adjusting the amount of BP as well.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 21 2011, 11:57 AM

My point is that edge < 6 is, in fact, not playing human to its advantages.

With regard to the elf - I did say elves have similar issues; an Uncouth elf is certainly not playing to the strengths of Elf. It's also quite easy to make a sucky mystic adept. You can certainly make an effective elf mystic adept, but it's very, very easy to not do so.

Can you post the Ability Scores of the three humans? What stream does the Technomancer follow? What Tradition is the mage?

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 21 2011, 12:10 PM

I think humans have sufficient advantages to make them a good choice for some characters - enough characters to be alright.

1) You're not paying for stuff you're not using, like a high Strength, or low-light/thermographic cision that you'd replace with cybereyes, or Charisma if you're going to play an antisocial twerp anyway.
2) You don't have any annoyingly low Attribute caps.
3) A "normal" vibe - it matters to some people.
4) Less racism than the other races get.
5) Edge

There's very few things a human can't play. Blending in better with mundane society is useful to human faces. Riggers and Hackers aren't paying for meatbag Attributes they don't use. And for Logic/Intuition mages, the value you get out of metatypes is pretty small too.

Okay, humans suck as tanks. But you gotta wonder if tanking is really what you should be doing in SR; it means 1) people actually see you, 2) they have time to shoot at you before you drop them.

In the other roles, metas can squeeze 1-3 dice more out of their Attributes, but on a 16+ dice pool, that's not enough to make humans unplayable.

Posted by: Cain Jul 21 2011, 12:31 PM

I don't control their character sheets, and it doesn't really matter. The otaku is straight out of the base book, no paragon streams; the mage is a homebrewed Intuition-based tradition. Since he's a combat mage, going Intuition based was a good choice, since it also factors into your initiative. The rigger can compete with the troll because he can hide in his cocoon, and use heavy weapons. The mage can drop the troll with a single spell; the troll's player dumpstatted all his mental stats except intuition. The otaku is a sprite summoner build, with all the nastiness that entails.

What matters is, they're all effective at what they do, and other races couldn't do noticeably better. Sure, an elf gets that Charisma bonus; but it doesn't help the mage that much, since he's Intuition based. An elf otaku would be interesting, but again, the charisma bonus wouldn't help all that much. As for the rigger, charisma doesn't really apply to him that often. Trolls and orks get higher Body and Strength, but that's not useful for a mage, otaku, or rigger. You may as well save the points and put them into other stuff, like Magic, Resonance, and gear.

If you're playing a concept that relies on a high body or strength, orks and trolls win, hands down. But when you're looking at non-physical concepts, humans become much more attractive. Seriously, think about it: how good would a troll be as a rigger? Or worse, an otaku? He'd suck at it, because of the limits on his mental stats. Humans have no advantages, but they have no penalties either. Even orks aren't any better than humans at mental stats. Elves and dwarves do get bonuses, but they're not as useful as you might think, depending on the build you're going for.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 21 2011, 01:35 PM

I'm not about to debate Schroedinger's Human. If you want to post some actual character sheets that are humans with <6 edge that you think are (a) effective characters and (b) would not be better off as a metatype, please do.

Posted by: Irion Jul 21 2011, 01:55 PM

Which system?
BP? Karma? German-Karma? (And I guess there is also a new german Karma)

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 21 2011, 01:55 PM

Fun fact: The Ohio Democratic Party hosted a dinner in Columbus on the 25th of last month. Speaking at the dinner was Joe Biden, the Vice President.

Running from 22nd to the 26th at the same convention center was the Origins Game Fair.

The Origins Shadowrun LARP was on the 24th. I will just say, thank god it was the day before. I am trying to imagine how the Secret Service would be reacting to a mass of paramilitary dressed individuals with apparent firearms being just down the hall. They looked stressed enough dealing with the rest of the weirdos running around the place.




-k

Posted by: Hida Tsuzua Jul 21 2011, 02:00 PM

The big thing is that you save points by being an ork except for very certain cases. If you're an low edge intuition mage or a rigger, you're just plain better as a ork unless you spent less than 30 points on body and strength. And if that's the case, have fun with your 3 body. Riggers just don't care about mental stats at all. This is the era of the script kiddy after all.

For technos, the fade resist roll is the the biggest check on their power. Orks are just fine intuition technos that won't blow up if you sneeze on them. Charisma Elf technos are gods of the matrix if fragile in the meat and can easily become good face as a side effect.

Really "my group is just fine!" is a terrible argument especially when one of your cases is a melee uncouth elf mystic adept. I agree that elf is overrated as the best combat race. My money's on orks and if you allow metavarients, the fomori.

Edit- If you don't use BP gen, things might be different. I haven't really looked into those systems so I can't say.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 21 2011, 02:21 PM

Probably about the same way that the Toronto Police Department dealt with LARPers at a major event...

They seized one guy's equipment and put it on the news... His chainmail was displayed with a couple of street trash pistols (Taken from drug dealers weeks before) on top with a couple of axes they took from a couple that were going camping, and one high-ranking official showed the "Safetied" arrows covered in socks and described them as "Incendiary Devices supposed to be soaked in gasoline and lit on fire before being launched at VIPs.".

None of the items in question were a threat at all to the target group, but was a major PR move to show "That the Toronto Police Department was doing all it could to keep everyone safe."

Oh, and none of the items were even close to where the delegates were when seized. Typical REMF Charlie-Foxtrot.

Posted by: Cain Jul 22 2011, 02:25 AM

Riggers still need mental stats, since most of their skills (electronic warfare, for example) are still attribute-linked. Decker's don't, but I don't have a decker, I have an otaku, and they need mental stats for their bionode.

I could throw build after build into the fray, and we'd just end up in a war of escalating builds. This has happened before, I received a mod warning, so I will not go down that path again. I'll just stand on the fact that if you're playing a rigger or decker (or otaku), the ork bonuses won't do you any good, since you don't actually need much Body and Strength. If you're going spellcaster, then it depends slightly on what you're going for: for a charisma-based tradition, elves are very good. But for an intuition or logic-based tradition, not so much. The dwarf bonus to Willpower helps with drain, but only by 1 die; for the same 25 points, I can buy a rating 4 sustaining focus and the Increase Willpower spell.

