Shadowrun Tropes Options

[Demonseed Elite]

I might perhaps be crazy, but I've never made an either deliberately gimped or particularly optimized character. I like my characters to be fairly typical with your usual (meta)human flaws.

[Stahlseele]

Yes, you are crazy.
But not for that reason ^^

I don't really TRY to optimize all my characters and i TRY to give them some versatility and a semblance of life/personality.
but the optimizing seems to come naturally to me somehow ^^

[Zaranthan]

but the optimizing seems to come naturally to me somehow ^^

It comes naturally to everyone. It's called adaptation and survival. It's how every animal since we first collected a bunch of amoebas into one creature lived long enough to make some offspring.

Situation: You're stalking through the forest, gathering berries to eat. You hear a rustling sound in the bushes nearby.
Response A: Investigate the sound.
Response B: Assume it's a predator, run for your life.

Those who chose B have optimized. Those who chose A have been eaten by leopards. Those who argue against choosing to make optimized characters are arguing against evolution itself. And we all know how well THAT works.

[Demonseed Elite]

Character creation isn't an evolutionary process. Characters are built and designed, they don't evolve. We're the Intelligent Designer!

[Stahlseele]

We COULD argue about Intelligent Design. Especially, the Intelligent part *snickers*

[Wesley Street]

I might perhaps be crazy, but I've never made an either deliberately gimped or particularly optimized character. I like my characters to be fairly typical with your usual (meta)human flaws.

I think this is the typical attitude of most gamers who are as interested in story possibilities as they are defeating some sort of fictional objective.

It's natural for many gamers to want to play some sort of (anti)heroic ideal and tailor their characters to fit that mold. And to use only the "movie cool" flaws like a mild addiction to booze. But I'm more impressed by players who push the curve when it comes to the possibilities. Like the SR player who built a character based on contacts and charisma skills and used NPCs as his eyes, ears and hands. I think playing a wheel-chair bound hacker or mystic character would be fascinating and I have a quadriplegic hacker on stand-by for whenever I can actually play a game. I can also envision an aging fire-support specialist in a heavily modified Evo Orderly.

Creative approaches to gaming and character development should always be encouraged. Just because a PC isn't a mini-gun toting troll bad ass doesn't mean he's useless. And viewing him as such simply because one type of gamer wants to treat RPGing as something that one "wins" is outside the spirit and completely misses the point.

I come from the school of writer/storyteller/world builder who uses games as his medium rather than a gamer who gets hung up on beating the statistical odds. If I wanted to do that I'd play a game in which I could win money. Like professional sports or poker... or Magic the Gathering.

Character creation isn't an evolutionary process. Characters are built and designed, they don't evolve. We're the Intelligent Designer!

Apologies if I'm arguing semantics but traditional character generation isn't evolutionary but long-term character creation definitely is. PCs typically evolve over time as the player adapts to the world the GM presents. Arguably it could also be considered evolution when, through trial-and-error, a player decides he doesn't like the path a character is headed down and tries a new approach.

[Malachi]

Creative approaches to gaming and character development should always be encouraged. Just because a PC isn't a mini-gun toting troll bad ass doesn't mean he's useless. And viewing him as such simply because one type of gamer wants to treat RPGing as something that one "wins" is outside the spirit and completely misses the point.

I come from the school of writer/storyteller/world builder who uses games as his medium rather than a gamer who gets hung up on beating the statistical odds. If I wanted to do that I'd play a game in which I could win money. Like professional sports or poker... or Magic the Gathering.

QFT.

I couldn't have put my thoughts any better. My current group is made up of a bunch of Warhammer 40k players and I have been extremely pleased at the dynamic it creates. When we sit down to play SR, there's none of the stuff that I usually seen born from a mentality to "win" the game. I think my players get all of that "I want to win" stuff out when they play 40k which, unlike RPGs, is actually designed and intended for "power-builds" and "I win" scenarios.

[Wesley Street]

Spot on! Warhammer 40K and men with gray beards re-enacting the Battle of Gettysburg with pewter minis are exactly what I have in mind for an "I win" style of play. It's a very old-school miniature war-gaming mentality. I know that modern RPGs evolved out of the mini-based war-gaming and I respect that. But it's long past time to leave that nest behind.

[GreyBrother]

But, there are people who still enjoy it. (Myself not included, i'm with Wesley street on the storyteller front)

[Wesley Street]

Before anyone gets the wrong impression I do like mini-based war gaming. I think it's really fun. And though the two can certainly overlap it's a different beast from strict war-gaming and strict RPGing.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

You're just not getting it, are you?

All I'm saying is that people who deliberately choose to make their characters weaker -- regardless of whether the characters are created by story or by rules -- are by necessity hurting the party. I very much disagree with a lot of what you're saying, as I feel it attempts to demonstrate a relationship between combat and optimization where there is none, but all that's entirely beside the point.

[Critias]

So what counts as "weaker" in your book? How "optimized" does someone have to be in order to remain an asset to their group? Do they need to be one of the ridiculous 20+ dice Pornomancers to be a successful Face-type, for instance?

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I don't care if someone's playing a pornomancer or an archetype out of the book, I'ma yell at them if they take an Addiction to something they're Allergic to.

[Glyph]

I don't see why any character should not be optimized. I think people think "optimized" and envision a typical Dumpshock dice-pool exercise. But if you make a character with weak but broad skills and lots of flaws in a game where that is the play style, then your character is optimized - for that game.

