 Karma and the problmes it causes |
  |
 Sep 13 2005, 02:51 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543  |
I will be posting a set pMs between me and Blakie both high lighting the pros and cons of the normal Karma system.
Cynic project Sent: Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 10:29 AM Delete Post Quote Post Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 5-August 04 QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 11 2005, 03:27 AM) I just thought of a great marketing slogan for your house rules! "Frankie Trollman: Cutting out important, relavent facts to make the math easier and clearer since 2005." Here's to hoping you sell a million copies. cool.gif I'll bite here. One how are skill groups equal to or better than Attributes? If they are not why should players spend equal or greater points for them? Two if the karma system is so fair and good, why is better to start with attributes at 5 and four at 1 than say some reasonable middle ground? blakkie Re:Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 10:59 AM Delete Post Quote Post Group: Members Posts: 2974 Joined: 14-September 02 Oh that. Ya, i saw that yesterday but had no time to respond, and hadn't gotten around to it yet: The short answer is that it doesn't matter for them to be equal. Since you have to come through Skill eventually if you want to take that skill to the top. If you worried about all purchases being equal so much you'd get rid of Skill Groups before trying to adjust Attribute/Skill costs. They actually a replacement for the Skill costs. Of course that demonstrates a second reason that this Skill/Attribute difference is much about very little. You aren't going to see Attributes maximized before any Skill progression because the extra value of an Attribute is only there if: 1) You have the karma in hand for the extra cost. 2) You have an near enough equal need for the dice in all the skill pools. This simply isn't always the case. So you pay the higher karma/die across all pools because it is more important to you at that time to have a lower karma/die in a particular pool. I guess that is the shortish answer. nyahnyah.gif There are aspect i could get into and more detail in the above, but that's the gist of it. The really short is "A lot of important details about value per karma were left out and replaced with erroneous assumptions in Frank's suppositly exhastive math". The thing about the Skill Groups was pointed out to Frank, but not only did he ignore it he created new more complex rules to make it easier to use Skill Groups, thus further undermining the Skill values he purports to be worried about. wobble.gif P.S. Sorry, i don't really have time to discuss this further. Work is imposing itself again on my schedule. -------------------- Cynic project Sent: Re:Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 11:34 AM Delete Post Quote Post Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 5-August 04 QUOTE The short answer is that it doesn't matter for them to be equal. Since you have to come through Skill eventually if you want to take that skill to the top. Okay So here is what you have. Let us assume you have 4 in a skill group and and attribute. Say that they are both linked. Then let's say there are three skill groups that that attribute can be used for. Okay to raise one skill to 5 costs what? 10 karma? You get one die in a skill one skill. To raise the group to five costs? 25 karma? To get one die in three or four skills. Right here are seeing that you need to pay more to get more dice in more fields. That sounds fair. Now attributes from 4 to 5 costs 15 karma? Right. In this case it is linked to three skill groups. That means you paid less for for more. So to get the same effect with one skill group you have to pay more. To get the same effects with all three skill groups you pay 400% of the karma. Too get 3 dice in all the skill groups can either cost you 15, to raise said attribute to 5, 18 to raise to 6, 61 to raise it to 7. That costs a lot of karma a total of 94 karma. To do that same with skill groups would cost you 20 to raise to 5, 25 to raise it to six 60 raise it to 7. A grand total of 95 for one skill group. 