F3 spirits can be useful, but personally F4 is right at the cusp of risk/reward for the most part. They're sturdy enough to have in a fight, but low force enough to be summonable with multiple services and generally doable without supercheese.

But I've had a character that could realistically only get services out of a F3 or lower spirit and looked at the possibilities and gone, "Ehhh...can't really justify it for the benefit." Concealment is awesome. Concealment at F2 is not awesome when you're trying to hide the Not Stealthy people and the stealth monkey doesn't need it.

Spirits have an exponential growth in power, so even being able to summon F4s over F3s is roughly "twice" as good, and doing that only takes tweaking.

Here's the problem, Cain.

Nobody on the other side of the argument is really talking about such completely useless characters.

The argument started off as "why would you not take maximum power on every character"?

The response was "Not every character needs to be Max Power, Joe Normal can be fun too."

No real mention was made about Bob Incompetent.


-k

Certainly. I don't think anyone's denying that higher force is a huge increase in power; in fact, my point *is* that Mr.-F6 (all day long) is so vastly above Mr.-F3. A person who can summon those F6 is a totally different character.

In (re-re-re-)summary:
• F3 spirits are useful (non-zero usefulness)
• a character who brings F3 spirits is therefore useful
• a character who brings F3 spirits is a different (but useful) character from Mr.-F6
• Mr.-F3 can't be replaced by an identical-but-more-powerful (an inherent contradiction) character, Mr.-F6
• both are fine, fun, fitting, etc., depending on the game/table/group

I honestly can't see why any of this would be controversial. Notice there's nothing about 'bad players being good', 'worthless characters (another inherent contradiction) being good', or 'winning'.

Although in my experience, characters can still be comparatively pretty useless and still be pretty fun. For one thing, from a "winning" perspective, a good player can take a "man off the street" character - someone with all average attributes and no combat skills - and easily be as "powerful" as a bad player with a normal Shadowrun character.

That's not really my cup of tea, personally; I'm not really interested in "winning" with my characters. We recently started playing SR4 again after an extended break, and we made some really ineffective characters to start with. I really enjoyed playing them. Sometimes, we didn't succeed at things we intended to do; that was fun. Sometimes, we got injured when we didn't expect to; that was fun. Sometimes, things went horribly wrong and had long-term consequences for our characters; that was fun.

On a personal level, my character - a homeless, unemployed UCAS veteran whose shelter coordinator gets him "work" with a local fixer - is interesting to play, in large part because of the things he can't do. I didn't have to make a guy who lived on the streets; I could have taken some Allergy and given myself the points to give him an optimized lifestyle, and then he'd be able to do certain runs a lot more easily. But I'm not really interested in easy. There's not very much challenge in that, and the level of interesting human drama is much lower, as well. A character failing is compelling to me; a character just kicking ass and stopping briefly to pose heroically is not.

Ultimately, because the GM can tailor the challenge level to the capabilities of the characters, this is really a question about how challenging the game should be, isn't it? Or is it a question of relative "power level" within a group?

I'm saying that 'ineffective' or 'failing' characters are improperly labeled. If they're fun and animate (i.e., characters), they're not ineffective.

A character who can only summon Force 3 spirits is actually an impossibility without deliberate gimping. The best you could do is force 2 or 4, and force 2 spirits can't even have an optional power.

You guys are missing the point. You're complaining that super character's aren't any more fun than optimized characters, which may be the case. However, you're making the fallacy that this extends to all characters, which isn't. For example:



Is demonstratably untrue. Sure, such a character might seem fun at first, due to sheer force of personality; but the moment you rely on them for something, they can't come through. The street kid who says he knows everybody is a great concept; but when it turns out everybody he knows hates his guts, (lots of Notoriety, Enemies, Charisma 1 and no Contacts) is an unworkable character concept. Having a street kid who actually *does* know everybody (lots of low-level contacts, decent social skills) is a workable concept, and a street kid with solid social skills and lots of contacts might be a pretty decent face. In other words, as the character gets more powerful, it only gets better.