Does having an increased Body help? Sometimes, but sometimes not. It's a question of opportunity cost: what are you giving up for that extra Body? Is it worth the tradeoff? Sometimes the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no.

The point is, humans aren't the best at everything. But they're competitive in many areas, even leaving Edge aside for a moment.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 22 2011, 03:16 AM

I don't see this discussion going anywhere useful; I could argue that Archetype X benefits from being Metatype Y, but so long as it's some unspecified build you can always come up with some convoluted reason why they want Charisma 6 or Body 1 or whatever.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 22 2011, 04:42 AM

Orks, humans, and elves exist on a continuum of how important non-physical stats are to your build. Just as people take a net loss of 10 build points, compared to a human, to take advantage of some of the elf's higher maximums, you will have people take a net loss of 20 build points to have the advantages to Edge and the lack of penalties to mental stats that being human can get you. It goes without saying that if you don't take advantage of an elf's bonuses, you are basically paying 10 build points for flavor. Similarly, human builds that don't exploit a human's potentially high Edge or mental Attributes is paying extra to be human. And an ork shaman, or troll hacker, are in the same situation.

Either you take advantage of metatype by picking the best one for a particular niche, or you play a bit against type, and make a human tank melee build, or a troll face. And while I do optimize my builds, mainly because of what I think a shadowrunner's role should be, I still like to play against type occasionally, and have smooth-talking orks or tough as nails elves to shake things up a bit. Shadowrun is not traditionally balanced, in the sense of every option being equally effective, but it offers, instead, multiple ways for you to optimize. But (and this is speaking as a powergamer-leaning player) you are not compelled to tweak your build for absolute mathematical efficiency. While you can certainly gimp a character, often unintentionally, the system has enough slack that a character who is less than completely min-maxed can still be effective.

Posted by: Cain Jul 22 2011, 05:50 AM

Like I said, I once received a mod warning over this, so I'm not going to go down that path.

That said, I can run with your example. A face with Charisma 6 and Body 1 can be very effective. Pixies in particular: they can't benefit from most 'ware, but they can still get insane social dice pools. An otaku with Charisma 6 and Body 1 will be fine, especially if he's a sprite summoner build: he can just stay back, and let the sprites do all the work for him. Mages could benefit from a higher body, since they need to be closer to the combat; but mages have other ways of avoiding being shot at.

The bottom line here is, orks are not better at everything. And humans are not underpowered. They don't have any mechanical advantages, but they can still play to their abilities.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 22 2011, 07:03 AM

There's also some hilariously durable "tin man" builds out there in which you basically ignore physical attributes since you'll just be bootstrapping them up to competence via replacing your fleshy bits with armored cyberlimbs. Generally such characters lack the funds or essence to also have great IPs on top of their durability, but that's fine since you don't have to totally devote yourself to combat-- you're better than plenty of sheets and mooks just by being tough as nails anyway-- and can easily afford to take Born Rich and make the character into say, a well-connected rigger that's tougher than his cheap ride or an all-out skill monkey brimming with the niche skills that other characters can rarely afford to take. The rigger option is extra fun since with full-on cyberlimb armor madness and a dash of Edge you can actually ram things and not instantly liquefy yourself as long as your sensible with your speed and vehicle choices. The biggest drawback is that it's one of those things where your GM might try to punch you in the neck after you give them the sheet.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 22 2011, 10:24 AM

Perhaps part of it is that in your games, it seems to be much easier for glass-fragile PCs to always avoid getting shot at if they want to. If that's true, it does devalue Body a good deal and makes ork and troll less valuable. If you actually see 1 body mages played and not dying, I suppose humans might be a more sensible choice, but that's pretty different than everyone else's experience of shadowrun.

I think you missed my point about Schroedinger's Build. Here, let me try. You said you actually had an Intuition mage in your group who is a human, and he has sub-6 edge.

Does he have Charisma or Logic 5? Probably not; he doesn't get much of anything out of going that high, and if he does I would argue he's presumably doing so for fluff reasons, and not for effectiveness.

Does he have Body+Strength < 5? If so, he is throwing away stat points or build points. If not, well, like I said, I consider playing a 2 body, 2 strength mage to be a bit on the suicidal side but apparently your mileage varies on this.

Posted by: Cain Jul 22 2011, 11:14 AM

Actually, the mage does have Edge 6. It's the rigger and otaku who don't, and they do just fine. The otaku also has substandard physical stats (Strength at 1, body of 3) but he never gets into it physically, so he doesn't need to worry about it. The mage also has Strength 1, and it really doesn't hurt the build any. The troll is the meat shield for the team: he goes first and takes all the fire, so everyone else can support him. The rest of the team plans their tactics to the troll gets shot at first, so they concentrate on Reaction for defense, as opposed to body and armor.

Honestly, what good is strength to a mage or otaku? If they have to get into melee, they're already dead. The mage uses spirits to keep enemies off of him, and the otaku uses drones with machine sprites. The rigger just sits in his cocoon, so his body and strength is pretty irrelevant as well.

Posted by: Traul Jul 22 2011, 11:40 AM

For the Otaku? Running and the situational climbing. The mage can replace it with Levitate.

Posted by: suoq Jul 22 2011, 12:35 PM

I'm boggled, simply boggled.

Posted by: Hida Tsuzua Jul 22 2011, 01:39 PM

While I think we can calm and reasonable about discussing the builds, I can understand being gun-shy about it. So I'm just going to final wrap up of my general points. Orks get a hefty bonus for very little cost. If you're body+strength is at least 5 and you aren't (soft or hard) capping edge, logic, or charisma, you should be an ork or other non-human metatype. Since that covers a lot of character archetypes and builds, in many ways ork is the default shadowrunning race. You should be asking "why aren't I an ork?" when building a character. Thankfully, every metahuman race has at least an niche so there are (some common) cases where you'll want to be a human, elf, troll, or dwarf.

A big part of the reason ork is so good is that having a 4+ body is quite important. I'm surprised how little you take stock in it. Even the techno in our group who basically lives in a suit of military armor in a rigger cocoon in a Hussar (an 18 armor drone) has been caught out in the open from time to time. I mean at 1-2 body you're in danger of being killed by a wide bursting guy with an AR in one pass. You can get around this with cyberlimb armor, but raising your body helps a lot and not everyone is okay with cyberdiabetus. I guess if everyone and their dog always attacks the tank, that's fine, but even in MMOs you have to worry about aggro and stray dudes.

