IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Slymoon
post Mar 6 2008, 01:51 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 201
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 862



After being here for abit, (been Lurking for years) and reading about character builds and discussions, there seems to be an uncomfortable reality.

Characters seem to be built for the 'best build' syndrome. Everything is optimized 'why use X when you could use Y and be better for less'. It becomes an exercise in mathmatics, a formula, instead of building a character with a background that may actually not be built perfectly.

This may be just a forum based issue or may be brought on by conventions. The characters start epitomizing MMORPG character builds where the build of the month is based on what patches have done, or what spell, skill, combo, class is top of the damage charts.

Is this how characters are built in your games? Are all adepts based on 1 loss of magic for some bioware because mathmatically it costs less BPs and you get more?

What happened to the, 'I want to build Joe who is pure of mind and body and be damned what is mathmatically better'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 70)
Siege
post Mar 6 2008, 01:54 AM
Post #2


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916



Number-crunching has always been an issue, since the days of D&D and the randomly generated stat.

More options, more chances to munch.

One of the fun things of CP2020 was the lifepath chart and the random "damn, that just sucks" when applied to the existing character.

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
It trolls!
post Mar 6 2008, 02:02 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 259
Joined: 2-September 07
From: In the AGS, underwater
Member No.: 13,049



I call it "D&D syndrome" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But I wouldn't count on this being a general trend. Players are always eager to test the rules of a system to all extents and for some, gaming involves getting the maximum out of whatever resources you have.
I tend to view most of the discussion about pure number builds here more as a kind of exercise rather than actual characters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larme
post Mar 6 2008, 02:09 AM
Post #4


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,653
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 15,430



What else are people going to do on a message board? If you make a nice, flavorful character with a novella of background, nobody has a basis to critique it. All they can tell you is "do like" or "don't like." But if you're trying to make a really effective character, there are all kinds of ways for people to critique you. Numbers are concerete, and you can give concrete advice about them. If you're not concerned about the numbers, why would you bother to spend the time it takes to write up a character into a Dumpshock post?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyrn
post Mar 6 2008, 02:22 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 249
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Orlando
Member No.: 815



QUOTE (Slymoon @ Mar 6 2008, 02:51 AM) *
What happened to the, 'I want to build Joe who is pure of mind and body and be damned what is mathmatically better'.


Joe died from not having cyberware. His brother Jim ran right out and picked up a synthacardium and muscle toner.

Jim's doing just fine now. Joe's still dead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Mar 6 2008, 02:38 AM
Post #6


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



I tend to agree with It Trolls! (funny how your handle makes a simple statement seem really enthusiastic) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think a lot of these uber-builds are interesting, but only as intellectual exercises that help to understand the subtleties (some would say minutia) of the rules.

Personally, I would find it quite boring to actually GM a game with these kinds of characters, or players who want to sit and cruntch numbers all night to figure out how they can get an extra die for one certain test or whatever.

But then, I tend to prefer generalists with character flaws anyway... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post Mar 6 2008, 02:38 AM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



as was said, how am i supposed to tell you how to roleplay your character? what advice can i give you on how you want to roleplay your character? chances are, i can't even tell you what archetype you want to play, or if you want to make up an archetype of your own.

on the other hand, it's quite possible for me to look at your character with no special knowledge and tell you that you don't need gymnastics, dodge, *and* unarmed combat. or that tailored pheromones will make you a better face. those kinds of things i can see instantly, and advise you on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Mar 6 2008, 03:06 AM
Post #8


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



Characters posted on these forums tend to be either pure numbers-crunching exercises, or builds from newer players who need practical advice on what works and what doesn't. And the advice isn't always on how to get the most dice firing an assault rifle. It includes things such as whether a character is missing vital skills, or is too specialized, or is spread too thin, and so on.

If you want to see characters that people actually play, then check out the Welcome to the Shadows forum, where characters are often posted in spoilers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Mar 6 2008, 04:15 AM
Post #9


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



Good call, Glyph.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sungun
post Mar 6 2008, 05:32 AM
Post #10


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 4-February 06
Member No.: 8,230



i imagine/hope that it's more a forum phenomenon than the way most people game.

strategy is cool, but it's not chess. make a character and the gm should tweak the game to find that 'threat level sweet spot' for your team. the real interesting part of strategy isn't the number juggling anyways.. it's thinking of ways to describe yourself into a situation where the abilities and numbers you have do the trick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawaii
post Mar 6 2008, 05:58 AM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 484



I always thought the best way to break a system is to testing things on the very fringe - exploit the edges and you might find a scenario that doesn't work like you expect it to. I would think that the min-maxed characters do that and if 90% of the time, the characters are still playable (even with no Charisma and practically dead), welll, the system works pretty well.

If the characters don't, then maybe there's a system problem and the next edition will try (hopefully!) to fix it. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Synner667
post Mar 6 2008, 07:27 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 946
Joined: 16-September 05
From: London
Member No.: 7,753



Min/max-ing and munchkinism has always been around, because there's always been people who want to cheat and manipulate the system [Rules Lawyers are a tenacious breed].

Saying that people are doing it to "test" the system is a an excuse to generate crap Characters [I don't know a single system that can't be broken, some just take more work than others - One of my friends "tests" an RPG by generating himself with the mechanics and trying to do things].

Looking through these forums shows many Players generating Characters built by numbers, with no characterisation at all..
..Because many people can't play Characters, they just don't know how, it's not enforced by their GM, they see it as "unnecessary".


But it only happens with a GM who lets it happen, who don't think about the games they're running, who allow unfettered access to all source material

Longterm GMs are more likely to not allows number-built Characters, because they actually want to play longterm games and such Characters can't be played longterm because they're just not sustainable.


SR has degenerated into a game where guns and damage causing seem to be the main drivers..
..And that is reflected in the Players and Characters it attracts [and has happened over the years to many RPGs [ D&D, Werewolf, etc].


Games where combat is not the focus tend to attract Players and Characters where min/max-ing and munchkinsism is not so prevalent, because they choose not to play Characters like that.


This all sounds very "old skool", boring and likely to get me flamed..
..But I roleplay to have fun, not to juggle figures and have a warm, happy, fuzzy feeling because I managed to spend less character points to do something and I can cause just a little bit more damage than someone else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cthulhudreams
post Mar 6 2008, 07:32 AM
Post #13


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,650
Joined: 21-July 07
Member No.: 12,328



People who call it munchism deserve a punch in the face. Then another punch in the face. Having completed that, the reason we don't discuss sub optimal choices for roleplaying reasons is that there is really no common ground to discuss.

What are you going to say?

Poster: took muscle replacement because it's an intergral part of my characters background

Response: ..... ... ......

I mean, we can say that muscle toner is about a billion times better, but you're not asking a question, or discussing a point, you're making a statement. This isn't a 'statement forum' its a discussion forum. So we need questions to discuss, and that sort of thing is

"'Is muscle toner or muscle replacement better for a sniper?"

But the only answers that can be provided rely on maths, logic and numbers (ie a discussion of optimal and sub optimal choices) because a response like "Whatever is better for your characters background" doesn't address the question, reach conculsions or even make a point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Mar 6 2008, 07:39 AM
Post #14


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



I think those discussions give a "baseline" to check your own characters and NPCs against. No one has to take all the advice (My latest character is a bio/cyber-free adept), but it helps to see what can be done, and what skills and stuff people consider essential.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BlueMax
post Mar 6 2008, 07:42 AM
Post #15


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,336
Joined: 25-February 08
From: San Mateo CA
Member No.: 15,708



The best characters, and by that I mean characters that my players tell stories about for years and years to come, are all "theme" characters.