That depends on roleplay cheese. In some ways that's worse than stat cheese, because you can have both. Roleplay cheese is when someone uses roleplay so he doesn't have to face weaknesses in a character, or derive in-game benefits that other people had to pay for. I had a PC in my game with Uncouth and no Etiquette try and roleplay his way out of many situations with Japanese characters, using his personal knowledge of the culture and character background to carry him through. He got really upset when I made him roll at full penalties, or didn't let him roll at all. He thought that because he had written his backstory using his knowledge of "proper Japanese culture", he shouldn't be penalized for it... and he wouldn't have been, if he hadn't taken Uncouth on top of it. That character sheet eventually got completely rewritten for other reasons, but all boiling down to the fact that he was so ineffective, he was actually dragging down the other players with his frustration.

Nothing is more final on the internet than someone just saying "Not uh!"

When several people are holding up pictures of black swans and dude's still saying they don't exist, I'm not really sure what to say.

Cain, what you posit as fact or inevitable truth makes no sense. First, I stipulated that the character is fun as part of the 'if' proposition… you can't say that the character I stipulated is fun isn't fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) *If* the character is fun, *then* it's by definition not 'ineffective'.

'Deliberate gimping' is not at all the same thing as 'completely useless', so I don't understand why you're responding to the latter using the former. Even if it were true, just change the number to 2 or 4; same point. Your characterization of this 'street kid' concept is the same as the last straw man you set up: those stats don't match the concept, so you're not talking about the concept character at all. And then you repeat the other wrong idea that if 'decent kid' is good, then 'more powerful kid' is *better*. Illogical.

No one is claiming this: "You're complaining that super character's aren't any more fun than optimized characters". I'm saying that super (optimal) aren't more fun than *any* playable character; 'optimized' isn't even a meaningful concept.

The last bit sounds like you're just projecting bad experiences (again), because I didn't see anything implying that 'man off the street' was metagaming, cheesing, abusing anything. He just said that a 'normal'-stat character isn't a lump of dirt, but instead a human being who can do all kinds of things… things that are fun in an RPG.

Making a character who isn't effective is "deliberately gimping" it, as your Mr. Nothing demonstrates. By playing an "inherently suboptimal" concept, you're deliberately making a less-effective character. Now, you can have fun with a character that isn't hyper-optimized, that much is true. But if you've got a character who can't even do one role as well as the other characters. So, mechanically speaking, it is less fun, especially for the other characters who have to cover your weak spots.

So, what's the gain of the suboptimal character? Power, defined as the ability to accomplish things? He doesn't have that. Roleplay? That depends more on the player, and you can actually make the concept more interesting by making it more effective.

There *is* no character who isn't effective, (not my) Mr. Nothing isn't ineffective, and *again*, 'deliberately gimping' (an incredibly ugly phrase) is not the same as 'completely useless' or 'ineffective'.

And you're assuming the other characters are all better, though I've repeatedly said it depend on the group, game, and power level. There is no such thing as 'mechanically speaking less fun', especially if the other characters enjoy covering your weak spots.

Who said there was a gain? And no, there is absolutely no relationship between interesting and effective.

Though it's fully obvious, I'll point out anyway that these characters don't have to be extreme. Playing an over-the-hill version of (almost) any character is going to be 'weaker' than the 26 year old version of that character, but 26 is not an option, because the concept is an old guy. Changing the concept to 'old guy with cyber' is *changing the concept*, which shouldn't be done in service of a few +DP.

And this is completely commonplace and normal. Playing nearly anything that's blind is weaker than not doing that, and we know the BP gain is minor. Basically every Neg Qual is a 'mistake' (or cheesy loophole abuse), but if that's who the character is, that's who the character is. It doesn't make them less fun, or ineffective/useless/whatever. Taking away part of the finished character won't make them more fun.

This statement hurts my brain.



-k

Let me get this straight. If you have a character who can't actually do anything well, has no real ability to reach his goals, you find that *fun*? I really think you're mis-stating something.

Characters are comprised of two parts: roleplay and stats. Deficiencies in either make the character less fun. That's just a given. And relying on one to make up for the other is a form of cheating. The pornomancer who never roleplays out a scene, only rolling dice, is just as bad as the Uncouth character who delivers flowery speeches and demands circumstance bonuses (or worse, a free pass because his roleplay was good).

Again, Cain, where are you getting that anyone (besides you) is discussing completely useless characters?

