To me, archetypes are there just to give you an idea of the variety of characters that can be played in Shadowrun, and to get the newest players in the game fast. If someone is a new player at the table, I allow them to play archetypes if they are new to Shadowrun, but after a couple of sessions I expect them to 'roll' their own character, usually giving them a few extra build points to make up for lost Karma.

Archetypes have never been the best characters in Shadowrun, and honestly, they should not be. I am the kind of GM that does not appreciate min/maxing in any game system, and I take measures (but subtle and overt) to avoid them. Players who roleplay their characters strengths and weaknesses well, and make decisions based on what their character would do (rather than what their dice can do) get more personal Karma (overt). Players that min/max their characters to be lethal and impervious killing machines on the first run often find themselves up against opponents who never miss (subtle), and eventually get the hint after their 3rd or 4th character ends up on the business end of a snipers bullet.

I have had several power gamers come and go over the years, because of this, but it doesn't bother me in the least, as I typically have 8-10 players at the table, and that is enough of a headache on its own.

Out of curiosity, why not just give them the karma they've earned to apply to their new character?

-paws

Something people tend to forget is that this is not D&D, with a level system and challenge-rating table. In SR, it's much more important to match the power level of the rest of the party than it is to "be all you can be". The external power level - i.e., that of the opposition - is determined by the gamemaster. If the gamemaster wants it to be challenging, it will be. I don't care how fly you are - the corps have more guns, more muscle, more EVERYTHING. Gangs will always have more bodies to throw at you. And so on.

Good point. It's all about relative balance. I really think people on DS have a skewed view of what a character "needs to be" in order to be effective. This is the home of the most ridiculous, over-the-top builds possible. The perpetual "35 points of negative qualities" always makes me roll my eyes. I think the key idea is that the archetypes are built to a character concept, and are not intended to be "optimized" for the dicing mechanics.

Not to say that it's bad to be effective. But I'd much rather have a well-thought out, weak character that fits the power level of the party than a well-thought out pornomancer.

Well put. I run one and I am involved in two Shadowrun campaigns. In all cases, my characters power is scaled to fit.

Because their new character did not gain that Karma, and it also makes it easier on new players. They just have BPs to deal with, and do not have to build the character and then figure out what to do with their Karma afterwards. The main goal is to avoid penalizing new players for starting out with an archetype, and then 'rolling' a new character a couple games later when they know the system better. If just carrying the Karma over works for your group, then by all means, go for it.

Run that troll BH in a group of non min/maxxed characters and he's still going to suck. He's dead weight unless he gets into melee- he can't find the target via contacts, he's not that impressive for a guy doing his own legwork, if the guy is armored (even civilans wear armor in the 6w), his pistol won't do anything except possibly injure onlookers; he's not even carrying different ammo types(edit: he does have reg ammo for the ruger). He's not going to be breaking any speed records for onfoot pursuit either. And while it might be a thematic choice, I'd have given my bounty hunter permits for some of the iffy gear(even if not required), just so he could operate a little outside the shadows, an asset not many runners have. This troll?noooooooooo. No ettiquette or Intimidation type skills,but we'll give him archery? Archery over any sort of computer/electronics score to reduce his dependence on the nonexistant social skills? negatory. How does he actually 'hunt' a bounty? He's got a couple of Knowledge skills and tracking, but no means to trail or shadow somebody.

Now, I suppose I could look at the glass as 'half full' because he has lots of ways for eventual improvement (provided he survives) and the nature of the generic archetype lets him go in any number of ways, but the point is- he sucks at his job. Why hire on anybody who sucks at their job?
I'm not saying the guy needs bone lacing,dermal sheathing, a mbw suite, and customized nanite hives to be an effective starting level character; that over the top stuff doesn't make any sort of sense for a street level bounty hunter, but this character right out of the box with no explanation makes little sense either. I guess you could have him make a career out of mostly capturing individual gangers, but I'm not seeing the reason why a J would spend nuyen on this guy for any reasons other then 'patsy' or 'diversion'. As written he comes off like a weak link who has plenty of free time to run the shadows because he sucks at his day job. Tips for playing and a well supported niche would be quite helpful with this character, swapping out his gear for stuff that might actually work would be helpful too. If his niche is 'non lethal' melee why give him high skill in the one area that negates his natural advantage of reach while giving him a poorer aptitude in the club,which plays to his strength? He even has a club on him. It's like the designers looked at him and said 'let's make this guy deliberately gimped so new players figure out after thier second run how to build something with synergy'. Synergy is not a bad thing, and just because you build a character with some synergy doesn't automatically make it a 'not roleplayable min/max wet dream'. Whoever designed this character certainly synergized his weaknesses (low charisma,low social skills and uncouth? fantastic!)This character could be loads better without hitting a single ability or skill cap. Heck, swap the ratings on the club and unarmed combat skills and you already have at least one trick to the pony. There's nothing 'dirty' about wanting a character to be effective at something in a starting game.