285 for all three skill groups. So aside from a role playing point of view, why would I even think about raiding a skill group before I had my attribute at 6? What game mechanical reason why I do this? I look at the math there and I see just bad logic behind the karma costs, Sure if I wanted to play a combat monkey I would raise my skills(groups) to 6 somewhere down the line. But not until my character had a 6(maybe even a 7) in all physical attributes and maybe even some of the mental ones as well. Unless I am playing on pure role play and in witch case I get reward of making a thoughtful and stylized character in exchange for being not as good for no good reason. Now from an objective point of view would you like some play any of the meta type without paying any cost? If not please tell me, cause you do not seem to worry about game balance. -------------------- QUOTE <snip> So aside from a role playing point of view, why would I even think about raiding a skill group before I had my attribute at 6? Skill Group? Perhaps raising to a 2, outside chance of a 3 (karma difference is slight) before Attribute 6. Skill though quite possibly raising it close to your Attribute speed. Maybe faster for critical Skills that you have little use for the Attribute outside of that Skill (example of Perception for some characters). But you still COMPLETELY missing the point of the part that you quoted, you still have to go through the Skills. Your example has NOTHING to do with the point. It is like going from from Skill 5 -> Skill 6 than Skill 4 -> Skill 5, only you paying for something to raise your dice pool from 8 to 9. The difference is that it is more open-ended how you buy that increase particular ('ware, magic, Attr, Skill, gear), but in the end you are going to have to buy the Skill by the time you are raising to the top of the dice pool size. You can put off the more expensive increase, or you can take it up front. But eventually you'll pay it. QUOTE Now from an objective point of view would you like some play any of the meta type without paying any cost? If not please tell me, cause you do not seem to worry about game balance. That is NOT an appropriate comparison. See above. P.S. If you still haven't groked after this message i give up on you. Don't bother respond, i haven't got the time for it. -------------------- Cynic project Sent: Re:Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 12:27 PM Delete Post Quote Post Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 5-August 04 So your point is this because you need to get the skill to the max to be the best at a task you do not need to make Attribute and skill group balanced? IF that is so why not make skill groups the X3 and Attributes the X5? As if you are going to use the stanardard rule the gun bunny is going to start with 4 in the fire skill group and may or not start with a higher than for in the linked Attribute. So why should the Attribute cost less than the Skill gruop? [QUOTE]So your point is this because you need to get the skill to the max to be the best at a task you do not need to make Attribute and skill group balanced? [QUOTE] Bingo! smile.gif [QUOTE]IF that is so why not make skill groups the X3 and Attributes the X5?[/QUOTE] Why? Why not? I suggest to do so is a make-work project. Remember that if you do that what exactly are you going to charge for Skills? Still 2X? That skews towards Skill Groups pretty harshly, and they are a replacement purchase for Skills. Ironic if in an effort to try "balance" Skills and Attributes costs you've create a large cost difference in buying Skill points between in a group and outside a group. [QUOTE] As if you are going to use the stanardard rule the gun bunny is going to start with 4 in the fire skill group and may or not start with a higher than for in the linked Attribute. So why should the Attribute cost less than the Skill gruop?[/QUOTE] If he starts with it there then he pays the cost for it. That is his choice. Now if you are worried about the disconnect between chargen and playing, well that's more a BECKS/SECKSY/whatever-you-feel-the-need-build thing. I'm not crazy about the mostly linear costs during creation time. It is something i could mostly live with in SR3, outside of the Skill (6)/Attribute(max) syndrome. Fortunately which is what SR4 somewhat addressed with 25BP for the last Attribute point and tight control of Skills over (4). P.S. The one thing i will say though is that if you start lifting the Attribute cap that if you don't make it karma costly to raise the Attribute the past the racial max then the relative costs of Skill could become a bit of an issue, but not as much as general die pool inflation. -------------------- PS sorry for the gramara nd spelling. I still think that the points were made |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 04:03 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: 17-August 05 Member No.: 7,566 |
I will just chime in. If you look at it from Skills and Attributes, the system looks okay. But, if you look at it from Skill Groups and just "from the numbers", it looks like it breaks down, but I don't think it does.