The strength I'm not really going to push to hard. Honestly it's just a nice feather to put in your cap. It's weird you don't run much in Shadowrun but whatever. It's more that you get it for free. It's more useful if you use softweave, but not everyone uses War!. Being subdued sucks and really bad if you're low strength, but it's not really much you do against that cheaply.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 22 2011, 02:08 PM

Indeed. Doesn't seem to make any sense does it?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 22 2011, 02:17 PM

Like I (and everyone else) said 2 pages ago: if you plan on going outside in SR, you'll want 3 STR and 4 BOD anyway.

Posted by: sabs Jul 22 2011, 02:17 PM

My question isn't why aren't you an ork. it's.. Why aren't you a Dwarf.
Dwarfs are awesome, unless you intend to get a natural 5+ reaction.

They make amazingly good riggers and hackers and streetsams.
Sure the 2 body for 25 BP isn't as nice at the 4 body for 20 bp. But dwarves get to have a 7 willpower.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 22 2011, 02:24 PM

Oh, come on now. The melee bit in particular isn't the least bit insane, particularly given that he was talking about the value of Strength. In melee combat strength really only has value during grapple checks and dealing damage. Frankly, the opportunity cost for dealing reliable damage--particularly in a setting in which your opponent might be a friggin' fire elemental-- is high enough that it's cheaper to literally just get your body covered in synthetic skin that electrocutes anything that grapples you. Or better yet, carry a friggin' gun. Let's be serious here: Yelling "MORTAL KOMBAT!!!" and flipping out on the other guy until one of you is unconscious isn't really a good plan for the vast majority of characters and just making your guy an ork or whatever isn't going to change that without retooling your build into something approximating the physical capabilities of a street samurai. For every 400 bp character sheet out there I guarantee you there is a scenario in which a straight up Attribute+Skill pissing match is a losing situation. If that situation is a steel cage match, then your character is actually in pretty good shape.

I mean, yeah, having some Body is great and we all love us some armor. But there ARE ways to dump Body and still be fairly tough to kill in this game so I think it's a li'l silly to act like we're all aghast at this heresy.

Posted by: Traul Jul 22 2011, 02:26 PM

Only if you hard-max it, and going from 5 to 6 with the soft max does not brings so much benefit since the extra stun box is at 7. That's why the +1 Body is not so nice either. The Attribute/2 derived stats induce bad threshold effects.

And it is not so much the natural 5 Reaction as the augmented 9 that matters: Move-By-Wire + Reaction Enhancers give a hefty +6, and even if you stay reasonable, Wired reflexes + Reaction enhancers is already +4, just what you need to reach 9 when soft-maxing.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 22 2011, 02:31 PM

Yeah, they screwed Dwarves hard with the 5 Reaction. They're the *riggers*, facrissake.

Posted by: Traul Jul 22 2011, 02:32 PM

Has anyone tried to exchange with trolls' -1 AGI? It makes trolls better sammies and dwarves better drivers, so everyone should be happy.

Posted by: sabs Jul 22 2011, 02:33 PM

But there isn't a character alive who can use the +6 to reaction. You might be right that the 7 cap might be a problem compared to the 9 cap. But that's limited, and doesn't matter for riggers and hackers.

I can buy a 3 reaction, and get move by wire 2, and be done.

Riggers use response, not reaction.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 22 2011, 03:40 PM

Unless they're AR riggers. Then Reaction matters somewhat.

It's still not worth maxing out, though.





-k

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 22 2011, 03:56 PM

Reaction is always worth maxing out, and it is trivially easy to do so.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 22 2011, 04:02 PM

As we had in a conversation about the Street Legends book, every rigger should have a decent reaction in case your asked to drive something you can't jump into. Now personally as a rigger dwarf a 4 is a respectable reaction especially since there are lots of reaction boosts out there.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jul 22 2011, 04:15 PM

Personally, I like karmagen as an encouragement to generalize, and my solution for anything such as humans, or magicians (with skills) is to just throw in a few more points. Recently, I went with a 1000 point karmagen, and it looks like everyone got the character they wanted. There's a drone or two, a merc with a tonne of cyber, an ally spirit, a f4 power focus, some geneware, and some decent dice-pools all round, with a lot of areas covered, including knowledge skills. They also still took negative qualities that are character appropriate. Come to think of it, build-wise, they're all humans.

I find without the feeling that your character can't be built without some min/maxing, you can focus a little more on fleshing that character out.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 22 2011, 04:55 PM

Everyone has already touched upon the hit to augmented Reaction. I'll also add that you have a slower movement rate, and need gear specially made for you. All of this for a metatype that has a net gain of 5 BP, rather than 20 BP (as for orks), compared to a human. They make good hackers, full immersion riggers, and mages, but that's about it.

Posted by: Irion Jul 22 2011, 05:04 PM

So basically we are saying orks get a lot of freebe.

I mean I hope nobody is really suggesting that a troll might be better than a human for close to every build?

Yes, orcs get a lot of bonis and they are about the same stature as a human, evading a lot of problems trolls are facing.

So yes, orks are mostly better than humans.

But here is the question: Is that really a problem?
If you use Karmagen the it is really minimal. So the orc might end up with 2 points of body and 1 point of strengh more than the human of the same build. Is this really that bad?

Posted by: Glyph Jul 22 2011, 05:44 PM

You do realize that you're asking this question to the same forum that has had multiple multi-page threads about oni costing 25, rather than 20, points, right?

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 22 2011, 05:46 PM

But they need to pay more to be unique! Just like Fomori get a point break for being unique! It all totally makes sense, want some Kool-Aid?

Posted by: Grinder Jul 22 2011, 07:36 PM

Cain made it clear twice that he doesn't want to discuss character builds, so please be fair and don't tease him, ok?

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 22 2011, 07:38 PM

Some runners are, um, physically incapable of driving vehicles.

<.<

>.>




-k

Posted by: Cain Jul 22 2011, 08:22 PM

Body isn't as necessary as you might think. Reaction is more important, since it enables you to dodge, and humans are the same as orks when it comes to that. It's better to avoid damage than to soak it. You can also fight like a wimp: use cover, smoke, distractions, flash-bangs, and any of the hundred of other tricks to prevent getting hit in the first place.