I was quite fond of the 2nd edition archetypes ,particularly the reprints in the GM screen (from sprawl sites I think), they each had a niche,roleplaying notes, and strengths and weaknesses suitable for beginning characters without going overboard. 3rd and 4th have prettier art. New players have a lot more stuff they are going to have to cram into their head then figuring out the intricacies of why a big bruiser type bounty hunter forgoes his natural strength for gimmick gloves and arrows, and experienced players are going to whip up a new character in record time that actually has a strength somewhere,so who is this character really for?

I was defending low-powered character concepts in general. The pregens I've seen uniformly suck donkey balls.

Low powered isn't a bad thing either,so I hope I don't give that sort of impression. The ganger isn't going to be 'king of the hill' anytime soon, but he could at least contribute something to a group relating to his strengths. You check out his stats,read his bio,and look at his gear and you know what he's about,how to play him, and what sort of options you have. And he can 'do stuff' in a group other then roll 5 dice with a bow and hope he hits.

I don't mind low powered archtypes, but they should be INTELLIGENTLY BUILT!

Sure, overgeneralize them, give them a bunch of different skills and mediocre stats, but follow a theme peopl!

My understanding, is that the Archetypes are designed for the intended default power level. They're well rounded and have room to grow. They aren't hyperspecialized. They're more "street" characters than the near-superhero characters a smart designer can produce with the same number of BP.

For the record, I find that three 10-point negative qualities are a good starting point to distinguishing a character.

I doubt this is the case because even a complete newbie to the game can create a character better at his job than any of these guys. It doesn't even take imagination or deep understanding of the rules.

Exactly. Low-powered characters are fine, but they still should be capable of doing their job.

Putting aside the issue of whether or not the characters are well-built, Ikind of wish the character sheets were put together a little better. The artwork is beautiful (though I miss some of the ones from SR4 base), but the layout of the sheet leaves so much to be desired.

The intended audience of these sheets is not hardcore players who can easily make characters of their own. The intended audience is new players. Unfortunately, the sheets don't have nearly enough information for a new player to figure out how to play the character. There is a lot of filler, like stacks of shurikens and throwing knives rather than real stats, which means you have to cross-reference anything the player wants to do. Very simple information, like "How many dice do I have to roll when I shoot my Ares Predator?" is left out:

1. You have to know that the Predator is a pistol, not a "heavy weapon."
2. You have to know that the Pistols skill is covered by Firearms skill group.
3. You have to know that you add Agility to Pistols.
4. You have to know that the Predator has a built-in smartlink, which is not mentioned in the following parentheses.
5. You have to know that smartlinks give +2 to your test.

That is more than a small exaggeration. I remember a recent thread where someone mentioned that people in their group (who were new SR players) had made combat characters but neglected any Initiative Pass boosters. That complete newbie would've been better served selected the Street Samurai archetype. I really don't think that most of the archetypes are that bad (speaking about the SR4A revised ones). I think what has become skewed on DS is what point a character is considered "good at their job."

My biggest beef with some of the archetypes is not that they are "weak", but that some of them are poorly designed for the role they are supposed to fill. I think if the weapons specialist had been called the weapons tinkerer, instead, and had been described as "an armorer who is enthusiastic about her toys" instead of "a literal martial artist", then the character would probably not be as grating to me.

Some of the other characters are suboptimal, but have abilities that match their flavor text. The combat mage, for example, spends too much for his mediocre mundane combat skills, at the expense of his magical abilities, but it fits the concept that is being described.

True. A group of new players all in ignorance will miss it, especially if they don't talk to the experienced players. As an experienced player I make sure to mention the IP booters as "critical" when selecting gear.

However, if a group of newbies all make the mistake and the GM is new and also makes the mistake, then everyone is at 1 pass, identical to everyone at 3 passes (more or less), so the damage is mitigated almost entirely.

As a GM I tend to appreciate non-min/maxed characters and especially if they are built true to their back-story. I think part of the problem is that the core archetypes are designed like back-story-driven builds without any back-story. Lacking that crucial element, they come off rather... flat.

But I guess thats to be expected.

{edit} Also, the devs are somewhat obligated to build standard archetypes that introduce new players to a wide range of game concepts. I'm sure thats part of it...

Exactly. The Bounty Hunter that can't track quarry physically or by matrix, or stop said quarry is worthless, despite having the ability to fire a bow(?) and don his shock gloves. He also can't use social skills to aid him-because he doesn't have them. He sucks at his job,but he's a sort of maybe passable cannon fodder for a friends in melee bonus. They may as well have called him 'the troll bodyguard' and gave him some intimidation.
The ganger has a social network to fall back on, some melee skills, some range skills- he brings more to the table despite not being 'min/maxed'. Powergaming doesn't even enter into the equation, the Troll AT is crap.

As a GM I appreciate well constructed characters with stats that match their concept and are functional, provided that disfunction is not their concept.

Can't say that I have had the same problems... Working out just fine for me... I generally don't fail to very often... the only drawback is that they are generally not very broad or deep (few skills)... but that is fixed with time

Amen Caadium, Amen

And all of those are very Core to the concept of Cyberpunk as a genre... especially the Rocker