The question asked is "Why would I raise my Firearms to 6 when I can raise my Agility to 6?" I think the question is "Why should I raise my Agility to 6 when I can raise my Pistols or Longarms or Automatics to 6?" Also, the Skill Group becomes less of an issue if you have Attribute/Skill Caps. The minute you remove these caps, the system breaks. So back to Skill Groups. You basically have 3 to 4 Skills in a Skill Group. It costs New Rating X 3 to raise a Skill. It cost New Rating X 5 to raise a Skill Group. So, for the X5 number you are basically getting X9 to X12 in Skills (if they were all raised separately.) (This was calculated by taking (New Rating X 3) X (3 Skills in a Skill Group or 4 Skills in a Skill Group.) If people fear that Skill Groups will overshadow Attributes, either 1) don't allow them or 2) only allow them in character generation. The impact to removing Skill Groups will effect Magicians, Technomancers, and Hack...Deckers the most (since they "need" more skills than most other archetypes.) I am going to recommend keeping them, at least for our group, because the real goal is to get from 2 to 12 (Attribute+Skill or Skill Group) and not 1 to 6 (Just Attribute or Skill or Skill Group.) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 05:40 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
This remains the one and only argument in favor of the current system: Skills are an inferior deal, but since there are caps in place, people just purchase the attributes first and the skills afterwards and it's a form of diminishing returns. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the game actually doesn't simply have you buy attributes first and skills afterwards. In fact, not only does it explicitly encourage you to buy some skills up front (by giving you a variable amount of points that can't be spent on anything else), but the relative cost of skills vs. attributes is different at character generation vs. character advancement. Indeed, from a longterm Karma perspective, the relative cost of skills vs. attributes is significantly higher in karma than it is with BPs. So once you've been through a bunch of adventures, you'll be absolutely better if you started with your skills and bought up your attrbutes than if you did it the other way around. And we all know that's bad design. If two characters have exactly the same numbers on their character sheet, and were built with the same amount of BPs, they should always have spent the same amount of karma to get to where they are (since where they are is the same place). If the game really gave you attributes first and then gave you skills afterwards, that would be sort of defensible. Weird, but workable. But it doesn't work like that. Actually it's just a god damned mess where players end up paying more or less to roll the same amount of dice on the same tasks based on the order they moved numbers around. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
 Sep 13 2005, 07:52 AM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
:rotfl: :rotfl: Ah man Frank, you just keep coming up with gems. I can just picture you, in a completely straight face, going: "This water is wet. Which all can plainly see is a design problem with the water. We need to change this to make swimming fair!" |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2005, 08:06 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 04:41 PM
Post
#6
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
You are just so wrong it ain't funny. Look games are about being fair and balanced. If there is a better or worse way to make a character based on numbers there will be better or worse characters based on the idea of who is a role player and who i a roll player. I think things of style should not be rewarded or punished(IE your character being german shouldn't give you bonus points). I also believe that if I spend X points in a game it should not give more bonuses than if another player spends 2X points. That is the problem. Skill groups are over priced no way around that. At the start you get the best deal on them as they cost only the same cost as attributes. Then it just gets worse. Blackie would you pay 100 points to play a dwarf? OR any of the meta types? They have the ability for less karma get more dice. Cause it is still cheeper for an elf to get a aglity of 8 than it for a human to get a fire arms of 7. So even with the 35 builds for being an elf you save points the fact is the only reason to play a human is for the edge and the edge is not as big of deal as another die or two in just about any skill you want to use. But in the end the world ain't fair. But game should be. See here is a little secret by making a better or worse way to make characters you pander to the worst part of gamers. Characters are just numbers on paper. Your Hacker and mine can wildly different pasts and still be the same when it come to game mechanics, or we could have the same past and be wildly different when it comes to game mechanics. So should there be better or worse ways to build characters? Looking at shadowrun third ed you could make the point that there were. But there were also different claims to that and each one was slightly different that more reflected play style than game rule issues. IN Forth there are flat out better ways to make characters,and the math will prove it time and time again. Humans do not have place in 4th ed, because no matter what you want to make you get more bang for your buck playing a metahuman.What one depends on what you want to play. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 13 2005, 04:55 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 5-September 02 From: Everywhere and Nowhere Baby Member No.: 3,225 |
I can see there are better and worse wqay to make chaacters in SR4, of course the same was true for SR3, SR2 and SR1. Of course it being wrong in the pastr isnt an excuse for it being wrong in the future but these things happen. Some things are just a question of what you believe the system should model, should orks be cheaper as there more common ? If you say no you wont like the rules, that doesnt make the rules wrong just not in keeping with a creation system you want.