Be it the Mystery Men knock offs
The Doc Wagon crew
or the Humanis Policlub chapter,

Parties with a theme make for the best character. As for the best stats, meh,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 6 2008, 07:46 AM
Post #16


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i tend to min-max the hell out of my characters, due in part to the fact that i like "winning" SR, and due in part to the fact that i like to roleplay characters who are very good at what they do. i could build less-optimized characters, but the types of person that sub-optimal stats tend to represent aren't the types of characters i really enjoy playing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Mar 6 2008, 07:51 AM
Post #17


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



It's also worth mentioning that min/maxing your character isn't a sign of a bad roleplayer, and a suboptimal build is not a sign of a good one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Mar 6 2008, 07:54 AM
Post #18


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



In a typical pen and paper campaign, "very good" is relative to the rest of the characters and NPCs, and ultimately up to the GM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 6 2008, 07:58 AM
Post #19


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



it's variable, based on the group's desires and expectations, yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post Mar 6 2008, 07:59 AM
Post #20


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



The only time character stats end up posted online for commentary is when people want them tweaked.

I can't count how many characters I've made, played, and enjoyed who were suboptimal in some way, and who've never been posted to dumpshock. I can count on no hands the number I've posted here for tweaking.

More than happy to contribute to someone else's tweaking exercise, though. Good for the brain (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ArkonC
post Mar 6 2008, 08:01 AM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 536
Joined: 25-January 08
From: Can I crash on your couch?
Member No.: 15,483



QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 6 2008, 08:51 AM) *
It's also worth mentioning that min/maxing your character isn't a sign of a bad roleplayer, and a suboptimal build is not a sign of a good one.

Exactly...
If I want to play a guy who can hit a penny a mile away, asking how to optimize my build is just common sense...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kingmaker
post Mar 6 2008, 08:01 AM
Post #22


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 16-June 07
Member No.: 11,924



The OP strikes as more than a little elitist and insulting. Why can't a character be optimized and have a back story? People optimize their skills in real life just like in some Shadowrun character builds. It's called specialization, and doesn't rob you of personality or backstory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Mar 6 2008, 08:08 AM
Post #23


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



As a sidenote, I remember seeing some "backstory optimisation" threads or posts as well, when people asked for help with those parts of a character.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike_the_fish
post Mar 6 2008, 08:24 AM
Post #24


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 5,902



QUOTE (Larme @ Mar 5 2008, 10:09 PM) *
What else are people going to do on a message board?


Indeed, this is a good point. I have a feeling that most of the one-dimentional min-maxed characters exist only on these boards rather than in actual games. Not all, but most.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nathanross
post Mar 6 2008, 08:56 AM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 811
Joined: 30-January 07
From: Portland, OR
Member No.: 10,845



QUOTE (Slymoon @ Mar 5 2008, 08:51 PM) *
Characters seem to be built for the 'best build' syndrome. Everything is optimized 'why use X when you could use Y and be better for less'. It becomes an exercise in mathmatics, a formula, instead of building a character with a background that may actually not be built perfectly.

This may be just a forum based issue or may be brought on by conventions. The characters start epitomizing MMORPG character builds where the build of the month is based on what patches have done, or what spell, skill, combo, class is top of the damage charts.

Is this how characters are built in your games? Are all adepts based on 1 loss of magic for some bioware because mathmatically it costs less BPs and you get more?

What happened to the, 'I want to build Joe who is pure of mind and body and be damned what is mathmatically better'.

First off, you must remember that the unspoken DS rule is "Post Your Character to be Pimped", plain and simple. Anyone can make a character, but here you have a very high concentration of people who are very knowledgeable about the subject and are more than happy to help.

I consider myself somewhere in the middle. I do not buy an assault rifle that is not an Alpha. My main armor is also always an Armor Jacket. I have enough years under my belt that I would seriously have to lobotomize myself to get away from this frame of mind. My only refuge is Adepts, who I have yet to create with cyber/bioware. Course, once I got enough money, Rating 4 Skillwires is first on the list. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(BTW, Has anyone else noticed that the Ares Alpha is essentially an LMG?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slymoon
post Mar 6 2008, 03:04 PM
Post #26


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 201
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 862



QUOTE (Kingmaker @ Mar 6 2008, 02:01 AM) *
The OP strikes as more than a little elitist and insulting. Why can't a character be optimized and have a back story? People optimize their skills in real life just like in some Shadowrun character builds. It's called specialization, and doesn't rob you of personality or backstory.



Then possibly you are actually looking for something to be insulted about. elitist... hah I am about as modest as they come.

If you want something to be insulted about, maybe its that you infact min/max/ point gouge and put together that whole 3 line backstory to justify. "I am a retired sniper, I kill things fast" (which unfortunately I have seen...)

Onto that point, anything can be justified. If the difference between to identical characters is 1 paragraph or 1 page then there really is no difference save for the player put a little more time in.

*break*

Now back to the question. The start was simply an observation I had, I have seen this in RL and in the few cons I have attended.

I do agree, posting Joe Non-Optimized on the forums might bring alot of "... ... ..."

It was posted as a topic for discussion and it has been replied too, which was the whole intent.
(else why post a thread that noone has an option about, re:posting non-optimized builds)

And the concensus is:
QUOTE (nathanross)
"Post Your Character to be Pimped"


That is want I was curious about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
It trolls!
post Mar 6 2008, 03:12 PM
Post #27


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 259
Joined: 2-September 07
From: In the AGS, underwater
Member No.: 13,049



Well, he could also feel insulted because there are actually players around who like optimized characters but also care about a colorful and consistent backstory and good roleplay.
You will agree with me on the conclusion that "All optimized characters are munnchkins" vs. "A character has to be severely gimped for roleplaying sakes!" is a common false dilemma and has been discussed to death, undergone cybermantic rituals and been argued about again until it was just a pile of bloody pulp.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larme
post Mar 6 2008, 03:19 PM
Post #28


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,653
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 15,430



QUOTE (Synner667 @ Mar 6 2008, 02:27 AM) *
Min/max-ing and munchkinism has always been around, because there's always been people who want to cheat and manipulate the system [Rules Lawyers are a tenacious breed].


The whole reason people post on Dumpshock is to make sure their characters are legal. How is it cheating to make a character within the rules?

QUOTE
Looking through these forums shows many Players generating Characters built by numbers, with no characterisation at all..
..Because many people can't play Characters, they just don't know how, it's not enforced by their GM, they see it as "unnecessary".

But it only happens with a GM who lets it happen, who don't think about the games they're running, who allow unfettered access to all source material


I see, the whole "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong" argument. I think that the players on this board are mature enough to decide how they want to play. While I agree that roleplaying is an integral part of Shadowrun, different players have different skill levels and different comfort zones on exactly how much roleplaying they do. And you have no basis for flaming them about it.

QUOTE
Games where combat is not the focus tend to attract Players and Characters where min/max-ing and munchkinsism is not so prevalent, because they choose not to play Characters like that.


Do they? I can make you a non-combat twink, be it a pornomancer, hacker, infiltrator, or any number of things. Combat is not the cause of munchkinism.

QUOTE
This all sounds very "old skool", boring and likely to get me flamed..
..But I roleplay to have fun, not to juggle figures and have a warm, happy, fuzzy feeling because I managed to spend less character points to do something and I can cause just a little bit more damage than someone else.


That's the key -- fun. That should clue you in that, however people play, they do it to have fun. Munchins don't make powerful characters to ruin the game, they do it because they enjoy it. And GMs who let them also enjoy it. What was the point of your post, other than to launch a meaningless flame on other peoples' playing or GMing style?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyoto Kid
post Mar 6 2008, 04:03 PM
Post #29


Bushido Cowgirl
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490



QUOTE (Larme @ Mar 5 2008, 06:09 PM) *
What else are people going to do on a message board? If you make a nice, flavorful character with a novella of background, nobody has a basis to critique it. All they can tell you is "do like" or "don't like." But if you're trying to make a really effective character, there are all kinds of ways for people to critique you. Numbers are concerete, and you can give concrete advice about them. If you're not concerned about the numbers, why would you bother to spend the time it takes to write up a character into a Dumpshock post?

