[X] My Assistant

[Zak]

It wasn't meant as a personal attack, I just rolled with the example. Sorry, if it came across in a rude way.

Sure, BBB only some 'specialist pools' are pretty limited and pushing a dp to 12 or even 14 sometimes feels stretching it. With all those splatbooks however 14+ is pretty easily achieved in any given field without much hassle or twinkery. And thanks to easy bonus dice from gear or ware this doesn't even cut deep into your skill point BP pool.

[cndblank]

As many have already noted, it is going to depend on your GM. I am they type of GM that does not care for Power Gaming, and by extension, Min/Maxing. If you come to my table with a min/maxed character, the first thing I am going to do is make an observation that your character looks a bit unbalanced, and that you may want to fix that. Ignore my observation, and you will have a target on your forehead. Others will look at it differently, your best bet is to discuss it with your GM first, and then with your group as a whole. The people you play with should be the determining factor, not the consensus on Dumpshock.

Is it power gaming to make sure that your character hold up his end?

Any way what are you going to take 5 level 1 skills for 20 BP which you can pick up with experience for 20 Karma or one rating 5 skill for that same 20 BP that can keep you alive and would cost 32 karma in game?



Given that, you are playing a team of specialist and you have to be able to hold down your specialty.

Jack of all Trades is a specialty too.

And the GM and the group determine what meets the requirements and what doesn't.



Finally SR4 characters are made of glass and carrying hammers.

A GM can whack a power gamer in SR without working a sweat up (given that you can hit a PC with a tax audit, a dragon, and his girlfriend calling up to say "We need to talk" all at the same time.

Just hit them where they are weak.

And as for the pornomancer, you just have to learn to say NO (which it sounds like you have down).

[Glyph]

If you come to my table with a min/maxed character, the first thing I am going to do is make an observation that your character looks a bit unbalanced, and that you may want to fix that. Ignore my observation, and you will have a target on your forehead.

@toturi:
See, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said sometimes it's better to have 15 dice in your specialty, and shore up some weak areas, than to have 20 dice. Yes, it's a lethal game where the cost of failure is high, but if the opposition is set up so that 15 dice are going to be enough, and going over 15 only gets you "a target on your forehead", then it's better to go with the flow and adjust your character to the table.

You should always include how the game is being run in your character creation calculations. If it's Kerrang's game, then 15 dice might be wise; if it's Zak's game, 20 dice might be better.


@Kerrang:
Min-maxed characters are ones that are built so that their advantages are optimized, and their disadvantages are minimized. People seem to confuse "min-maxed" with "hyper-specialized" a lot on these boards. Hyper-specialists are the ones that tend to be lopsided, while a min-maxed character will be able to cover his specialty and still be decent in other areas.

[Traul]

The BP system encourages hyper specialization with the skills and stats maxed or mined.

It is not the BP system on its own, but the mix with the karma system and its quadratic costs.

Funny thing: in signal processing, one of the most famous algorithms that uses this mix of linear and quadratic constraints to obtain unbalanced coefficients is called BP too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

[Kerrang]

@Kerrang:
Min-maxed characters are ones that are built so that their advantages are optimized, and their disadvantages are minimized. People seem to confuse "min-maxed" with "hyper-specialized" a lot on these boards. Hyper-specialists are the ones that tend to be lopsided, while a min-maxed character will be able to cover his specialty and still be decent in other areas.

Then we are using differing definitions of min/maxing. The definition I am operating on is the one where you maximize the ratings of attributes and skills you perceive as beneficial to your character, and minimize the ratings of skills and attributes that you feel do not benefit your character. A min/maxed starting character in SR is one which has one or more attributes at 6, a couple more at 5, and the rest at 1. The same character will have a bare handful of skills, all at rating 6, and that is just the tip of the iceberg, there are many telling aspects of gear and magic choices that contribute to the overall min/maxed character. Basically, any character that looks like it could have come from a Dumpshock "Build the Best X" thread, where X is a type of character found in SR, is min/maxed.

[Cheshyr]

I'll start this by saying I'm a min/maxer, by any definition. I'm a player, and a GM, so I get to play both sides of this.