When it comes to melee, there's simply no way a mage can hope to defend against a good melee-focused character. Or an otaku or rigger, for that matter. The melee adept is simply throwing too much dice to have a chance. So, you need to do other tricks to keep them off of you, like spirits and drones. In that case, the ork bonuses aren't going to do you any good, you may as well save the points for more magic goodies.

Now, a Body of 3 is useful, simply because it means an extra box of physical damage. But there's not much more benefit until you hit Body 5, and that's pushing you into tank-build territory. Humans aren't so good at that, but they make pretty decent speed sams, who rely on dodging rather than body when getting shot at.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 22 2011, 08:31 PM

That being said, even as a human Street Sam, a good body is helpful. You don't want a lucky shot to take you down, after all.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 22 2011, 08:33 PM

Obviously, you'd have high Reaction *and* decent Body.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 22 2011, 08:47 PM

Well, you know people. If no one says it, they are going to assume it wasn't intended at all.

Posted by: Irion Jul 22 2011, 08:49 PM

You mostly do not need the body for getting shot at. You need it for getting a granade thrown in your direction.
Because if the situation is bad, you may end up with no possibility to really dodge the granade.
And the differance between body 3 and body 1 is a big one.
3 to 9 dices to soak with no special armor. But I agree that Body 5 is not such a big improvement, since you really would need to push it.
And the armor really making use of body 5 might not be suitable for the run you are doing.

To soly rely on doding is a possibility for an adept, true.
A mage needs a sustained spell to pull it off. But a rigger....

Posted by: Mäx Jul 22 2011, 08:52 PM

Why would you need to dodge a grenade, as long as you're the intended target it's very unlikely to end up anywhere near you

Posted by: Irion Jul 22 2011, 08:59 PM

@Mäx
In the open, yes.
In close quarters.....

Posted by: suoq Jul 22 2011, 10:17 PM

Body of 4 is required for FFBA (half-body suit) , PPP shin & forearm, and any of the 6/4 armor to avoid encumbrance. (chamelon suit, armor vest, lined coat, ulysses, and even at 5/3, actioneer). As far as armor goes it's a nice sweet spot, giving the player a large number of choices at any time.

Now if you're never getting shot at, yes, this isn't an issue.

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Jul 22 2011, 10:28 PM

How reaction fares compared to body for defense is fairly GM specific. Do the enemies you face have a dice pool such that you avoid shots or do you usually get hit, assuming your normal defensive fighting cover etc.? If you have a reasonable chance to avoid the damage reaction is generally superior, if you usually wont avoid the damage you need the body to take the hits. What strategies does your GM use with automatic weapons, does he prefer narrow or wide bursts? If your dodge pool is reduced to 0 or close to it most of the time when people are using automatics again body will seem more valuable.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 22 2011, 10:37 PM

... HUGGY-TROLL SAYS BEST FRIENDS TIME!! *BOOM*

Posted by: Cain Jul 23 2011, 04:15 AM

Human street sam, yes. You're going to get shot at a lot more, so you can't rely on your reaction. But for a non-front-line combatant, it's better to avoid shots rather than worry about soaking them.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 23 2011, 04:23 AM

And I still think that's a false dilemma. You want to avoid as much as possible, and yet obviously, also, always, wear armor.

Posted by: Cain Jul 23 2011, 05:02 AM

Oh, having armor is always a nice idea. But on the other hand, wearing all the armor you possibly can will get you into even more trouble. Running around in full SWAT armor means you *will* get shot at first. The primary combatants will draw the aggro, so they need to soak as well as dodge. The secondary combatants won't draw as much, so they can rely on a good Reaction and cover. Heck, if you're a decker, rigger, or otaku, you can sit back in the van and not draw any fire at all.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 23 2011, 05:07 AM

Yes, clearly the 'phone it in' characters are a separate case. They can literally be quadriplegics and far away (and, ironically, they don't need Reaction either; bleh). I'm just saying that everyone (… else) can use Body 3 or 4, and even Strength 3.

It's not 'dodge or soak' (not for the tank, not for the ninja). It's not 'Reaction *or* Body', and most characters benefit from the Ork stats.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 23 2011, 06:14 AM

It is entirely possible these days to have armor in the 16-18 range and still have it look more or less like civilian clothing.

Just sayin.



-k

Posted by: Mäx Jul 23 2011, 06:19 AM

The scatter is same for both.
God damm those pesky randomly teleporting grenades

Posted by: Cain Jul 23 2011, 06:36 AM

It's nice, but not as necessary as people think. Body 3 is sufficient for a secondary combatant, if you've got a decent Reaction and enough armor. You shouldn't be drawing fire anyways, you should be using cover and taking opportunity shots, while the sams and adepts charge the machine gun nest. A high Quickness, decent combat skill (so you can hit things when you need it) and a good Stealth skill to avoid drawing attention will save you more damage than a high Body.

Strength, IMO, is useless unless you plan on getting into melee. There's no encumbrance rules anymore, your armor is determined by your Body, and you don't need a lot of gear unless you're a serious combatant. Heck, if you want to get into melee, just get a decent Quickness and invest a few points in monofilament whip. Now strength doesn't matter, and you slice through armor like butter in melee. Strength 3 is useful if you don't want to be a wimp, but mages and others can get away with a strength of 2 or less, and I've made pistol sams with a strength of 2. It wasn't a problem.

Posted by: Medicineman Jul 23 2011, 06:50 AM

Strength, IMO, is useless unless you plan on getting into melee.
with softweave
Strength has become a little bit more important
BOD 3 & STR 2 & softweaved Armored Jacket ftW

with a winning Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Irion Jul 23 2011, 07:54 AM

@Mäx

I do not know whos sig it was:
You do not have to worry about the bullet with your name on, the problem is the bullet addressed "to who it might concerne".

Not so true for bullets in SR but very true for granades...

An other point for body are sicknesses. So I guess, a body of 3 is reasonable.

Posted by: Traul Jul 23 2011, 08:54 AM

When did "Geek the Mage first!" go out of style?