...however if done right, flavourful characters can still be effective as I proved last session with the Short One. Her largest DP is 13 (& that is if she uses her Weapon Focus) and she still kicked hoop (sorry, still a bit old school this morning). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[edit]

Then there was my Met2000 merc Gracie (3rd ed) who is totally optimised to the point she could go total lead hose without a TN modifier and yet she was a helluva a fun character to roleplay.

This post has been edited by Kyoto Kid: Mar 6 2008, 04:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swirler
post Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM
Post #30


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 21-September 07
From: Houston
Member No.: 13,369



QUOTE (Synner667 @ Mar 6 2008, 01:27 AM) *
Min/max-ing and munchkinism has always been around, because there's always been people who want to cheat and manipulate the system [Rules Lawyers are a tenacious breed].
You forgot powergamers.

[note: this post does not reflect my views on anyone here and mostly reflects what I've seen in person and on other forums. I am serious. I do not meant anything against anyone here, well unless one of the people in my group start posting here lol]


no seriously. Anytime people "label" the way someone else plays it usually hurts someones feelings. I am not saying it is not often accurate however. There was a recent schizm in our gaming group because one person called another person a "powergamer". The ironic thing is, I would have called the one who said it the powergamer of the two of them. They are both most definitely meta-gamers, totally unable to leave RL out of the game or one game from another. One basically punished two people in a game he was running by making their characters totally ineffective and beating them up and making them feel useless. The other thinks of kicking the first out of his game, not because of anything he has done as a player but because of how he GM's. Anywho this all spawned several threads on rpg.net.

I personally get sick of the whole argument. On one end you have people who believe you have to squeeze every possible point out of a system and have to justify every single bit of a character with a quantifiable reason why you have something for a character with usable "in game effect that helps you 'win'!" On the other end you have people who believe "roleplaying" is making a deficient character who is not good at anything and is so crippled by his flaws that he can't fulfill any role in any team or anything. You expect them to lie in a bed with tubes sticking out of them. There is also another of the latter who thinks you have to be good at everything to the point that you are just mediocre at everything.

then both sides yell back and forth and call anyone who isn't on their side the other side. It just ends up being a bunch of braying jackasses going on and on. There is value in making a useful character and in making an interesting character, however if you go too far in either direction it becomes stupid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Mar 6 2008, 04:15 PM
Post #31


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



This thread is exactly the kind of flaming pile of crap people always point out when I'm trying to convince them that Dumpshock really isn't as bad a board to spend time on as they think it is.

And even if you do think you're modest Slymoon, it doesn't particularly matter, since the damage is kinda done, omae. The post presents a false dichotomy with a dollop of sweeping generalizations, and contains the classic "Kids today. Things just ain't like they used to be" subtext. There's a reason script writers go to the same kinda statements when presenting old people as crotchety and judgemental-- it works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElFenrir
post Mar 6 2008, 04:56 PM
Post #32


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,168
Joined: 15-April 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 7,337



Well, my take on the whole thing is that 'munchkin' doesn't always mean trying to throw the most dice(though yes, many do), it's about being a prick at the gaming table trying to ruin everyone's fun. Not all powergamers are munchkins. Some powergamers just like to have a big, Hong Kong Action movie fun time, and there are some who used to be under the yoke of a killer GM and HAD to severely optimize just to survive, and they got use to it. Still others played systems that might have rewarded it more.

I actually believe there can be what i call 'healthy minmaxing'. For example, someone might post their sam character with a Intuition of 3 and a Strength of 4(5). To me, there is nothing wrong with suggesting ''you know, you might drop Strength to 3, dig up 7,000 more nuyen for Muscle Augmentation 2 and make Intuition a 4, if you want to be faster''. However, if they see their character as being stronger naturally than more intuitive, they can turn down the suggestion. That example to me is not powergaming, it's just pointing out they could get a little something if they tweak a bit.

I also agree with the comment that sometimes new folks want to make sure they are doing something right. If someone really new posts their character has Infiltration, Shadowing, and Disguise at 2(24 points), and Palming of 3(12 points), with no specializations, someone might say ''you might consider taking Stealth Group of 3, and save 6 points where you can buy your Dodge(Ranged).'' Again, if the person wants to turn down the suggestion due to them seeing the character as being more Palm-y(is that a word? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) ), as the other ones, cool. But i don't think it's some sort of powergamey sin to do the skill group suggestion.

Sometimes people just get in the moods, too. Sometimes they want a low-key, sometimes middle ground, and yeah, sometimes high-powered, and they might suggest this when they post a critique (''yeah, this guy's being made for a pretty special John Woo type of campaign. Help?'')

But yeah, sadly these discussions end up degenerating into said shouting matches. Honestly, i don't care if person A likes to play bedridden characters, B likes jack of all trades but masters of none and C likes action heroes, if they're having fun. It only becomes a problem if they start saying the other's style of gaming is 'wrong'. Which people tend to do, for reasons i will never, ever know. It's not like they are proving anything.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyoto Kid
post Mar 6 2008, 06:45 PM
Post #33


Bushido Cowgirl
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490



..Swirler & ElFenrir, excellent posts.

I've played on both ends of the scale, as well as the middle and for the most part much managed to enjoy the experience as long as one of those spotlight hogging Jackasses didn't mess things up for everyone (& yes, I've dealt with enough of those in my time as well). To me, they're kind of like the schoolyard bully who always feels the need to be the centre of attention and a step above everyone else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swirler
post Mar 6 2008, 06:55 PM
Post #34


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 21-September 07
From: Houston
Member No.: 13,369



exactly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DireRadiant
post Mar 6 2008, 07:32 PM
Post #35


The Dragon Never Sleeps
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,924
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,667



forum CS <> Game CS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Mar 6 2008, 08:23 PM
Post #36


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



QUOTE (Slymoon @ Mar 6 2008, 10:04 AM) *
hah I am about as modest as they come.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 6 2008, 08:35 PM
Post #37


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



no way, i'm way more modest than him!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WearzManySkins
post Mar 6 2008, 08:47 PM
Post #38


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,159
Joined: 12-April 07
From: Ork Underground
Member No.: 11,440



QUOTE (mfb @ Mar 6 2008, 02:35 PM) *
no way, i'm way more modest than him!

Some opinions disagree. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

WMS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WearzManySkins
post Mar 6 2008, 08:58 PM
Post #39


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,159
Joined: 12-April 07
From: Ork Underground
Member No.: 11,440



I tend to create/build characters on a concept/idea, then if possible get the maximum tweak out I can get with out breaking out of the idea/concept.

Does that mean in some parties my characters not the optimized party member? yes.