I think the Becks system for SR3 solved the problem of character creatrion rules being different to in game advancing and hopfully for people wanting that there will be a system for doing the same in SR4. Of course I havent had a chance to play a character or run a game yet. I am sure some of the concerns Frank mentioned will effect me and my players. The hard caps for one. But for the first time I will run the game as is and see what developes. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 05:12 PM
Post
#8
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Certainly not, that is just one means that can be part of reaching an end. But Frank isn't really talking about making things fair and balanced either. He is flat out ignoring, once again, that different paths have different costs and bring different benefits/pitfalls. Multiple viable paths that are at near optimal, with optimal being an theoretical value that varies over many different conditions. EDIT:
Oh for *(^*&*&( sakes, you are back on that? Memory like a steel sieve? Screw this, buh-bye. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 13 2005, 05:32 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Actually, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
No, I am addressing the fact that different paths have different costs for the same benefits/pitfalls. I am not ignoring the different costs, I am honestly mathematically analyzing those costs and making a reasoned opinion based on those costs and benefits. You keep saying that I am neglecting details, but you keep not saying what those detais actually are. This leads me to the reasoned opinion that you don't have clue one as to what you are talking about. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 13 2005, 05:43 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 91 Joined: 29-November 02 From: London Member No.: 3,657 |
In all fairness, the costs should be adjusted somewhat and if I, and my group, decide to switch to SR4, there will have to be adjustments.
Attributes already bugged the hell out of me from SR3, the fact that if you took a lot of skills that went over your attributes, here and there you'd actually save build points by straight raising your attributes, an aspect I loathed (and naturally house ruled). Individual skills should be the cheapest, followed by skill groups, then finally attributes. It's a shame that some attributes are worth more than others though, they'll need to be house rules on them, for example Clubs moving from Agility to Strength. To compare to D&D 3.0 (or 3.5) for a second, it's like raising an attribute when you get a bonus attribute point. It gives you lots of points, far more so than from an individual skill point. The problem here, is that in SR4, the attributes make up half of your natural modifiers, which is naturally a result of the skill cap(something I don't like). Raise the cap a little bit, adjust the linked attributes to skills(to balance out ones such as Strength and Agility), then raise the cost of upgrading attributes and you should be set. - Baatorian |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 05:57 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Yeah. But it's not immediately obvious what some of those are. For example, while Strength is pretty much a weak sister attribute in a lot of ways, but it has some advantages that partially make up for that in subtle ways. For example, in unarmed combat it's actually bigger than Agility as things stand right now. Every point of Agility gives you one die, which is in turn about 1/3 of a bonus DV. Every 2 points of strength just gives you a bonus DV with no die roll involved - it's like you just rolled 3 dice for every 2 points of strength. So while I do not feel that all attributes are created equal, I'm not sure enough of which ones are which to start making house rules about it. I like certainty. I like being sure that I'm not overlooking things before I act. And so I'm currently leaving the attributes as-is until I have a better idea as to how important the things they modify are. Of course, the attribute costs are way too low relative to the costs of skills. That's a no-brainer. But the relative value of attributes against each other requires more playtest experience than I currently have. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:02 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Benjamin Disraeli
Timeliness Frank, timeliness. Need/use at a moment affects true value, and needs vary over time. And yes i did mention about this already, and it is in this thread. But then again you are as blind as you want to be..... 8) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:09 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
I'll go out on a limb for karma costs... just been scribbling a bit and have some up with something that might work...
