I still adore my AI private investigator. I mean, he was built solidly enough where he really didn't have much to fear except APDS or AV rounds, but his go-to weapon was the Colt Asp, in all it's 150 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) glory. He explicitly only used revolvers and staves. He had I think 3 Colt Asps, each with different ammo loaded, a Guardian for his decent weapon, and then, in a cyber holster in his leg, all Robo-Cop-esque, a Super Warhawk with Ex-Ex ammo. His staff was a telescoping staff with the Powered Stock mod that essentially was an electronic collapser/extender that was in a cyber holster in his arm. It'd deploy and extend into his hand when he needed it.

Good times. Mechanically sub-optimal, but so full of flavor.

No doubt... I have a few characters like that... I particularly love my Russian Mercenary. He firmly believed that there were no better goods than Russian Goods, and preferred the cheap stuff from the Euro Wars or before. He even managed to put together a fully functional attack helicopter (A Hind from the 70's that he managed to salvage) over the course of the campaign. Used it as a Medical Chopper (He moonlighted for Doc Wagon on high threat responses when he was hard up for cash). Loved his AK's and soviet era vehicles/weaponry, even if they were obsolete/obsolescent.

One of the truisms about Shadowrun is that the world evolves and reacts to changes. One of the ways it does that is that if everyone is using something, then someone somewhere will come up with something else to buttfuck over those people using that something.

So as good as some gimmick or gadget may be, I find that there is usually someone or someones in the gaming group that doesn't use it and usually is in a position to take advantage of that person or persons who do.

I run with concept gamers, but we adjust our concepts to fit the optimised builds. So if something is that damn good and the concept can accommodate the change, no problem.

I'm curious.

Why?

Does the optimization make your characters more fun than they would be without bothering to switch what they're using because something else has more mechanical advantage?

Here's an easy example of optimization:

Case 1
Negotiations 3
Pistols 3

Case 2
Negotiations 2 (Bartering)
Pistols 3 (Semi-auto)

It not only flavors the character more, but spends the BP in a manner that is more efficient, granting you a mechanical advantage.

Sure, but that is moving your build towards a more defined concept. What you specifically called out was changing your concept if it did not suit a more tightly optimized build.

Hence my question.

Most players find some sort of compromise between the character they envision, and the character that is actually practical to play under the rule-set being used, as well as other metagame considerations (what kind of campaign the GM is running, how the other PCs would probably react to the character, etc.).

Some players refuse to compromise their concept, and depending on the build, this can make the character less fun to play. It depends on what level of success the player envisions as part of the concept. Someone playing a burned-out mercenary on a downward spiral of alcohol addiction might not care that the character is no great shakes in combat. Someone playing an unaugmented mundane boxer, envisioning someone who succeeds on guts and skill alone, might get frustrated when all of the adepts and cybernetic murder machines keep completely outclassing him. Concept characters are not inherently bad, but some metagame consideration is... polite. A character should be able to work with a team, and have something tangible to offer to the team - the other players want to roleplay, too, so they should have a plausible reason to have the character on the team.

Some players don't have a concept, or have a simple one ("I want to be the guy with guns"), or have being able to attain success in the game as their main goal. Or they might make an optimized build first, then do a background for it. Purely optimized character are not inherently bad, but some metagame consideration is... polite. A character should still fit the type of game the GM is running and not be too drastically over the power level that the group plays at. Also, some GMs don't like it when you need a convoluted mishmash of a backstory to justify your lopsided stats and skills - or when every character you play is essentially a clone of the first one.

Problems with balancing only arise if:


1a) People care about effectiveness

and

1bi) People care about specific given character concepts
1bii) All rules implementation of a given character concept are not as effective as other implementations of other concepts used in the gaming group given their performance in and against the gaming world

or

1c) All rules implementations of all character concepts are not effective given their performance in and against the gaming world

If either of these statements are not true, balance is irrelevant.

If 1a) is not true, nobody cares about balance.
If 1bi) is not true, the player simply chooses an effective character and ignores others
If 1bii) is not true, there are no balancing problems in the system
If 1c) is not true, the character is able to chose one or more characters by effectiveness and disregards the unbalanced ones

Or defined in a positive way:

You have balancing problems when a player cares about effectiveness and character concepts and finds that the rules implementation of his character concept is not effective, compared to other characters in the group or against the gaming world.

or

You have balancing problems if players dont care about character concepts, but all character choices available are not effective against the gaming world.

So, for a discussion about balancing to make sense, you have to imply one of the 2 given scenarios. As there are definitely SOME characters that are effective in shadowrun, the problem can only be 1a + 1bi + 1bii.

I gave some examples for this on the first page.

Effectiveness itself is of course up to definition and has to be integrated over all possible gaming situations and weighted by the probability of the situation turning up at the gaming table.

I think there are three main "balance" problems in Shadowrun

The first one has to do with players not trying to take advantage of their character's strong points or opportunities. For example, the SR4 hacker complaining that he's useless in combat because he doesn't have a "brick implant" action, while ignoring all the other things he could actually do and all the things he could have done to prevent the combat altogether. It's more or less a false problem, because it's mostly a player issue. Still, it's a sign that players might not be directed well enough.