WMS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stahlseele
post Mar 6 2008, 09:51 PM
Post #40


The ShadowComedian
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,538
Joined: 3-October 07
From: Hamburg, AGS
Member No.: 13,525



i may be what people call powergamer/munchkin . . it comes with experience i think O.o
i don't get to play even close to how often i would like to(either group or myself out of time), so i do the next best thing for me . . i prepare for the time WHEN i get to play . . i do this by building characters, to try and get a better grip on the rules used by that specific character . . i somehow come to the point where i think:"hey, that's a concept right there . . if it ain't good for ANYTHING else, i can allways throw it at the others in my group to maybe annoy/freak them out a little bit" and then i start building the character and do the whole math-excercise . . i didn't get to play even 10%(constantly sinking because i am still building) of the characters i built . . about 10% of the Characters are proof of concept things like:"see! i CAN build a good character that IS an elf" or "see, i CAN build characters with a good background-story all fleshed out and more or less self-explanatory" and maybe some day a GM will want to do more than just one time ever runs and one of those characters will actually get played . . else i build characters that i can have fun with and basically say:"fuck background-story, he will be probably be played only once" . . and if i have decided on one or the other i try to get the most bang for my buck out of the character . . either in stats/skills or in the fun i will have in playing them . . one of the characters i had the most fun with was a trickster, a practical-joker, a mage who did not do anything usefull but had ways to annoy other characters (all of them, NPC AND PC) that the whole group shook their heads at . . but most of the time i just look at what the others wanna play and hand the GM a pack of pre made characters and tell him to chose or ask the rest of the guys what they would like me to play or i just play what i think is sorely missing in the setup . . so we have the decker, we have the charisma 8 elven bitch, we have a mage, we have a rigger . . what's missing? oh, yeah, the Tank is missing . . i keep in the background, i let others do their thing, i WAIT for them to fuck up and when they do, i can say:"see, now you're all glad i brought my grenade-launcher" and heroically defend the rest of the pansies while we're on the run or do the full frontal assault to get us in/out or just blood carry one or two(yeah, happened, 2 dwarves got dropped simultanously, i was playing the STR16 Troll so i just picked them up and started running ignoring pretty much any attack on my character[Armor of 9 and 16 Body Dice are one fine thing in SR3] and made sure that they got out relatively unharmed) . . that's what i do, that's what i am good at . . annoying people and being the semi intelligent indoor tank with heavy weapons platform . . if they don't fuck up? good, i won't need to pay as much attention(which could be considered good roleplaying when being the team-troll) and just be there to intimidate or haul things around . . call me powergamer, call me munchkin . . but i dare you to tell me that a group does not need something like that from time to time, if the other players wanna have their all stylish but barely able to survive a single fist-fight specialist characters . .

in conclusion: i ain't there to be a good roleplayer, i ain't there to for good roleplaying either, i am there to have fun . . either with my buddies or on their expense . . but they know that and actually like that about me . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edge2054
post Mar 7 2008, 05:54 AM
Post #41


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 4,211



QUOTE (swirler @ Mar 6 2008, 04:09 PM) *
There is value in making a useful character and in making an interesting character, however if you go too far in either direction it becomes stupid.


This is what the whole roleplay vs. power-gamer argument in a nut shell boils down to. The important thing to keep in mind is that it's all subjective, different groups have different standards.

Like the guy above who said he built a character who's highest die pool was a 13, to me that feels pretty high. I see starting characters on these boards that roll 22 dice and it blows my mind (like the active night elf gun bunny thread). But that's my play style and the play style of my group, it's what we dig... mostly anyhow, our mage is pretty power gamed.

Also to put things into context I've made and played severely broken 2nd and 3rd edition characters like a 24 +4d6 initiative 'gunslinger' who throws 12 dice at every pistols test before adding in combat pool so I haven't always been into more 'normal' characters. It's just that I find the more or less average joe trying to scrape by a far more believable character concept then the ex-military/ex-company man/ex-government secret project type characters. I also find them easier to roleplay because their motivation comes off as something I can relate to as a person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 05:58 AM
Post #42


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



Some people power game. Some people build for role play. I have done characters for both. A GM really needs to specify if he is going to have a story based run or a power based run beforehand. Even when I do go all out for the math for a character, I still want to have him be a new and different character with a purpose in the world. Everyone needs a backstory - and no two backstories should be near or dear to each other. At least for my own characters, they're always different. But yeah, this is a problem with D&D just as much as it is with Shadowrun. It becomes a game of munchkinizing or breaking the system and meta-gaming to beat the GM/DM rather than actual role play. Which is why as a GM, I reward role playing and thought out actions over "my character rolls a lot of dice so he always wins" type mentalities or characters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Mar 7 2008, 06:09 AM
Post #43


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Slymoon @ Mar 6 2008, 11:04 AM) *
Then possibly you are actually looking for something to be insulted about. elitist... hah I am about as modest as they come.

If you want something to be insulted about, maybe its that you infact min/max/ point gouge and put together that whole 3 line backstory to justify. "I am a retired sniper, I kill things fast" (which unfortunately I have seen...)

Onto that point, anything can be justified. If the difference between to identical characters is 1 paragraph or 1 page then there really is no difference save for the player put a little more time in.


Ugh, this just drips with passive aggressive flippancy. It makes me sick.

Look, Slymoon, if you feel that people who crunch numbers are inferior gamers to yourself why don't you play Creepwoodrun?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t=0&start=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheGothfather
post Mar 7 2008, 06:36 AM
Post #44


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 112
Joined: 24-February 06
From: California, USA
Member No.: 8,303



The issue isn't at all that people on DS are necessarily powergamers, or even min/maxers. It's that the rules system is essentially agnostic toward roleplaying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Juggy#3
post Mar 7 2008, 06:39 AM
Post #45


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 20-February 08
Member No.: 15,695



QUOTE (BlueMax @ Mar 6 2008, 12:42 AM) *
The best characters, and by that I mean characters that my players tell stories about for years and years to come, are all "theme" characters.

Be it the Mystery Men knock offs
The Doc Wagon crew
or the Humanis Policlub chapter,

Parties with a theme make for the best character. As for the best stats, meh,


I generally start my characters with a general idea of "who I want them to be", then I go into "what I want them to do" and figure out the best way for them to do that. With D&D this is really easy for me, as I'm intimately familiar with the setting, lore, and rules of the D&D world.

With SR, I'm a total newbie, although I've made it a point to read as many of the SR books as I can get my hands on, and thus have developed somewhat of a knowledge of the SR lore. This being the case, I generally only need help in the last part of that, ie figuring out the best way for the character to do whatever it is that I want them to do.

Having them being the best that I can figure out at that in *NO* way impacts thier background, thier personality, thier characterization, or my ability to roleplay it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redjack
post Mar 7 2008, 06:39 AM
Post #46


Man Behind the Curtain
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 14,871
Joined: 2-July 89
From: End of the Yellow-Brick Road
Member No.: 3



So to move away from discussions about the posters and to the posts before a mod drops in and has to issue a thread warning (or worse)...

QUOTE (Vegetaman @ Mar 6 2008, 11:58 PM) *
Some people power game. Some people build for role play. I have done characters for both. A GM really needs to specify if he is going to have a story based run or a power based run beforehand..........

I think this is the key. Some GM's want a fast light game, running it more roll-playing than roll-playing. There's nothing wrong with that if everyone understands thats the game up front. Same for role-playing intense games. I'd had games without a single combat in the night and very little dice rolling. Had others that made me feel like I was in a dungeon. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

I have a couple of players in my table-top who have switched characters several times and like to 'tweak the build' on each new one. As long as we all have fun, thats really the point....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kremlin KOA
post Mar 7 2008, 06:43 AM
Post #47


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,590
Joined: 11-September 04
Member No.: 6,650



Hey Slymoon. Would this guy be an excercise in creating a character or an excercise in Min Maxing? Is he crunch or personality?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 06:50 AM
Post #48


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



QUOTE (Juggy#3 @ Mar 7 2008, 06:39 AM) *
I generally start my characters with a general idea of "who I want them to be", then I go into "what I want them to do" and figure out the best way for them to do that. With D&D this is really easy for me, as I'm intimately familiar with the setting, lore, and rules of the D&D world.

With SR, I'm a total newbie, although I've made it a point to read as many of the SR books as I can get my hands on, and thus have developed somewhat of a knowledge of the SR lore. This being the case, I generally only need help in the last part of that, ie figuring out the best way for the character to do whatever it is that I want them to do.