Even in the post you quoted by Y, he opens with "and *again*, 'deliberately gimping' (an incredibly ugly phrase) is not the same as 'completely useless' or 'ineffective'."

The discussion was about "less optimal vs more optimal" not "useless vs useful".




-k

Nope, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly said the opposite of this.

You haven't only been saying that 'deficiencies in stats make the character less fun' (already false). You've been saying that better stats make the character more fun (also false).

It's not a given. You're assuming the part of the issue that's being questioned, and thus not grasping the fact that people have "fun" in different ways.

On a side note, it is quite hard to end up with a completly useless character in the first place. Using Karma-Gen I would go so far and tell you, that it is outright impossible unless intended badly.


I suspect Cain is along the line of Shadowrun-Diabolo, where the characters have to be skilled precicely to get the maximum synergie to survive in (I guess) combat.
The other extreme in video games would be Fallout 1/2. There going all combat helps you shit in the end. You still have a good chance of getting killed while the other guy just needs to make a simple negotiation test to get an even better effect. And in RPGs my impression is, that this is (having a good GM) even more that way.

I remember multible times where using one skill at the right moment was faster, easier and more rewarding than going into combat.

And with all the security equipment in shadowrun even the elven stripper with only muscle toner and low dicepools in firearms might easy get a job done, where the heavy cybered, special Agent Counterpart is failing.
Remembers me of the comic Order of the stick. Where the linear guild is shown as beeing the better "powergamers" but are still loosing all the time.

I think Cain just likes to argue and would rather have the moderators close this thread than just say, "Hey maybe you're right. Other people have fun in different ways than I do." But then that kind of makes him a lot like a lot of posters on this board. Which why these sorts of threads end up with 500 replies, and the threads asking for story ideas end up with 60 or so.

The problem is that your definition of "Can't actually do anything Well" is completely different than most, if not all, of Dumpshockers. It definitely is not the definition that I (or the tables that I have gamed at) currently use. I really think that you are OVERSTATING something. Maybe for you, 10 dice is incompetant and useless, but not for me, and I would bet not for a lot of others.



Yes, they are, and if the Stats do not match the Concept, then something is wrong. If the character concept matches the stats given, how can you stand there (or sit there) and tell me the character is no fun. And no, obvisoulsy what you see as "Deficiencies" are not what others see. Stats do not equate to "Fun." It is how you translate the stats on the sheet into a living, breathing character that makes it fun. The mechanics have absolutely no say in how fun the character is. As others have said, the only one who has even mentioned "completely uselsess characters" is you.

Yes, A Magician (I will use this one as you have come back to it often enough) with a Magic of 3 is likely less powerful (note that I said powerful and not effective) than a Magician with a Magic of 6. This is common sense, and no one refutes that. However, I have often seen the Magic 3 magician as being MORE USEFUL (again, not more powerful, you will note) than the Magic 6 Magician. Why? Because the lower powered one must often be more devious. He does not have the reliance upon the OMG Spells that a Magic 6 Character often comes to rely upon. For me, the Magician with magic of 3 is going to be MORE FUN to play than the Magician with a Magic of 6. Why? Because I will have to actually think, rather than just rely upon the power that Magic 6 Brings (And I cannot tell you how many times I have seen powerful mages do just that, in numerous games).

Again, 10 Dice is more than competant in anything that you want to accomplish as set forth in the game world; I see that as useful, and able to carry your own weight. Is 16 dice "Better?" Maybe, but it depends upon what your definition of "Better" is. There is absolutely no doubt that Magic 6 is More Powerful than a Magic of 3... But you have admitted that you like games where characters have 20+ Dice in their primaries. In this case, The 10 Dice character will be much less useful. That is not MY problem, nor is it the PROBLEM of the Game System. That is a Local table condition that you have imposed. Please do not assume that we all like your level of play.

And here is the point everyone else seems to be making, that you seem to be missing. More Powerful does not necessarily equate to More Fun. At least not at their tables (nor mine). What constitutes fun, for me at least, is a well executed concept, with an adherence to backstroy and character development. I could care less about having DP's at twice the level of the standard NPC's in the game just becasue I can do so, and so I do not strive to approach that, especially at character creation. Everyone approaches the game differently, and you seem to be forgtetting that...