The second is the "+2 bonus if you know the trick/buy the book". FFBA is the best example: if you've got the book where FFBA is statted and you know about it, all your characters suddenly get better armor. The cost is negligible compared to the improvement, making it an automatic "must have". See also Dikote in SR3. This introduces a balance issue between players who know all this and players who don't (or don't care and just want to play the game). Another case is the implanted adept. If some improvements don't have the same cost in essence and nuyens compared to karma, then an implanted adept can choose the best of each world for each improvement and end up being plain better than a full adept or full implanted created with the same amount of karma/BP. (Sure, an unaugmented mundane will always be inferior to an augmented/awakened character, but the unaugmented mundane isn't really a standard character concept)

The third, and most complex, one is the spotlight balance issue. As stated in the first point, Shadowrun offers many different solutions to problems and it's the player's job to take advantage of their character's strong point. Arguing that the Face isn't as combat effective as the streetsam is absurd, because the Face should be able to bypass combat completely, or to solve a combat situation without dealing any damage. Problems only arise when one character can be more effective than every other, or can be as effective as two others characters combined. For example when the mage is able to cast an Influence spell that will be more effective than anything the Face could do while also being able to cast a Manaball spell that will drop enemies faster than the streetsam would do.

Can't say I agree to this.

Basically, it's saying:

"Why fix these unbalanced things? My players are wise enough not to abuse".


Balance must be analysed outside players playstyle. It's ok to have an unbalanced system. It can be even done on purpose.

But if you want your system to be balanced, the fact players don't abuse it shouldn't be taken in account at all.

EDIT: Forget that post, it was an answer to a page 1 post rather obsolete...

Some things can be off balanced and some things I already expect (like most players getting FFBA and/or PPP with their main armor) but when start fighting the bad guys, who's to say they don't do the same thing, or does that armor cause encumbrance due to going past Bod X2 (Armor and Encumbrance, p161, SR4A). So looking at the encumbrance I can expect my gun bunnies to do that more than say the supporting roles and chances are they are going to be the ones drawing more gun fire.

IMHO for SR) balance is more subjective than objective as we each have things we find unbalancing [like that damn drone doll that can make a face nasty (but who in their right mind carries a doll and doesn't expect to get laughed at)] but as experienced players who want to have fun we should try and avoid exploiting them (some will still be exploited) and as experienced GM's just know that some players will try to exploit some things and should be familiar enough with the game to counter it [*at a meet* Get rid of the drone; we are hear to talk to you and not some damn robot.]

Very good points. Thank you.

However, you put the 4th one (the "real" balancing problems) at the end of your 3rd one.
When a player plays to his characters strong points, knows everything and is in his spotlight and still is worse than others, like in the magician example you gave.

Blade or mine?

I would agree with your assessment.
Balance implies that players try to abuse it, but cant, because its balanced. That is the pure Gamistic reasoning.

But it ALSO means that in an unbalanced system players who do NOT abuse the system and have some Gamistic (aka balancing and effectivity) AND Simulationistic/Narrativistic (aka wanting a in-game realistic and interesting character) approach, could end up in an unfun situation, because the character concept, equipment, cyberware, whatever they chose because of Simulationistic/Narrativistic motives is completely ineffective.

Beg to differ... I have played several such characters and they are not "Inferior" to their otherwise awakened/augmented counterparts. They are just different, and tend to have different strengths and weaknesses. I have thoroughly enjoyed the ones I have played.

Neither, it was a mistake byme and it was about a page 1 post.

I mostly agree with what was written by both of you.


In the case of Shadowrun, I do think that balance should be a goal for devs. Why? Mostly because I feel that the game is designed for rule-lover who likes to have a pro-feeling. It's a game where you sell a core rule book, heavy on mechanics, plus a book for Equipment, hackers, spellcasters and so on.

Who you go this far to the options you give, you'll have to aim to have balanced options.


I do think that the guy playing an unaugmented mundane can have fun. He knows what he's doing.

The guy who plays a samourai and discovers that the augmented adept is simply better than him per design (meaning that he couldn't have created the character better) is just a flaw in terms of balance.

Now I am interested. Could you give an example of strengths?
Of course you can have fun with any character, but I am not so sure weather any mundane and unaugmented character could have any strength compared to an appropriately similar magical/augmented character, i.e. is inferior in every way.

From what I've seen, except for some extreme cases (spending everything on drones or trained animals), an unaugmented/unawakened character can get better stats by spending some points in magic and/or ware rather than skill/stats. Most physical attributes are cheaper to buy with ware than naturally, and if you're using cultured bioware, the only differences that can matter will be an essence score lower than the norm that can be seen in the astral plane without knowing why most of the time and a higher cost to upgrade later on.

Biggest one is Versatility... With 58 Skills, most 8+ with about 10 at 10+, there is no skill the character cannot attempt without some degree of success. Stat wise, he is above average, but not what I would call exceptional: Body 4, Agility 4, Reaction 8, Strength 3, Charisma 3, Intuition 4, Logic 4, Willpower 4.