Having them being the best that I can figure out at that in *NO* way impacts thier background, thier personality, thier characterization, or my ability to roleplay it.


I find that Shadowrun lore is far easier to immerse yourself in. The set timeline and world is a lot better universe than the D&D one, I feel. Also, there's less room for this "har har I dominate the world" crap that a lot of D&D DMs throw at you, it would seem. But, in terms of building... Yes you should build your character to be as best as he can be. But his skills will determine some of his mannerisms.

For example, my last street samurai had a knowledge of Troll Thrash Metal Bands (we're talking an intense knowledge, here). In fact, it was the whole scene he was into when he wasn't into Shadowrunning. So really, how you build your character is directly related to who they are and what they do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Mar 7 2008, 07:22 AM
Post #49


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



As It trolls! has already pointed out, the stats vs. roleplaying argument is a false dilemma, since the two are unrelated in any way. You can have a min-maxed monster of a character with a 200-page backstory, or you can have a useless character with an semi-coherent, illogical half-paragraph background.

The numbers are a vital component of roleplaying, because they allow you to objectively quantify the things that you put in his background. Because SR4 isn't sit around the campfire, it's rolling dice to see if your character actually accomplishes what he is trying to do. And too many "roleplayers" forget that a character background isn't merely an exercise in creative writing, but something more specific. It is creating a character, in a game of professional criminals, who works with a team of other professional criminals, in a dangerous distopian world. The character should have a reason for being a shadowrunner, be able to work with other runners, and be able to meaningfully contribute to a team.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
b1ffov3rfl0w
post Mar 7 2008, 07:39 AM
Post #50


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 3-March 06
From: CalFree
Member No.: 8,329



QUOTE (swirler @ Mar 6 2008, 11:09 AM) *
On the other end you have people who believe "roleplaying" is making a deficient character who is not good at anything and is so crippled by his flaws that he can't fulfill any role in any team or anything. You expect them to lie in a bed with tubes sticking out of them.


Well, just think about the disproportionate number of Academy Awards that go to actors playing characters who are crazy, retarded, addicted, paralyzed or self-destructive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suppenhuhn
post Mar 7 2008, 10:34 AM
Post #51


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 268
Joined: 14-February 08
Member No.: 15,682



QUOTE (b1ffov3rfl0w @ Mar 7 2008, 08:39 AM) *
Well, just think about the disproportionate number of Academy Awards that go to actors playing characters who are crazy, retarded, addicted, paralyzed or self-destructive.


Because its so hard to play a kinesics 6 adept aka charles bronson. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maelwys
post Mar 7 2008, 11:52 AM
Post #52


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 143



I think the main difference people are seeing in the characters is simply an issue of mechanics. People aren't more or less likely to munch with SR4, its just that in SR4, everything works together moreso than in SR3. With SR3 if you wanted to be decent with a pistol, you really only needed the skill. Combat pool was sorta necessary, but it wouldn't kill the character concept if you were running around with 6 skill, but only 2 in quickness...you paid for it, but it wasn't that bad, because the two weren't directly linked.

In SR4 with everything being directly linked I think it causes characters to be created in a different manner, which is where some of the fears/views of tweaking come in to play.

Another possibility is the relatively limited advancement in some cases. As far as I can tell, unless the character has Aptitude for a skill, the max ever (not just at chargen) is 6. Even bonuses to the skill are limited, (x1.5), so really if someone wants to improve after a certain point, they're going to have to look for tweaks and esoteric dice pool modifiers (instead of skill modifier), where as before they were simply able to shrug, and pay alot of karma and just raise the skill again.

And since some of the tweaks have to be tricky to get around the dice pool/skill modifier problem, the forums are a a good place to see where tweaks are possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElFenrir
post Mar 7 2008, 04:33 PM
Post #53


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,168
Joined: 15-April 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 7,337



QUOTE (Maelwys @ Mar 7 2008, 07:52 AM) *
I think the main difference people are seeing in the characters is simply an issue of mechanics. People aren't more or less likely to munch with SR4, its just that in SR4, everything works together moreso than in SR3. With SR3 if you wanted to be decent with a pistol, you really only needed the skill. Combat pool was sorta necessary, but it wouldn't kill the character concept if you were running around with 6 skill, but only 2 in quickness...you paid for it, but it wasn't that bad, because the two weren't directly linked.

In SR4 with everything being directly linked I think it causes characters to be created in a different manner, which is where some of the fears/views of tweaking come in to play.

Another possibility is the relatively limited advancement in some cases. As far as I can tell, unless the character has Aptitude for a skill, the max ever (not just at chargen) is 6. Even bonuses to the skill are limited, (x1.5), so really if someone wants to improve after a certain point, they're going to have to look for tweaks and esoteric dice pool modifiers (instead of skill modifier), where as before they were simply able to shrug, and pay alot of karma and just raise the skill again.

And since some of the tweaks have to be tricky to get around the dice pool/skill modifier problem, the forums are a a good place to see where tweaks are possible.


This reminds me of the older SR's, indeed.

In SR3, if i wanted to make a mainly melee-fighter, with some firearms, i didn't have to do too much minmaxing. It gave you sufficient points to not have to worry too much. As usual when i create a character, i got the framework in mind and a couple of background bulletpoints, crunched the numbers, and then went back to fill in more(many times filling things in as i went along). A melee-heavy character i wanted to of course have a good melee skill/skills(say, Edged Weapon and Unarmed Combat), and a decent combat pool(fair scores in Quickness, Intelligence and Willpower. This is where it got a little hazy, many times ending up in what i call the Mensa Samurai Syndrome...but it wasn't too terrible). I didn't want to go overboard; but decent(skills of 4 in mental and 5 in Quickness, with some Quickness ware), was believable. Strength got a fair amount(it was a little more useful in those days. A firearm skill of choice and i had plenty of points to play around with to fully flesh out the character, with very little min-maxing needed.

The less you give, the more likely people are to minmax, on average. Im not saying everyone will. But when you allow 200 attribute points(and you dont want to spend that much), and 2 attributes that link to an amazing amount of skills(Agility and Logic), with very limited maxes, and hard caps on skills(making it rather tempting to max out a couple as high as you can at chargen and buying the rest later) IMO, you are more likely to see this minmax going on. Add this to your survivability(rounding up to get Physical and Stun tracks...Body affecting how much armor one can wear), and it's a recipie for Twinkie Stew. If you are a combat-oriented character, why not hard-max Agility and the Agility based skills and get it over with? Likewise with a face, just go ahead and grab all the Charisma and Influence skills with specializations that you can. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but im saying it can be damned tempting for some people.

Im not saying SR3 was free from this. Most instances, again, that i saw were the Super genius and Willfull samurai...ways to twink Initative were very popular, and people saw it was very cost effective to go ahead and max the skill at chargen-though you could go above 6 and keep going-than it was to get a couple lesser scores and support skills. One thing i loved about BeCKs was how it rewarded going that lesser route to have a balanced skillset..it was a system made to actually be more cost effective to go balanced.

But i tend to see these effective ''build practices' a bit more in SR4. Again, when you can pump 3 Attributes(Agility, Logic, Charisma), and basically be linked to 80% of the skills, it's pretty glaring.