Posted by: Irion Jul 23 2011, 09:14 AM

The mage is the guy with all the armor...
Anyway: Armor gets you unwanted attention.
And yes, it is true the line from best to worse goes:
Not get shot at-dodge the bullet-soak the damage-surive the shot...

Unless your GM does not pay any attention to the world, wearing heavy armor is not a good idea.
(Yes, I am just the plumber. Why are you wearing a full body armor? Rats?)

Always reminds me of Fallout 1 and 2 where you run around in Brotherhood or Enclave armor at the end.
It tends to be quite funny if you go the speak or sneaky way in "older" quests. Or some guys trying to shoot you with a shotgun...

Posted by: Cain Jul 23 2011, 09:44 AM

Unless you've got a mage on your side, how do you know which one's the mage until he casts a spell? And even when you have a mage on your side, what happens when the other guy's got Masking?

When I play mages, I rely heavily on disguises, so you can't tell if I'm just a suit caught up in the fight, or maybe a janitor or delivery boy. Heavy armor would hurt that tactic. If I have to go in openly, I go in behind the heavy hitters; and even then, I've been known to festoon my character with tech-gizmos and phony cyber so people won't think I'm a mage until I cast a spell. And then, it's too late.

Sometimes I don't even need to go in at all, or at least not close. I can send in bound spirits to do some of the heavy work. What's more, it works wonders when combined with a disguise: Confusion is such a nifty power. There's no reason to expose myself; that's the street sam's job.

Posted by: Traul Jul 23 2011, 09:57 AM

Easy: the mage is the wimp struggling with the weight of his armor. And if he's not a mage, he's a hacker or some other nasty stuff. When in doubt, shoot the wimp. Focusing on the tank is bad tactics. Bad tactics are good for gangers but trained response teams should know better.

Posted by: Mäx Jul 23 2011, 10:20 AM

When the Troll is not only armored like a tank but armed like one as-well, you ignore him on your own peril

Posted by: Cain Jul 23 2011, 10:40 AM

Exactly. Aiming for the wimp is stupid; you want to take out the biggest threat first. That's usually the ork or troll, especially if they have anything shotgun-sized or bigger. A smart mage won't even look like a threat: they'll wear "normal clothing" armor, so they don't look as badass. Heck, mages might just take cover under a desk or a car, and command spirits.

Posted by: Irion Jul 23 2011, 10:43 AM

But still body one is quite a tough choice. I mean tear gas could probably kill you.

PS: And if the mage looks on to you, he will probably fry your ass with an overcasted indirect combat spell, which would be burning through your armor anyway.

Posted by: Ryu Jul 23 2011, 11:02 AM

One does not mess with the Department of Water and Wastewater Management...

Posted by: suoq Jul 23 2011, 11:31 AM

The problem with the discussion is that so many people are under the belief that their style of play DEFINES how useful attributes are for everyone else. This should be an obvious fallacy, but nevertheless, people are charging the machinegun nest.

If staying in the van is a viable tactic:

Your GM is not using the Detect Hidden Node or Trace User actions.
The players are not taking on challenges that require matrix users to be at the target location.

If attacking a central strong point ("the machine gun nest") is a standard tactic:

your GM is not using flanking or reinforcements to their fullest.
the players are not taking on challenges that require all players be combat capable.

If strength is a dump stat:

the players are not taking on challenges that require athletics skills.

If everyone is shooting at the heavily armored troll:

your GM is making all the NPCs act alike.
your GM does not have NPCs go for the low hanging fruit (aka, the easy kills).
the players are not taking on challenges that require stealth and disguise on the trolls part that includes combat but excludes ideal gear.

Under such conditions, there is no underpowered race because the missions are built around character capabilities. The weaknesses of the characters simply isn't an issue because that table is playing to the characters strength.

This is a fine way to play, and common, but as far as a comparison between character races goes it is, ultimately, meaningless. It's like saying the sample characters in the book are fine because they work at one particular table. From the perspective of that table, yes, they are fine, and yet the vast majority of us (everyone not at that table) realizes just how flawed they are.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 23 2011, 01:11 PM

I see a lot of straw men being applied to what I said. Here's what I didn't say:
1) Wear a conspicuous amount of obvious armor.
2) Don't try to dodge/avoid damage.
3) Rely on soaking all damage.

What I did say is that Body 3-4 is *always* useful, and a little Strength is *always* useful (except, again, for phone-it-in non-characters). I'm not aware that *every* group has a troll tank, btw, nor that you never use Athletics. Now, maybe your build works better with Body 3 and Strength 2 (instead of 4/3), but that's not a big difference. Orks are excellent for almost all characters in almost all cases, that's all. It's hardly a controversial statement.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 23 2011, 06:22 PM

There's a lot of straw men being applied just about everything that's been said, sadly.

Body 1 is indeed flimsier than I like to play with but I still don't feel that people are thinking very critically and truly asking themselves at what point a Body 4 character would be appreciably less screwed than one of Cain's scrawnier guys. Ultimately these conversations boil down to opportunity costs and beating whatever thresholds are necessary to get by in a given table environment. And in general, the disease and toxin rules are structured such that willpower and reaction* scores matter as much as whether you have a Body of 1 vs. a Body of 3 or 4 and gear matters most of all. Ultimately if you really want to survive a crab's ridiculous 12P paralyzing sting or to shrug off another wave of VITAS you want Universal Nantidotes and O-Cells, not tusks. Common security responses like Tear Gas and Pepper Punch can often be planned for by taking antidote patches before the job. In the case of ghouls, you want to blast off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

So, yeah, Body is great by virtue of the sheer number of nitty-gritty survival situations it affects and the ability to pile on the cheapest armor sources. But with that said, your character won't necessarily just disintegrate if they stop at 2 instead of 3.

*Obviously fully resisting the toxins that bestow Nausea or Paralysis in the first place is the ideal outcome, but requiring a 6+ power before you are truly incapacitated by the secondary effects is a nice consolation prize and is often more reliable to boot.

Man, sorry about all the edits. I'm kinda loopy from painkillers due to breaking my collarbone.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 23 2011, 06:49 PM

I was going to say something about playing a low STR/BOD character, but I realized I don't, not really. The character in question never leaves her vehicle, so her STR and BOD are whatever her vehicle's stats are.

My other main SR character has STR 2, but BOD 5. He's a tough old man. Human, because it fit the concept.