Anyways, No worries... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Unless we are talking about some uber statistic like magic (or even Force or Edge with free spirits) it is not that obvious what "powerful" even means.

There are two extrems of running a game:
First: Dungeoncrawl style
Second: Adventure Style.
The Dungeoncrawl style is very common in some older computer games, which involve a party with which you run over the map. Every skill of every party member is usable all the time. So it is important to have some extreamly high skills for each character, some defancive skills and everything else would be a waste.

The Adventure style means that a certain character has to perform a certain action at a certain point.
Leading to a main field of expertice in one and low to medium knowledge in many.

For the mage the best example is a situation with BC.
If you are dealing with BC 6 it does not matter if you had magic 6, a spellcasting focus 5 and a powerfocus 4 or just magic 3. It is gone now.

Except that Cain contends that Power is synonomous with Fun, a stance that I do not hold to... If you Have issues with that, talk to Cain.

I actually haven't given a specific dice pool range. The problem is, however, that if 10 dice is average and you have no pool over 10-ish dice, then you're a completely average character. Which in turn means you've got what's the least fun concept to play: a character with no strengths or flaws, and has nothing mechanical to connect to roleplay. So while the exact value of average varies from table to table, a sub-average character is not much fun, and a completely average character is usually worse. that pretty much means the most fun will be with an above-average character. Place whatever dice pool value on that you like, but I see everyone doing that with their characters.


Never once seen it. In fact, quite the opposite: the low-Magic characters I've sween comes from low-experience players at Missions games, who tries to be more useful by generalizing out his skills. So, instead of being good at one thing, he's average at a lot of things. The Magic 6 character, using the SR4.5 system, can easily come out within a die or two in the other skill areas, and still be better at magic. This is true for all specialists: it's easy to give a character a focus, and not be gimped elsewhere. It's also easy to lose focus of a character, in an attempt to be useful.

Characters without focal points are definitely less fun to play. That's just a core concept of roleplaying.

I'm not saying that more powerful = more fun. I'm saying that deliberately weak = less fun. See the difference?

If you want to play a face, and you've got good social dice pools (whatever those might be for your table) that's fine. If you want to play a pornomancer, that can be fine as well, if your table can handle it. But if you want to play a face with Cha 1 and Uncouth, because it's a "role playing challenge", you're asking for a whole lot of no fun for everyone. Even less extreme, if you build a face who doesn't have noticeably better social dice pools than the rest of the party, you're still asking for no fun. (And despite what KarmaInferno says, it's all too easy to gimp a character like that, even under karmagen.)

This is mere opinion.
'Focal points' doesn't equal 'powerful areas'.
In fact, you specifically said more powerful was more fun several times.
Then you're not a face, and the mechanics don't fit the concept.
Again, that's your bare opinion. It doesn't logically follow from anything.

Depends on how you like the game.
If you like to go with a smart plan against a superior opposstion, beeing more powerful, compared to the game world would kind of ruin your day, I guess.
If you like to just kick NPCs well, more power is always better...

@Cain

Depends on the group. This character can be, if played the right way, be a lot of fun and contribute to an evening everybody will remember.

Going at something with low statistics only armed with a big pair of balls/ignorance is mostly just hilarious, if you are a good actor...
And if you make it through a luck roll it is even better...
A Rincewind character played by a "good" roleplayer. Hell, the group will probably need to be transported to the hosptial because of injuries sustained by extensive laughing

No, it can mean both. But if all you've got is weak areas and no fun/strong areas, you're deliberately gimping a character.

I've also clearly said that super powerful != super fun. However, less powerful does equal less fun, especially to the degrees we're discussing.

I've seen in often enough in many different games. Because the player knows he can deliver powerful speeches, he ignores or outright dumps social skills and instead relies entirely on roleplay. Heck, I just had it happen. It's not that it doesn't fit the concept, it's that it's cheese and cheating.

More often it's a recipe for disaster. Deliberately playing up your weak spots can be fun, but an inability to deliver when needed isn't fun at all. Rincewind doesn't pretend he's actually good at anything but running, so he gets away with it. But to be fair, in SR4.5 terms Rincewind would have an Edge of 12 and a Magic of -200, so he would be utterly helpless at magic but great in the pinch.