It's funny, i actually enjoy all types of gaming, as ive said...from action to low key to everything in between, from gangers with novacoke habits and holdouts to cool professionals, i don't care. No matter what type is played though, a good character and personality is always fun to make. Just because im playing in a campaign that makes a John Woo movie look like the Carebears it doesn't mean i'm going to skimp on my background. And i think it's safe to say there are many gamers out there that are the same.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Mar 7 2008, 05:15 PM
Post #54


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



On the topic of min-maxing and mechanics, I wonder if there is a bit of a psychological effect from the hard caps on things. In SR3, skills could go arbitrarily high, but each point cost more and more karma, so eventually you got to the point where it just wasn't worth it to you to raise it anymore.
Apart from the hard cap, SR4 is exactly the same, and while that cap might've been above what people would otherwise strive for, putting that hard cap there is saying to the player, "This number right here, if you can get this, you'll be the BEST."
To put it another way, does the existence of the hard cap make some players want to achieve it, whereas if the hard cap had not been there they would've stopped attempting to raise that skill at a lower level, because there is no "goal"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jago668
post Mar 7 2008, 05:40 PM
Post #55


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 343
Joined: 30-January 06
Member No.: 8,212



I'm going to go with ElFenrir on this. When you limit what a character can start with, then you will see more min-maxing. People generally are not going to spread their points out and be average to subpar across the board. They will just buy up one or two things and pick the rest up on the cheap as they play. However if you give them enough points to be above average in a couple places, and average elsewhere that is what you will get more often.

On powergaming aspect. I will powergame, min/max like crazy. While I can write up extensive character backgrounds, that are coherent and reflect the character stats. I like to play a character a couple times, get a feel in for it and how it syncs up with the campaign first. As to why I min/max powergame, there are several reasons that go into it. First and foremost is, I tend to roll poorly, so I need to stack a couple extra bonuses or dice. Secondly I've had brutal GMs. Thirdly, I just enjoy making a guy that is really good at something. So if I'm going to make the character really good at something, I might as well go all out for it.

"Balanced" characters for us are the swinging two-handed swords around one handed able to fight off 6 people at once, and blasting holes through mountains. However you always had to take investigation in a white-wolf game. Because you had to roll it for everything. Tracking someone through the woods, investigation. Want to hotwire a car, investigation. Want to tail that guy through the crowd, investigation. As an example for an Exalted game we were told to make balanced characters. So everyone writes up an assortment of characters, the combat monkey had a dicepool of 6 I believe (about the same as a 7 or 8 for SR4). With charms all over the place etc. The GM promptly steals everyones gear, has us get into fights WAY over our heads, and has to make up weird off the wall stuff to keep us from dieing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElFenrir
post Mar 7 2008, 05:47 PM
Post #56


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,168
Joined: 15-April 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 7,337



QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Mar 7 2008, 12:15 PM) *
On the topic of min-maxing and mechanics, I wonder if there is a bit of a psychological effect from the hard caps on things. In SR3, skills could go arbitrarily high, but each point cost more and more karma, so eventually you got to the point where it just wasn't worth it to you to raise it anymore.
Apart from the hard cap, SR4 is exactly the same, and while that cap might've been above what people would otherwise strive for, putting that hard cap there is saying to the player, "This number right here, if you can get this, you'll be the BEST."
To put it another way, does the existence of the hard cap make some players want to achieve it, whereas if the hard cap had not been there they would've stopped attempting to raise that skill at a lower level, because there is no "goal"?


Psychological impact, indeed. I totally see what you are talking about here. Hell, i manage to fall into it myself sometimes.

As far as i know you can only have one Aptitude. Since even the super-hotshot classic prime runners also fall under here(ok, so maybe they can have multiple 7's), i mean, telling someone ''yeah, take your Hacking to 7...and you're Fastjack. How does that feel?'' Well, damn tempting to alot of people.

Thinking back to the old days, i think i can count on one hand the amount of times we actually pushed a natural skill past 6. I think a couple of times we may have started with 5(7), upped the 5 to a 6 and the 7 to an 8...and MAYBE the Specialization to a 9(still 1.5 times base skill), but that was it. And not often. Usually once we had the 6, we left it well alone.

But yeah, now that those hard caps are there...and for the record, we have a houserule that does away with them. We just made it more expensive, as the old one, and it gets more and more expensive. Somehow, removing that hard cap makes it more likely that people won't go nuts trying to hit it. Sure, you'll see 5's and 6's at chargen, but only for certain skills. These days we have alot of 4(+2)'s for the high skills.

I also think there's a psychological impact of the attribute limitation. Now, they were always there. You were limited by your priority. Take a high one, get lots of points. Take a low one, get less. Even in the old points system, you were limited to i think 30 total attribute points. Which was a crapload, i mean, that was a 5 down the line(equivalent of a 4 down the line now). But you can't even get a 4 down the line anymore. With karma costs of those low Attributes not too hard to raise(start with a 1, 6 karma gets it to 2 and 9 to 3...that's 15 karma, as opposed to the 20 BPs you'd have to spend of a precious limited resource). If you have 30, or even 27 attributes, you just didnt have to worry. You could easily get what you wanted. Again, i saw 1's rarely...and that was when folks ended up taking Attributes at priority D or E, and then again if they had the ol' Troll or Ork Mage and dumped 1's to their physical attributes(since the minuses on their mental ones required them to be pumped if they wanted a decent casting stat.)

Honestly, I would say Attributes are the things that it's easier to get high rather than Skills.

Take a healthy 15 year old human male. Ok, put him in school, regular, from 8 to 3 or whatever. Also, give him 2 hours per night, 5 nights a week, where he does a regular regiment of workout. Strength, Agility, Reaction and Body..endurance training, exercises. Give him healthy food. He studies, and he still even has free time at night, and his weekends are free to do whatever he wants; so he even has a life through this. By the time he's 18, he's going to have some impressive physical stats, and having studied hard, probably a good Logic score. He could easily run over the 200 limited BPs at chargen. And that's in 3 years. IMO, Attributes are easy to develop, and to me, that was what the old system sort of showed.

Skills take longer. That now rather vigorous 18 year old decides to go study engineering(read; Mechanics Group). It's going to take him alot longer than 3 years to get to a 4 Mechanics Group. That's veteran level. Now, perhaps a combat skill might be quicker, i think 4 years of good unarmed combat training can probably get him there, but those mental skills(Medicine and Surgery, anyone?) are going to take a hell of a lot longer to develop.

Hmm...i guess what im trying to say is that I don't get why they have to cap Attributes so much. Technically, while skills have a numerical cap...they don't have a number cap. You can leave your stats at all 1's(technically), get 50 resources of cyber to boost them, and spend 300 points on skills. Well, ok...i can see the mild point(since they are linked, there could be problems with folks gunning up all the attributes and just putting alot of low skills)...but isn't that the same thing as just leaving low Attributes, buying them up, and blowing 300 BPs on skills?

I also think if you removed many of the caps(let's say..keep a 6 costing 25 BP. Keep skills limited to 1 6 and rest 4 or less, or 2 5's with the same at chargen. Keep 50 BP limit on Resources.) But remove the 200 BP attribute limit and remove the hard cap to skills, going back to the old systems by making them cost more and more, to the point they REALLY have to want it. Im almost willing to bet there would be less minmaxing. I could be wrong and it could make the minmaxing explode..but i don't think so for some reason. That psychological limit would be gone.

EDIT:

I noticed this quote in the post above:

QUOTE
Secondly I've had brutal GMs.


This is probably the number one reason i've seen for powergaming. Get used to a playstyle, it's hard to break it.

And yeah, when i do my minmaxing, I just want someone to be effective at what they do, and be able to help the party as well. If the party has no gunbunny, and is relying on me if something goes horribly wrong(as it likes to do), then i want to be able to pull myself...AND their butts off the fire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Mar 7 2008, 06:03 PM
Post #57


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



In my experience, it wasn't usually the GM, but the other players who caused people to raise ratings. People wanted their character to be equal or better than the other PCs. The GM was often just adapting the opposition to the new "base level", after the players had raised the bar.