-k

Posted by: Traul Jul 23 2011, 07:04 PM

Haven't you seen the movies? There is always one who manages to sneak in the ship

Posted by: Glyph Jul 23 2011, 07:30 PM

Those wired reflexes: 3 aren't the real reason they call him "Flash".

Posted by: Irion Jul 23 2011, 07:32 PM

@Whipstitch

Oh, they will. The glitch rule will see to that.
Honestly a small even number on the ONE attribute for resistance is a bad idea.

You eat some bad food, critically glitch and you are in for a bucket of pain...
(Same reason you should not have reaction 2, because you will critically glitch in any firefight there is)

The point is: Increasing the dicepool from 2 to 3 just makes your chance to glitch go down the hill.
(2: 30%; 3: 7%)

Posted by: suoq Jul 23 2011, 08:15 PM

I'm not sure why, at this point of the discussion, it's assumed characters can't spend edge before rolling, especially when we seem to be talking about low human attributes and the forte of humans being having a higher edge than other races.

Posted by: Aku Jul 23 2011, 08:17 PM

I'm not sure why, at this point in the discussion, everyone is assuming why the OP was asking if humans were unDERpowered. According to the title, they want to know if they're UNpowered. Being biological creatures, they are not unpowered thread over

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 23 2011, 08:40 PM

I'm familiar with glitches, but it still doesn't mean much to me given that there's not many situations in which you should be rolling a Body of 1 or 2 unaided. The other precautions you can take are still generally cheaper than having a strong constitution. Magic is a pain in the ass, but then, that goes for just about every mundo. This reminds me somewhat of emotitoys, actually, something I have long disallowed from my games because if they are uncommon the players have a big advantage and if dang near every club goer has them it just means people glitch less, which I don't think is very fun.

Posted by: Cain Jul 24 2011, 02:46 AM

Body 1 is a bit of a straw man; I don't like to go below body 2. Body 3 *is* better, if only because it gives you an extra hit point.

But you don't have to worry about botches so much, since the roll is Body + Armor, not straight body. And since we're talking about humans, any roll where we're discussing low-body humans with an unaugmented roll is one where you want to spend Edge anyway. When I gear up a low-body human, I'm always careful to add as many armor extras as I can: chemical resistance, nonconductivity, and so on.

A powerbolt will ruin your day, true; but that's true for any mundane. Besides which, I only advocate body 2 for non-front-line combatants, such as deckers, riggers, and *mages*. Mages have Counterspelling to help them out, so they stand a better chance than the Body 5 ork.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 24 2011, 06:22 PM

Right, so we're talking a difference of maybe Body 2 to Body 4. I'm just saying that 2 is basically the bare minimum, and pretty much everyone wants 4 (maybe, maybe 3). It's not a problem to be forced into Body 4, and it's not really out of your way, either. It's not like the Troll strength bonus.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 24 2011, 07:48 PM

Hell, I pumped my Pixie's Body up to 2 as soon as was feasible.

A 1 is scary. Especially because you basically can't wear more than armor clothing, without penalties.




-k

Posted by: Glyph Jul 24 2011, 07:58 PM

Yeah, it's why I said earlier that orks, despite technically giving you 10 less net build points than trolls,are actually better - the stats they get bonuses to are right at the "sweet spot" and the penalties are less likely to really affect you.

I mean, there's no question that orks come out 20 points ahead, and that there is no mechanical reason not to take them, unless you are playing a human with high mental stats, high Edge, or both. Just like there is no mechanical reason not to take, say, human over elf unless you are playing a character with high Agility, high Charisma, or both.

The real question is, are they so crippled by the difference that they are only viable within this narrow niche? Personally, my answer would be no. You can make humans, and even elves, that are not geared towards their strengths, which are still perfectly functional builds. Are they optimized as much as they can possibly be? No. But you can still make a decent character. I'm the last one to favor the Stormwind fallacy, but between the extremes of deliberately gimping a character, and playing one who is not completely optimized, there is a lot of room. And even speaking as someone who likes to min-max the hell out of my characters, I will still play certain metatypes with roles that they are not the absolutely best suited for, on occasion.

Posted by: Rubic Jul 24 2011, 08:46 PM

The only other reason, perhaps, is improperly left unstatted: ubiquity. Humans are still, supposedly, the metatype with the largest population and greatest breeding potential. Though the chances are low, you could have a dwarf, elf, human, ork, and troll all from the same human mother & father. She'd be a very tired woman, but nonetheless. The fact that humans are so common could easily justify adding a bonus similar to "Blandness,' or some other quality that lets them blend into the crowd better. Looking for an ork? 2 000 000 records to sift through. Looking for a human? 2 000 000 000, and they all look alike to me .

Mechanically, though, the difference is negligible. In Shadowrun, it's easier to break it than to fix or protect it, and that goes for character lives as well. The troll is a bit obvious, and makes for a bigger target. Any given security response may have enough firepower to kill even an Ork in one sitting, and seeing a troll could ramp that up to RRT levels. Then again, common sense isn't commonly held, it's commonly applicable. Sometimes you need a reminder about these things. That's one place that crunch trumps any amount of fluff; it's already on the sheet, it's there at a glance.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 24 2011, 09:33 PM

I forget which edition, but I remember reading that human ubiquity could be a double-edged sword. Because humans are more common, people are more able to pick out specific humans, while a metatype is likelier to be described as "He was a big troll."

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 24 2011, 10:06 PM

The answer to that is sure, you can ignore it and it's not that big of a problem, but why not fix it? What does it add to the game?

Posted by: Glyph Jul 24 2011, 10:20 PM

Personally, because I would rather have metatypes that are different, that are optimal for certain roles, and suboptimal but still usable for other roles, than to have all of the metatypes be functionally the same. I like for choices made in character creation to be meaningful, for there to be multiple ways to be effective, and for there to be some flavorful suboptimal options there if you want to go against the grain a bit.

It's all a matter of preference. The good thing about metatypes being represented by point costs, is that it is easy to "fix". You can give humans 20 extra points, make elves cost less, or make orks cost more, if you feel the existing values aren't fair enough.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 24 2011, 10:24 PM

Very true.