Knowledge/language - new rating Physical, Mental, & Edge - new rating x4 Magic & resonance - new rating x4 [edit from x3] Skill group - new rating x5 Skill - new rating x2 New Specialization - 5 karma New Knowledge/Language - 2 karma New Skill - 4 karma New Skill Group - 10 karma New Positive quality - BP x2 Remove Negative quality - BP x2 New Spell - 5 karma New complex form - 2 karma Complex form - new rating Initiation - 10+(grade x3) This particular math will likely alter karma value a bit... as a side note perhaps increase karma reward by .5 per session or 1 every other session. I have my own house rules I'd going to test. They are as follows: Skill caps are character creation are still in place. However skill caps after creation are 9(12) or 10(14) with aptitude. Karma costs are in addition to above: Knowledge skill above 6 - New rating x2 Physical/Mental/Edge stats above normal max with Exceptional attribute - new rating x 5 (only once) Skill group above 6 - new rating x10 (o.O;;) Skill above 6 - new rating x4 Skill, with aptitude above 7 - new rating x4 I have not playtested these yet so I have no idea how they'll work. I've also not done much math, I've just gone with my intuition... so to speak. :) :nuyen: :nuyen: :nuyen: |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:14 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 91 Joined: 29-November 02 From: London Member No.: 3,657 |
IF you hit, which is affected by Agility. IF you hit with virtually any weapon under the sun, which are pretty much all Agility linked and lets face it, combat is extremely important regardless of your game type(completely purists aside). High strength, low reflexes thug types need some love. - Baatorian Note: I must say, I do agree about playtesting for attribute balance, but this one looks rather obvious to me, if you agree but wish to test before being vocal about it, then fine. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:34 PM
Post
#15
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Well, I will say that I think Strength is a soft stat in SR4. However, it is less of a soft stat in SR4 than it has been in every other edition of Shadowrun. Strength is now counted as bonus successes for damaging opponents in melee (rather than being completely irrelevent because it couldn't bring the power of your attacks high enough to warrant a damage resistance TN higher than 2 against normal armor within the human range of strength), and has stolen Quickness' old schtick of adding to your running speed. But it still modifies relatively few skills, and it still has virtually no effect on your carrying capacity. Like in every edition, characters in Shadowrun can't carry dick. Apparently, I have normal human maximum strength, which I think would surprise a number of professional or even amateur athletes. As such, the benefits of being "really strong" just don't show up using the official rules. Strength is possibly the last of the attributes. But it is less the least of the attributes than it has been in previous editions of the game. I would hold back in actually making house rules about it until I get a better grasp of how inferior it is.
What? Look, Magic is probably the most powerful attribute in the game. Other stats are not only inferior, but they are the only thing that mundanes have the option of purchasing. Mundanes get the shaft in SR4, just like they did in all previous editions. Making mundane characters pay more than magic using characters for the attributes they care about is obviously not going to solve anything ever. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:43 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
I was just throwing it out. Mostly that low because of initiation costs. Could make it x4 as well. Then again, I am guilty of favoring magic types on occasion. :)
Lets see... 31 karma as opposed to 38 karma for a magic of 7. 37 or 45 for 8. Hmmm.... Yeah. Magic should be x4. Resonance should as well likely. I'll edit that real quick. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:49 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 445 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,567 |
Having had time to read over SR4 in some detail now and getting ready to run my own game in it I have a few opinions on this, probably none of which will be popular.