So, gunbunny 1 has a firearms skill of 6, and feels good. Along comes Gunbunny 2, with firearms 7 and a reflex recorder. After a few runs during which Gunbunny 1 saw GB2 rolling more dice (remember, more pool too, to use on such tests, since those were capped at the base skill) Gunbunny 1 feels the need to raise his firearms, and if he's at it, maybe boost it past Gunbunny 2. Now it's GB2's turn to feel the need to keep up...

If a character had a speciality, like decking, they did not feel that need too much, but in combat, everyone got a bit of that. Even the mage might have gotten some stronger magic after the sammy played with the latest greande launcher and higher skills.

SR3 was pretty easy to fall into that trap, since the differences were often very brutal.

GB1: 6 firearms, can use 6 combat pool (of his 9 or so total) on it.
GB2: 7 firearms, can use 7 combat pool (of his 9) on it. +1 for reflex recorder.

The lower the target numbers were for the tests, the more effective those 3 more dice were. If one had a point blank shot (i.e., TN2), 3 more dice often meant the difference between a serious or a deadly wound.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 06:07 PM
Post #58


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



I really need to read my SR4 handbook before I continue this conversation. SR3 is all I know. I try to min/max for some games, and I try to make a well balanced character for others. If it's role-play heavy, then I want balance, because it won't be a bunch of dice rolls where I have to shoot stuff. I need more fast-talking and recreation time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stahlseele
post Mar 7 2008, 06:17 PM
Post #59


The ShadowComedian
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,538
Joined: 3-October 07
From: Hamburg, AGS
Member No.: 13,525



in SR3 a 6 in any skill was good enough, because of combat and other pools to help with the important ones and knowledge skills being useable as bonus dice on those where the pools do not help . . and artwinkulation did give +1 dice to MANY skills . . and don't forget the very important difference of adjustable TARGET NUMBER . . even with a skill of 1, if you can drop the target number to, let's say 2 . . you can use 2 dice with an appropriate pool to roll one frigging 2 . . and that's pretty much likely i think . . if you are required to roll 3 successes with the TN of 2? well, crap . . no way if you ain't got no karma to spend/use . . another thing . . people complain about players making their characters up to bee GOOD at what they do . . one COULD consider this as good roleplaying more or less, because in the shadows, you are good at what you do, or you are nothing pretty soon . . from an in character point of view it STILL makes sense to get every last ounce of use out of available ressources, because it might mean that you get to live another day . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuchs
post Mar 7 2008, 06:19 PM
Post #60


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,328
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Zuerich
Member No.: 8,014



All the logical reasons and plausibility usually went out of the window once the other players started to pass you. And once everyone had 8 in firearms, the world started to pass you too if the GM was scaling the challenges.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 06:20 PM
Post #61


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



I usually buy Alphaware cyberware and just hold off getting the real combat beast upgrades until I get some in-game money to get more cyberware. The extra essence helps me down the line. But then I usually take the next nuyen block down in the money department, so I have a handful of extra BP to distribute to my character to make the most of things.

And you never know when that 1 or 2 points in Troll Thrash Metal Bands, Fine Elven Wines, Draconic Lore, or whatever you have - will come in handy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stahlseele
post Mar 7 2008, 06:26 PM
Post #62


The ShadowComedian
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,538
Joined: 3-October 07
From: Hamburg, AGS
Member No.: 13,525



ah yes, the time when the GM had me go:"WTF?" when he let me roll on my Knowledge of Troll Thrash-Metal Bands in the middle of Combat . . and yes, i rolled really well and identified that troll-adept making our lives a living hell right then and there . . all combat(in and out of character) came to a screeching halt when i announced loudly:"i know that guy! . . his music ain't THAT bad . ."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 06:38 PM
Post #63


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Mar 7 2008, 07:26 PM) *
ah yes, the time when the GM had me go:"WTF?" when he let me roll on my Knowledge of Troll Thrash-Metal Bands in the middle of Combat . . and yes, i rolled really well and identified that troll-adept making our lives a living hell right then and there . . all combat(in and out of character) came to a screeching halt when i announced loudly:"i know that guy! . . his music ain't THAT bad . ."


Now that is awesome. Mine got us out of a similar scrape when two of our team were about to be face-pounded by some large trolls. One of them was wearing a familiar jacket, and it happened to be of a troll thrash metal band. Turns out they were in the band (or were roadies of some sort, at any rate). They ended up letting me go, and they chucked both guys of our team out the front door on their face like beach balls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
It trolls!
post Mar 7 2008, 07:15 PM
Post #64


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 259
Joined: 2-September 07
From: In the AGS, underwater
Member No.: 13,049



QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Mar 7 2008, 07:17 PM) *
. . another thing . . people complain about players making their characters up to bee GOOD at what they do . . one COULD consider this as good roleplaying more or less, because in the shadows, you are good at what you do, or you are nothing pretty soon . . from an in character point of view it STILL makes sense to get every last ounce of use out of available ressources, because it might mean that you get to live another day . .


I know I might sound repetitive, but good roleplaying is not tied to how good a character is at his job, but rather that his sheet is plausible and he's well-played. There are certain standards that I find apply universally, like "Don't squeeze BP from Allergies to Mars rocks or Incompetence: Nautic Mechanic in a desert campaign" and some details that vary from GM to GM. But people who tell you that your character has to be severely gimped for good roleplaying to ensue, are just elitist jerks. No more, no less.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 07:22 PM
Post #65


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



QUOTE (It trolls! @ Mar 7 2008, 01:15 PM) *
I know I might sound repetitive, but good roleplaying is not tied to how good a character is at his job, but rather that his sheet is plausible and he's well-played. There are certain standards that I find apply universally, like "Don't squeeze BP from Allergies to Mars rocks or Incompetence: Nautic Mechanic in a desert campaign" and some details that vary from GM to GM. But people who tell you that your character has to be severely gimped for good roleplaying to ensue, are just elitist jerks. No more, no less.


Severely gimped? No way. But everything in moderation. You have to find the balance between ultimate killing machine and fun to role play. Generic mass murderer elite #9013483843 has been run into the ground. Everybody tries to be a badass, but how many badasses are there really? It takes some good planning and role playing to make a truly badass character. IMO. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stahlseele
post Mar 7 2008, 07:25 PM
Post #66


The ShadowComedian
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,538
Joined: 3-October 07
From: Hamburg, AGS
Member No.: 13,525



nah, i usually squeeze my points from things like bad karma, Cursed karma and allergy/phobia medium/light to dogs *g*
But if i write into a Character Background that he's grown up being a hunter, using a Rifle since hes been a boy, having had FUN with those Weapons, doind a little bit of competetive shooting then by the gods, i will max out anything shooty related . . well, not heavy weapons and the such, but certainly long-arms and pistols . .
I don't play Badasses . . i play general asses because i am an ass and thus feel i can do a convincing ass-character *g*
My characters may be fighting machines, but i generally don't want them to be cool elitist killers . . even if i can headshot somebody at 1000m in 9 out of 10 cases, i'll more likely treat it as a sport then assassination <.< . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 07:51 PM
Post #67


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Mar 7 2008, 01:25 PM) *
nah, i usually squeeze my points from things like bad karma, Cursed karma and allergy/phobia medium/light to dogs *g*
But if i write into a Character Background that he's grown up being a hunter, using a Rifle since hes been a boy, having had FUN with those Weapons, doind a little bit of competetive shooting then by the gods, i will max out anything shooty related . . well, not heavy weapons and the such, but certainly long-arms and pistols . .
I don't play Badasses . . i play general asses because i am an ass and thus feel i can do a convincing ass-character *g*
My characters may be fighting machines, but i generally don't want them to be cool elitist killers . . even if i can headshot somebody at 1000m in 9 out of 10 cases, i'll more likely treat it as a sport then assassination <.< . .