Posted by: Cain Jul 24 2011, 10:33 PM

Yeah, the difference isn't that great, and so you can get away with the lower body in certain builds. Orks sometimes cost you more than they're worth, especially if you're going to be needing high mental stats. A body 2 character is perfectly viable, if somewhat fragile.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 25 2011, 12:22 AM

Exactly. You cannot have truly have meaningful choice without meaningful drawbacks even if those drawbacks manifest themselves as opportunity costs rather than explicit penalties. The fact of the matter is that RPG devs are often in a bit of a bind because a lot of gamers have contradictory criteria that is frankly impossible to meet. Shadowrun is not Lake Wobegon and so you can't make everyone above average without making everyone the same.

Posted by: UmaroVI Jul 25 2011, 12:42 AM

I'm on agreement with that, but the role optimality is not equally distributed. Humans and dwarves have quite narrow niches, elves and trolls somewhat less so, whereas orks are optimal at a whooooole lot of roles and at least debatable in a lot more. Honestly, I'd be perfectly fine if the optimality were redistributed so humans were good at a lot of stuff and the metahumans were all relatively niche-y; I feel like the setting would work better if the question you asked when deciding on a metatype were "why shouldn't I be human" instead of "why shouldn't I be an ork?"

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 25 2011, 01:31 AM

And I would disagree, in part because in the larger context of the Sixth World being physically tough is a borderline irrelevant niche or bonus for most SINners just like it's all but irrelevant for office workers of today. That orks are well-suited for the shadows is no skin off my nose and if anything a bit apt.

Posted by: Cain Jul 25 2011, 01:50 AM

Actually, that's not quite the case. Basically, the benefit to being an ork is the extra Body; strength is basically useless unless you intend to melee a lot. That means they're most useful in roles that will be taking a lot of hits. Shadowrun is about more than soaking damage, though; I've seen countless runs go off without firing a shot. If that's the type of run you want, you need a mage or face with lots of Con dice. And for those, you're better off going human.

I don't know about you guys, but I've never been able to make a mage that wasn't scraping the barrel for points when I was done. Sometimes the metahuman cost can make a difference.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 25 2011, 01:51 AM

Also, for the record, it feels really weird being on this side of the discussion because I've described orks as being the true master race more than a few times.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 25 2011, 12:52 PM

Interesting, since my question is almost invariably, "Why should I be anything else BUT a Human?" A non-human metatype build is the niche build for me, not the Human one. Though, I will admit that when I DO build a Non-Human 'Runner, it is usually an Ork, followed by Elf, Troll and then Dwarf.

Posted by: Cain Jul 26 2011, 03:40 AM

See, I've built mostly humans. One troll, and the rest elf. I've never needed the ork bonuses, because I either needed the BP elsewhere or I found other ways of making up for the Body.

If I'm going for an extreme tank build, troll is the way to go, hands down. Nobody can take a shot like a troll. Orks get a modest bonus to Body in relation, which is useful, but not spectacular. The elf bonus to Quickness makes them the best choice for a speed-combat character, because they hit more often and do more damage across the board. I've only done a dwarf once, and that was in SR3; he was a pest exterminator, and so he needed the pathogen bonus to handle some of the chemicals he dealt with. Come to think of it, I've only done one ork, and that was in SR3 as well: he was an improvised weapons specialist, who used pool cues as his main weapons. He also had missile mastery and threw cue balls as a ranged attack. He didn't last long, though; I eventually replaced him with a troll version.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 26 2011, 12:30 PM

See, but when you're scraping for points that's when usually switching to ork gets cheaper - unless you really skimped on body. I find that taking Orc to start with gives me the freedom to distribute the rest of the points where I like them, and not sacrifice longevity/durability too much. When going human I basically have to put a lot of points into those aspects.

Simple facts remain:

Orks are often all-out cheaper on MANY builds.
Humans only really make use of their lack of other bonuses by taking 7 edge.

Now look at it this way, and I in no way believe this should be representative, it's just an example:
In our current group we have two humans (7 edge), an ork (6 edge) and an elf (6 edge), made with old attribute cost karmagen. Only one of the humans has below 5 body. Even the hacker has 5 body. And the one time that Body 3 human got out of hiding to retrieve a mission critical item, he got sprayed with wide bursting LMG fire and took something like 7-8 boxes of damage, admittedly on a good attack roll, in spite of putting edge into both dodge and soak. (we don't use WAR!, so no softweave for him.)

The difference in durability is just not only the 2 dice of body that are missing, but the 4 dice of armour, too, and it gets worse if you don't cheese your armour to the max. And while that's statistically just two hits more, it might have made a bigger difference with edge. He was rolling something like 10 dice for soak, while ALL the other characters roll 18+. That isn't to say he wasn't effective, in fact he got to make THE critical action that tipped the scales of the battle. But with that sort of damage you are really out of the game for a while. With the crappy way the Heal spell is now, there is no quick fix anymore to taking lots of damage.

Now the other humans has character reasons for being human, and the elf is a Cha mage, so... but even the hacker (GMPC) is an ork because I don't like flimsy characters, and due to the crappy vehicle rules you actually do need some soak dice even while in a vehicle. (His car took an 18P tamped explosion, and basically all the other occupants (NPCs) got fried, but he survived with just a bit of damage.)

When you are not optimising to the max, then taking human is fine, but on point-strapped builds (mysads, pure un-cybered adepts, even mages), then saving those few points by taking orc can make the difference between a working concept and a crippled concept.

Posted by: Cain Jul 26 2011, 12:41 PM

I don't see that in practice.

When I'm going for non-front-line combatants, I can get away with a Body of 2 or 3. The decker and rigger can sit back in the van, in a rigger cocoon if need be, and never worry about taking a single shot. A mage can hold back a ways, and toss in spells and spirits with little danger of return fire. A decker with Body 5 is a waste of points; he really needs to be raising his other skills. When building front line combatants, elves are the best choice for dishing out damage and trolls are the best choice for taking it. Humans do decent here as well; they make good speed samurai, who rely on a high Reaction instead of a high Body and armor. Orks make good all-rounders, but they're not as niche as elves or trolls.

So, you *can* optimize to the max, and still choose human over ork. Why should a mage open himself to fire? If he needs to grab something, use Levitate or a spirit service to do it. Play to your strengths.

Posted by: suoq Jul 26 2011, 12:43 PM

With BP, I would say "Humans only really make use of their lack of other bonuses by at least soft-capping edge.