Another is Anonymity. The character does not have to ever worry about pinging a Cyber scanner or being assensed as Magical, nor does he every worry about Background count or wards (which are ever-present in our campaigns).

He almost always has the perfect tool for the job, because if he cannot find it, he can make it himself, given a bit of time. And he has the skills to use it to boot.

He has a ton of contacts that can get him almost anything under the sun (but especially he prefers the Soviet Era hardware that he loves so much, which is lying around almost everywhere in Europe and Asia.

He goes first in combat (Adrenalin Surge Quality), regardless of Initiative, unless someone is spending Edge to do so - Highly useful, and something not every street sam or Mage does. And he is pretty good at not getting hit in ranged combat (Reaction 8 does that for you - Thanks to the Lightning Reflexes Quality)

Can a specialized Character in a couple of skills outshine him in those skills (or a Mage with a fairly unlimited Spell Budget)? Sure, but I have yet to see a character who can outshine him in ALL the areas he is capable of covering, and few can come close to the breadth and depth of the skill set he brings to the table.

Can he run solo? Probably not for anything high level, but he can fill in all the gaps left by those few required specialist characters when going into Military/Corporate High Threat Areas, and he always has the coolest get away plans when needed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Now I am irritated. What prevents me from creating an awakened or cybered character with the same resources that is not superior in every single skill and ability?
Your character would be inferior in any way. Exactly what you begged to differ.

I dont see the point you try to make.

Resources would not allow you to build the same character as an Awakened or Cybered character. Simple as that. And if the Character ever decides that he needs the lift that Cyber/Bio brings, he can pursue it unhindered. Also something your Cyber/Awakened cannot do unhindered. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Maybe because you play differently than I do? Not my concern, really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Happy Gaming to you.

Um... You can maybe equal or exceed his stats and maybe a few of his skills with augmentation/cyber/bio, but you can't do every single thing the above character can. Just because you can shoot a pistol better than him doesn't mean you can use a shotgun, or sneak, or talk your way out of a random search, or get through that cyberscanner, or walk through that mana void, or...

And that's the point.

The difference between an unaugmented and an augmented character is about 40 BP. That can buy about 10 points of skills, which is nice, but the augmented guy with +4 Agility, +4 Reaction, and +2 Strength (for example) can often default to a better dice pool, and that's just Attributes - SR4 also has a lot of dice pool boosters such as synthcardium, tailored pheromones, and reflex recorders.

Unaugmented mundanes are viable, sure, but they are either settling for a lower power level for a roleplaying reason, or intentionally setting the game's "difficulty level" higher for yourself. I would warn a newer player that it is a concept that is harder to pull off than others - you are playing Togusa in Ghost in the Shell, or Deckard in Blade Runner.

I know, and I'd never play an un-augmented character, but the breadth of ability that they have is respectable, even if the lack of raw power or IP is problematic.

I am not questioning your gaming style, just the statement that an unaugmented mundance character is not inferior in every way (except, obviously, existence of cyber/magic when detecting) compared to an awakened/cybered one. With the amount of karma needed for the skills this character has you can easily build a super adept that is superior in every single way (with masking even when being assensed). A cybered concept will be superior in every way, too (at the moment this character has nothing to do with his money, except buy expensive vehicles or so). The further a game progresses, the more true the statement is, as I think there may be some corner cases during character creation where a special mundane character has one or two advantages, which will vanish after the first couple of runs.

Actually this is so obvious I am asking myself why you made the statement. Shadowrun is built in a way that augmented and awakened are much better. The point is even not very relevant for the discussion at hand, but I am wondering why people have to argue even about most basic and obvious things.

Again, this is not about fun, but Mathematics. I am not questioning that you, me or anybody else can have fun with 'non effective' character concepts. But there is no danger in stating that they are actually 'non effective' compared to other concepts.

@Tymeaus: I think what Serbitar is arguing (which I also am) is that if you:
- Take your character at chargen
- Reduce his agility by 2 points
- With the BP/karma you get from this, buy nuyens for a rating 2 Muscle Toner in alphaware (or is that cultured bioware? it's been too long without playing)

You'll get a character with the exact same stats, but you'll have BP/karma left to improve him further. The only differences will be that:
- Your character will be known to have muscle toner if undergoing an extensive physical examination (IIRC, cultured bioware isn't detected easily)
- Your character will have a lower essence, which only impacts magical healing, astral signature and a few minor stuff like essence drain problems. The astral signature might be the most problematic, but it takes a lot of hits to be able to tell that the essence loss is due to cultured bioware.
- You need more nuyens at chargen. Unless your concept requires you to max out nuyens at chargen and spend them in something else than ware, this shouldn't be a problem
- Raising your AGI post-chargen will cost your more, since the lower hanging fruit has already been taken. But I don't see the point of waiting to get improvements you could get now.

I am not saying that your character is not fun to play. I am not saying that it's not an interesting concept. I am just saying that mathematically speaking you can build a character who has better stats for very minor drawbacks.