Characters should be designed for success within the context of the game that they will be played in. If most of the characters have dice pools of 12, then a combat character with a dice pool of 15 will be a powerhouse, but a dice pool of 22 might be overkill; you have wasted resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and furthermore, the GM might go out of his way to target your character. Anyone can max something out - it's harder to know where the sweet spot is. Metagaming is not always bad! Don't just fiddle with numbers and gear - ask yourself questions such as "If I take the dependent flaw, will it get my character some spotlight time and roleplaying karma, or will this NPC wind up being kidnapped by my enemies every other session?"

When you don't know what kind of game it is, though, tsuyoshikentsu's approach (make a competent character who could plausibly do the dangerous work that he does for a living) is closer to "default" Shadowrun than someone who is intentionally gimped (and to me, there is a difference between not-quite-optimal, and gimped). Something that could be a compelling flaw in some games can get your character flatlined in the first session in other games.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I couldn't agree with Glyph more.

[Critias]

I think people think "optimized" and envision a typical Dumpshock dice-pool exercise.

Well, that's because that's what "optimized" means, by default. It means "to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible," according to my old buddy Webster.

So when I see people insisting every character is either "optimized" or "gimped," I can't help but picture the ridiculous dice pool exercises, because by definition that's what optimized means. The crazy Mr Luckys and Pornomancers of the world, the 20+ dice pistol Adepts, the Trolls that are impossible to kill with physical damage, etc, etc, etc. And to me that's not an optimized character, because that's not a character at all. And when folks insist you're either "optimized" like that, or you're a willful and purposeful liability to your Shadowrunning group, well...it's easy to want to argue against that.

If you mean, rather, that any given character should be optimized for that game and gaming table, then that's flat out what I said already so I'm not sure why it feels like we're in disagreement about anything. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Ancient History]

I don't care if someone's playing a pornomancer or an archetype out of the book, I'ma yell at them if they take an Addiction to something they're Allergic to.

Lemme get this straight: you basically disapprove if a player takes any negative quality for their character, or just ones that you feel are inconvenient to other characters?

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Lemme get this straight: you basically disapprove if a player takes any negative quality for their character, or just ones that you feel are inconvenient to other characters?

Actually, I encourage taking as many negative qualities as is possible, because you can do a lot of stuff with 35 BP.

But when a party member is selecting his negative qualities and chooses to put himself at a near-constant penalty for no reason other than "I want to make a flawed character" in a game that's not set up around that, I get upset. I mean, I'd PREFER it if everyone took Addiction (Betel), Day Job, etc., because those kinds of qualities hurt the group the least (and can even be a bonus), but I won't tell someone they're wrong until they deliberately start making bad choices for -- frankly -- no good reason.

[Bert]

-Edit-
Sorry. Didn't mean to post. I need to stop drinking... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

[Fuchs]

Actually, I encourage taking as many negative qualities as is possible, because you can do a lot of stuff with 35 BP.

But when a party member is selecting his negative qualities and chooses to put himself at a near-constant penalty for no reason other than "I want to make a flawed character" in a game that's not set up around that, I get upset. I mean, I'd PREFER it if everyone took Addiction (Betel), Day Job, etc., because those kinds of qualities hurt the group the least (and can even be a bonus), but I won't tell someone they're wrong until they deliberately start making bad choices for -- frankly -- no good reason.

When does "I want to have fun" start being a good reason? Is it ok not to take a specialisation, for example, and be 2 dice worse than one could be?

[Stahlseele]

Having fun is allways a good Reason. If it'S not to the detriment of the fun of others at least.
Where is ALLWAYS being 2 Dice less than you could be any fun? Either you suffer -2 Dice from being in Withdrawl, or you suffer from -2 Dice because you frigging injected yourself with a Poison that you are frigging addicted to. How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?

[WyldKnight]

All I think tsuyoshikentsu is saying is that its fine to make any character, any ideal, any concept, as long as it doesn't hurt the group or the story itself. I may be new to the whole thing, I have only played in a few games, but even I see the reason in this. Having fun is the golden rule of almost every pass time in existence but one person’s idea of fun can quickly become another’s nightmare if they aren't made for the game at hand. If I was playing in a game that was heavy on role play and social abilities (perhaps a game where instead of runners you were negotiators or diplomats) then someone coming to the table with a tricked out cyber adept street sam would rub me the wrong way. The same could be said for someone being a pacifist hippie in a straight up "I win" scenario type of game since, and be honest with yourselves, sometimes you just wanna blow crap up.

[Mäx]

How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?

By first being addicted and then getting allergic to the stuff.

[Fuchs]

Having fun is allways a good Reason. If it'S not to the detriment of the fun of others at least.
Where is ALLWAYS being 2 Dice less than you could be any fun? Either you suffer -2 Dice from being in Withdrawl, or you suffer from -2 Dice because you frigging injected yourself with a Poison that you are frigging addicted to. How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?

By your logic playing a face that is not a pornomancer, and therefore has always 10+ dice less than would be possible is no fun.

If you're arguing numbers then it doesn't matter if you always have a negative modifer of -2, or if you always lack a positive modifier of +2 you could have taken.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

....Annnnnd I suddenly feel really awkward, as I just realized that other people in the group in question read this board.

But at least they agree with me! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)