Posted by: suoq Jul 26 2011, 12:49 PM

For your table, you are completely right. As we established earlier, at a table where the GM isn't using Track, Sniff, flanking, reinforcements, and every NPC shoots at the troll, body can be a dump stat. Likewise, at a table where players can ignore Athletics skills and melee combat, Strength can be a dump stat.

If, at a table, combat can be avoided, humans become just as cost effective as orcs because body can be dumped.
If, at a table, dice are rolled less frequently, edge becomes more valuable. If, at a table, dice are rolled more frequently, attributes become more valuable.
If, at a table, combat can be avoided completely (which means the character isn't rolling dice in combat) humans become MUCH more cost effective. If combat can't be avoided by a player, and he's rolling dice in combat and out of combat for his role, Orcs become more cost effective.

Your table, by your description, is one in which humans are the cost effective choice. However, I don't think your table is the norm. I may be wrong on that.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 26 2011, 02:41 PM

For mages, a lot of spells are LOS, and not every mage can afford to edge-cast improved invis into his sustaining focus before every fight to get those 5-6 hits he needs to be invisible even to sensors/drones/etc. Yes, you can basically sit back, and drop spirits on people, too, but in most cases, effective use of cheesebolts will end fights quicker, hence endangering the rest of group less. In areas with BC cheesebolts may be your only option left, because a resulting F4 or smaller spirit might not last long, but the mage will still be able to cast, albeit at higher personal risk. And even if the mage stays in a vehicle to cast, I can still hit him with explosives, grenades or full-auto fire.

What I'm saying is, hanging back CAN be situational depending on playstyle. And as a GM, if one of the PCs always hangs back, I would try to find a way to target him, too - using the rules for locating hidden people, or by applying more effective tactics by the enemies.

Riggers can have their node tracked, their vehicle located and effectively engaged with long-ranged weaponry, or even swarmed by a diversionary team. If the vehicle is sprayed with full-auto fire, the passengers have to make soak tests, too.
Hackers can likewise be tracked in the matrix, and then have their apartments raided.

I am very inclined to use these tactics, simply to make sure the players don't feel too safe.

And then there is still the other thing: Sometimes you just have to go places in the meat. For instance, the Johnson might demand that every runner be present at the meeting. Or the mission target is in a place that is cut off from astral projection/wireless matrix, etc., by whatever means.

I entirely feel that a survivable alround build with 400BP is quite hard to make in that respect, which is another reason a 400BP runner "should" be an ork, unless he has a good reason not to be.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 26 2011, 02:59 PM

Old attribute karmagen was basically a silly mistake though. You effectively had so many points to play around with that I would have been tempted to just keep cranking out elves.

Posted by: Irion Jul 26 2011, 04:06 PM

@Brainpiercing7.62mm

Please 4 to 6 since sensors are 4 and it is debatable if you only have to beat the sensor. (Which I would say, since if I want to burn a piece of wood attached to a drone I would only need to overcome the OR of the wood, not the drone)

But, yes it burns down to playstyle. If your GM plays to your strenghs, you do not need to care about weak points.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 26 2011, 04:45 PM

Sensors are OR 3 Irion... You really should invest in the updated PDF, or purchase the Anniversary Edition Hardbound.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 26 2011, 05:24 PM

It certainly leads to strange results, since attributes are almost universally cheaper than skills, but still, I don't think it's silly - it simply weights things differently, and you can certainly run out of points to spend (easily, I might add). With that system you can make characters that numerically look a lot like SR3 characters - no attributes below 4, etc.

We have some more house-rules, like lifted caps on how many sixes or max skills you can get at chargen, etc. Basically you arrive at a very high baseline, but you can make good generalists with that system, and we hardly needed to overspecialise at all.

Posted by: Cain Jul 26 2011, 08:09 PM

Old Karmagen was an issue; but even with 400 BP, you have alternatives to standing in the middle of combat and taking it. It's not a table style thing, it's a player tactics thing. I don't like railroading my players into certain doom, so I let them find the tactics that work best for them and adjust accordingly.

As someone else put it, if you're a "phone in" character, you don't even need to be in the line of fire at all. If you're a mage, you only need LoS or spirits to wreak havok. The Confusion and Chaotic World spells and powers are wonderful defensive abilities.

Posted by: Miri Jul 26 2011, 08:19 PM

Yes.. Confusion is quite devastating. We finished up a module last Sunday and our Adept Face's ally spirit hit the street sam with confusion.. pretty much nullified his dice pool for everything after that point and got taken down rather quickly after that.

Posted by: Irion Jul 26 2011, 08:26 PM

@Cain

Of course it is about table style.

As an example:

Trolls get one more point of body, for 15 BPs. Thats not what I call "the way" to go. It is a good deal as long as size does not matter much....Which really depends on your table.

So yes, it is a "table" thing.
The hole "Body/Armor" Vs "Reaction/Dodge" is a table thing, depending how the GM introduces fights.
If the players can choose the fight or the fight chooses the players.
It depends on how the GM is on ammunition, weapons and visibility modifiers.
If you run with a GM where every granger has tac-net, Smartlink, muscle toner and at least a firearm skill of 4 but is only using a Ceska Black Scorpion (wide burst because he is a granger) with normal ammunition, dodging is not the way to go, I guess.

Posted by: suoq Jul 26 2011, 09:20 PM

The bold clearly says, yes, it is a table style thing.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Jul 26 2011, 11:07 PM

Yes and no: if the greatest challenge a player is ever up against is losing a dice check, then that won't satisfy them on the long run, at least I would feel the GM is holding back.

So, generally as a GM I will try to adapt my tactics to those the players are capable of - if their tactics work very well, then there will be enemies who employ similar tactics, or devise counter-measures. If they adapt and improve, they will continue to be successful, but simple things like staying home and avoiding LOS won't work forever. And, for instance, for a phone in character to not be found at all usually requires him to win every check against a trace or detection. It's just the dice that will decide this, eventually, and we all know the terror of the GM dice .

So, if someone were to come to my game with a body 1-2 character, I would tell them that this might mean they won't survive that one time when their tactics don't work. I would even tell the same to the body 3 guy in the game now, but I took the table over from another GM, and he approved that character.