Frank is partialy right. Strict math and paying attention ONLY to the numbers will lead you to believe Frank. However there are problems with what he's saying when you take into account what attributes and skills mean, and what is involved in raising them, as well as the interaction between the two. -Skills represent, practical knowledge and or training, as well as experiance with something or intuitive knowledge. -Attributes represent raw physical or mental ability. What does this realy mean game wise? -Skill represent how good you are, and how trained you are in something. -Attributes represent raw tallent. -And the combination of the two makes up your ability to preform a certain task. How does this play out? What makes Frank and Cynic wrong but right at the same time? Attributes, straight by the numbers, and skills straight by the numbers only differ in cost. And in effect, attributes win out with their benefits. What ballances this out? Attributes can be harder to raise in certain instances, if you apply some thought to it. What does it take to raise a attribute? People don't suddently just get stronger because they've accumulated karma or experiance. People don't suddently think mor logicaly because they've been in a firefight or two. People don't suddently become more charismatic being the stoic combat monster that shoots first and asks questions later. What does it take to raise a skill? People learn from experiance. People figure out better ways to aim when they've been in firefight after firefight. People learn to dodge that punch when they've had it thrown at them a few times. People learn whats right and wrong to say in a situation by being in that situation. Suuuure by the numbers, and ignoring gameplay, the story, roleplaying in general and focusing solely on the numbers. Attributes outshine skills. When thought about logicaly, when thought about in context with the game, when though about in context with story, they do not. I mean afterall you want to spend a few months strength training while your teamates money dries up and that corp team closes in on you? Go right ahead. If taken out of context you can use just about anything to trash the system. Just like you can take lines in the bible out of context to say 'Go_ does not exist'. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 06:52 PM
Post
#18
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
let's say that edge is not the biggest for your character. So let's Say that all the characters here are going for 4 points of edge. I don't think I would play with a character with that high of edge, but let's say you want to. Now let's say that you want to play someone that care about Agi? Well you can play a human and get a 6, agi witch costs you 65 points. Or you Could play an elf that makes the cost 40. So 25 points less and you then get two points of Cha for free. That is 20 points. But the human get plus one Edge making the 35 points for elf even right? Wrong. See the elf then can spend 10 more build points on Attributes. That is is about the the best deal you can make for playing a human based on anything other than role playing. You want to be a face with a cha of 7? Well be an elf. It saves you point there. You want to be good with talking and guns. Elf saves you more points. You want to have a high body, well dwarves, orks and trolls are good at that for less points than humans. The only Attribute that humans break even on is INT, and the only "Attribute" they are better at is edge. Still you could play a more rounded dwarf or elf and be the int man. Metahumans are un-game balanced with the elf being the only marginally none bronken one for the cost. Even then they at worse let you spend 230 points on Attributes. Take the Dwarf if the game was balanced you would charge at least 60 points to play dwarf, as some what sneaky player could get at least 100 points worth of Attributes out a dwarf, mind you the points would spread out over a few area and not be that big of a deal because of that. Still you can only spend 200 points on Attributes if you are human and the +4 Attribute points the dwarf gets lets you basically spend 240. Now the Ork gets +5 Attributes and minuses 1 in log. Log is an Attribute that you can either largely ignore or is the back bone of your character. Techies, hackers and docs have it, just about everyone else can take that Attribute at 1 and go on living happily(from game mechanics point of view). Still you can make a strong case for being an Ork with a Logic of 4 and doing field repairs and quick fixes on people. So the worst case in playing an ork is that you have 250 points to put into Attributes, and then 20 of them have to go into str. No, you can't complain about having +3 body cause body is good for everyone. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 13 2005, 07:07 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
You are right. You are so right, that you are wrong. People put in life and death stakes and are forced to think of ways to get out of it alive do think more logically. People who fight day and night to life, by hauling there guns, getting into fights, or simply hauling packages get stronger. Let's look for shadowrun runner and how they raise attributes due to their actions in shadowruns. You want to be stronger? Oh no, you must go to a gym because all that running, punching and carrying and lifting would not work your muscles. Same could be said for Body or quickness. Reaction. You are in gun fights all the time where if you do not breath the right way or time you move too slow and die. That is some great training. Cha, you are talking to people out of propaganda and spin doctoring school for a live. You deal with them all the time. Logic, you are spending your days learning every new hack,computer, medical, and techie trick in the book, and making them up as you go cause if you are too slow you are going to die. Shadow running is most likely some of the best reasons to rise your attributes, because if you don't get better all the time you will one day not be lucky enough. When your luck runs out you die. So here it is, my friend any and all in character reasons for rising attributes can be applied to what shadow runners do for a living. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2005, 07:08 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
Take whatever you will out of this but, I have to say, over a course of a year I have become noticeably stronger, faster, and more coordinated. Funny thing is, I don't know for the life of me what I did to get that way. Sure, I had a slightly tougher job than I used to, but surely ones enviroment couldn't be a factor, I mean, I would have to train for days on end to accomplish such a feat... Downtime indeed. And I'm not even going to touch the Bible comment... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2005, 07:27 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 445 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,567 |
In response to the two comments against what i'm saying.