Exactly. I only ever played one character who was a "badass" and he was just a cold blooded killer who did shadowrunning as a bloodsport. But he used melee weapons mostly (knives and polearms). It was a cool character at least. Other than that, just your typical street samurai, and despite their core being generic you can specialize them in so many ways. There's really a lot of potential for great role playing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElFenrir
post Mar 7 2008, 08:49 PM
Post #68


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,168
Joined: 15-April 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 7,337



QUOTE (Vegetaman @ Mar 7 2008, 02:22 PM) *
Severely gimped? No way. But everything in moderation. You have to find the balance between ultimate killing machine and fun to role play. Generic mass murderer elite #9013483843 has been run into the ground. Everybody tries to be a badass, but how many badasses are there really? It takes some good planning and role playing to make a truly badass character. IMO. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)



But then again, what is a badass exactly?

There is the 'classic' example of the dual-pistol wielding, sword slinging, trenchcoat wearing badasses. Your John Prestons and the like.

You have the accidental badasses. The ones who always manage to pull something out of their asses at the last minute to save the day.

Your suave, James Bond-esque badasses....gentleman assassins, and the like. Also considered badass, but not as 'in your face' as the first option.

Some might consider a variant of Character A, only using magic, a badass.

Hell, you can think to fast car driving drone rigging badasses.

There are many types of badasses. Thing is, there's nothing, IMO, inherently wrong with wanting to play a badass. And let's face it...many concepts have been done before. Many, many, concepts. Happy go lucky characters. Sad angsty ones. In between. Happy guys with a tragic past. Tragic people with a happy past. Physical badasses. Magical badasses. Physical and magical badasses. Gun badasses. Sword badasses. They've all been done.

It's really tough to come up with a 110% original idea. I mean, mixing and matching them work. But if someone can inject a decently original background into an existing archetype, and it's cool and they have fun, i don't see anything wrong with that.

I think its natural that folks like to play badasses. I mean, tabletop is a game. Many people find it more fun to play someone higher on the food chain. And hell, some love the underdogs too. But without the badasses, the underdogs, and everyone in between...well, there would be less character types. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that 'badass' isn't as much a skill or attribute set as much as it is attitude. Not all combat characters are badasses, after all. You can be excellent in a fight or a shootout but not be 'a badass' so to speak.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 7 2008, 08:58 PM
Post #69


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



The 110% original thing is where I strain to get to with my own campaigns and GM. I take a seemingly generic mission and add all sorts of oddities and bad guys with weird quirks and styles that really spices the game up. And every now and again I throw in an off the wall run or introduce them to other teams of Shadowrunners that are completely off the wall. Of all the characters I have ever made, I only give two of them credit for being original. I commonly use them as bad guys in other games I run as they're very powerful min/max'd characters who make good standalone bosses or targets. And they're both badasses.

To me, it's all about the little flair. Like, say you have a troll mage... Well, that's bland. But then let's give him a Hawaiian Shirt. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What next? Well, how about a street samurai whose plain clothes over his armor have the text "HAVE A NICE DAY." on them (or the back of them)? It's the little things you do to spruce it up that make the difference, I believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rasumichin
post Mar 8 2008, 01:49 AM
Post #70


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,300
Joined: 6-February 08
From: Cologne, Germany
Member No.: 15,648



QUOTE (Larme @ Mar 6 2008, 04:19 PM) *
I see, the whole "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong" argument.


In fact, it's even worse than that.
Synner 667's claim comes down to "if you play the game using the rules as written, you are cheating".
This statement is so utterly and fundamentally wrong that i still fail to imagine how he came up with that gem.
Priceless.

Don't get me wrong, if you're all "i as a GM have to break the rules to make the game work" and "I'm god, we could as well just throw the rulebook out of the window and play freeform, but i'm too stuck in traditional roleplaying to do that", fine.
Wouldn't want to play in a group like that, but i'm not going to tell anyone else how to practise our hobby.

But assuming that someone who has built a character completely within the limits of the rules, using only material allowed in his group (oh, i forgot it's a huge mistake to grant players access to anything, they'll just abuse it and screw their potential to roleplay convincingly) is actually cheating...that's just amazing.




As far as three line backstories are concerned...yeah, i do write longer backstories than that, everybody i play with does, and that does not even begin to take into account how much thought i put in fleshing out connections, development possibilities and potential plot hooks for my PCs...excuse me, soulless numbercrunchy munching exercises.

But that's not the point.
It's not about the backstory, just as playing to win is not only about having high stats.

It's about bringing the character to life at the actual gaming table.
That's where the action takes part.
Good roleplaying is not as foreseeable as all the backstory fictionists sometimes seem to think.

It's about developing a feel for your interpretation of the character and, like all creative processes, finding what you where not looking for.
What you couldn't look for, as you didn't even know it existed beforehand.
It's about coming up with ideas that challenge your basic assumptions, about spontaneity and good improvisation.
It's about not sticking to the note sheet, but going out to jam.
A communicative, surprising and thought-provoking activity.

As you see, i love roleplaying.
The whole storytelling and method acting thing.
I'm really, really into that aspect of the game.

Does that mean i'm not interested in winning?
As in "being able to succeed at the task my character will be confronted with"?
Of course it doesn't.
When the dice come out, i want to kick some serious ass.
I want opportunities to influence the game, to do something.
To plan and scheme and rock and roll.

For that, i need good builds.
And statting them up is tons of fun to me, as i'm an enthusiast about all aspects of RPGs, including the rules systems.

I want to take the system apart, take a look at the very gears that make it up and reassemble them in new, imaginative ways.
I don't give a damn about taking some ultraoptimized forum build and putting everybody to shame with my obscenely high dice pools.
I minmax as a play of thought, as a design challenge.

I want characters who surprise me in how they actually work out.

And i find an aesthetic fulfillment in good builds.
There is a unique elegance in the efficiency of a minmaxed character.
It's like a perfectly functional piece of industrial design.

And just like you can put a high performance engine under the hood of a stylistically superior Aston Martin V8 Vantage or in a squat-ugly, midlife-crisis-shouting Lamborghini, you can, roleplay-wise, go in any direction with such a build, just as you can do with a "suboptimal" concept.

Some might argue that this feels different than a character who started as a background concept and was statted out afterwards, but such before-after ways of designing are not my cup of tea, anyway.

It's a dynamic process.
I see a certain rule, a piece of gear, a magical tradition or whatever, that inspires me, i start mentally making a rough sketch of the character, then i go on with further elaborating the mechanical aspects and so on.

It's a constant feedback between two parts of the design process and in the end, i have something i could never have thought of.
And that's what i am always looking for, be it in roleplaying, when making music or when i try out a new cooking recipe for the first time.
Finding what i could not have expected and expanding my experiences.

Damn, now i am sounding elitist.
Sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vegetaman
post Mar 8 2008, 02:22 AM
Post #71


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 20-March 02
From: Illinois
Member No.: 2,421



To be fair, in my group it usually works out that the number crunchers are bad at role playing. Granted, that's not to say the other guys are good at it, but they usually are more open to learning or going with the flow. The number crunchers usually don't give two craps about the game unless it consists of rolling dice to crush stuff and blow things away. They like me to have all the important story and descriptive stuff to say so they just go "I shoot him." or "I leave.". No imagination at all. Though it may because I'm at college and there's an age gap (meaning I'm dealing with the teenage mindset). Things they have to think out or act out, they fail miserably at. And when said people GM games, they usually play the "I am god, the universe is mine, bow to me fools!" card. I try to go more freeform, and I am guilty of min-maxing certain aspects of my character (namely the ones that make other people end up in a world of hurt), but I leave some leftover points for specializations I think are cool or would flesh my character out. But really it just boils down to personal preference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2025 - 08:57 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.