Over time yes you become stronger. Overtime yes you bulk up. Overtime yes you become smarter. But what would you say is faster to raise? Your skill in something? Or your raw physical or mental tallent. I have in the passed learned a completely new programing language in the matter of a week. A weeks worth of work. Dit that make me think more logicaly? Increased my intuitional awareness? Nope I wouldn't say so. It increased my skill at computers and programing certainly though. Lets say you're a runner. You're in a gunfight all the time leaned around that corner firing and such. What're you more likely to increase there? Your agility? or your skill in firing that weapon? Lets use you're strength example. Yes carrying something every day all the time, will increase your strength over time. But as a runner are you out running every night? Or do you have periods of downtime? So your example of being stronger over the course of the year from your new job doesn't wholely fit here. Afterall you're working what 5 days a week 8 hours a day? Most runners don't run 5 days a week 8 hours a day doing tough work. Now out of all the attributes, yes cynic I would agree reaction would be the easiest one to justify raising. Split second decisions reaction to ever changing environments. Yes that to me would be the one attribute that would be easily justifiable to raise. People learn quicker than they develop tallent. I learned how to throw and catch a lacrosse ball, and shoot it to beat a Goalie with a great deal of profficiency long before i had the physical abillity to shoot the ball at 90 mph. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 07:40 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
Err... learning new programming language is part of being a programmer and staying SOTA. Thats not learning a new skill, its paying the upkeep. So your point is.. well.. moot there...
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 07:48 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 445 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,567 |
Right, so if I say, learned COBOL I would just be keeping up with SOTA and not bettering my programing abilities/flexabilities? Or since I know C# and VB.NET learning J# would just be keeping up with SOTA? Or learning ANSI C is just keeping up with SOTA? Or learning python is just keeping up with SOTA? Or learning BASIC is just keeping up with SOTA? Or learning VB6 is just keeping up with SOTA? Or learning .... Well the list goes on. But I think I've given enough examples to show where you're wrong in that reasoning. A new language is not nessicarily keeping up with SOTA stuff or just paying the upkeep. Infact sometimes its very much against that. Say I knew .NET which is replacing COM objects (THANK GOD) for the most part. But I've got to go back and deal with that old COM object. SOTA is moving on past COM. So going back and learning the language the COM object was writen in and what i can and can not do with it, is not keeping me SOTA, but it is broadening my skill set. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2005, 08:03 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
Except skill is based on the average or standard of the now. If you kept with the old com objects you would be left behind. If you don't learn the new, you are left behind.
And you wouldn't be improving your programming abilities either by learning COBOL, so I don't know what your point is there. (Nice language but now outdated.) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 08:12 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 445 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,567 |
You are slightly correct, and slightly inccorect. Correct, COM and COBOL are dead/dieing. However both are still very very very much in use, and knowing how to use them is key. If you don't like the COBOL example look at the VB6. Its no longer supported by microsoft, but there are thousands of companies with vb6 programs and using vb6 com objects. Knowing it my skills as a programer can be put to wider use and can be better used than if i just knew one or the other. And knowing how to get things to interact correctly and optimaly is part of skill. Just because something is old does not mean it isn't still in use, and that knowing how to work with it isn't part of skill. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th August 2025 - 11:34 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.