The BP + Karma system does indirectly reward higher starting stats. Going from 1 to 2 in a stat costs 10BP or 10 Karma. Going from 4 to 5 in a stat costs 10BP or 25 Karma. Going from 5 to 6 will cost 15BP or 30 Karma. A savvy player will notice this fairly early in the process, and run their critical stats up to 1 less than max where they can, in an attempt to make upgrading easier in-game and take full advantage of their starting BP allocation.

As a player, I run a Troll Brick. This has caused some problems in gameplay... the GM had trouble balancing combat when I could autosoak most of a Frag Grenade, but stray fire from a Assault Rifle disabled other party members. On the same note, I'm useless in a great many situations that don't directly relate to combat. It's frustrating at times, but I'm coming to terms with the character concept I created. I would have been a bit more apprehensive if the GM had artificially imposed limitations outside of the rules, especially if I had gotten killed because of them. Likewise, I expect the GM to target my weaknesses. That's why they're there... and it gives me something to either fix or mitigate between sessions.

As a GM, I've encouraged the players to min/max, and have prepared for them to do so. This has backfired a little bit in that the diverse characters are seeing more action during setup. I expect this to change a little bit when we get to the meat of the run and the specialists have more opportunity to show their stuff. I can't really express an opinion until this Thursday.

My general impression is that either way is fine as long as the players and GM agree on it. A min/maxer in a generalist's game will feel resentful for being externally limited and continuously targeted, while the other players get irritated and the GM frustrated. A generalist in a min/maxer's game has a very real chance of getting accidentally slaughtered. In the end, I believe it's the GMs responsibility to balance things so that every player is allowed to play a game they enjoy without being unnecessarily impacted by the play style of the other game members.

[Glyph]

The definition I am operating on is the one where you maximize the ratings of attributes and skills you perceive as beneficial to your character, and minimize the ratings of skills and attributes that you feel do not benefit your character.

I guess we agree on the definition, and disagree on the interpretation of the definition. To me, being hyper-specialized to the point that the character has glaring weaknesses is ignoring the "min" part of min-maxing. I don't consider the "most dice for X" builds to be optimal ones for play - they are more number-crunching exercises.

The pornomancer, for instance, I would drastically change if I wanted to play a similar character (entertainer/seductress-style face). I would drop too-costly things like hard-maxed Charisma or the aptitude quality, get rid of a lot of qualities and items that give too-conditional modifiers or drawbacks (pheromone receptors, which can give penalties in places like crowds; the fame quality, which makes it exponentially difficult to function as a runner, etc.), and drop the empathy software, simply because I find it cheesy. I would also buy the Influence skill group instead of pumping up Con. With the points I saved, I would be able to make a far more well-rounded character.

That character still might be rolling social skills in the high teens, though. Characters that could be considered "powergaming" characters don't have to be ultra-specialized. They can get that way when you start going past 20 dice, but before then, you can have characters who are very good in multiple areas. And you don't need to try that hard, or exploit any rules loopholes, to do it, either. Take a human with Agility: 4, add a suprathyroid gland and muscle toner: 4 (both acquired with the restricted gear quality), get pistols at 6, with a specialization in semi-automatics, a reflex recorder for pistols, and a smartlink. That character rolls 20 dice, and could still be good at lots of other things. Indeed, with the boost to physical Attributes to free up points to spend on skills, and the high Agility (which is used with lots of skills), the character could easily wind up with higher dice pools, for more things, than a character built as a generalist.

Would you have a problem with a character throwing 20 dice, if that character didn't have glaring weaknesses in other areas? If you do, it might be wise to mention it to players ahead of time. Some GMs seem to think that players should automatically intuit what an "acceptable" level of power is, but in truth, the rules allow for a very wide range of power. This lets players explore a wide range of concepts, but care should be taken that either everyone is on the same page, or everyone is mature enough to play what they have made, weaknesses and all. This not only means the pistols expert not starting a fight because he is "bored" during negotiations, but the pistols/armorer/demolitions/gunnery guy not whining that the pure combat guy is rolling more dice than him for pistols.

[Ayeohx]

...it probably differs from table to table... but i find it hard to reconsile the desire for a well balanced character that can handle the myriad of challenges, with the desire to make him really good at what his focus is.

You're correct; it totally depends on the group. I'm running a 3 player game (1 GM, 2 players) and balanced characters are a must. I run the game RAW and I don't pull any punches. That said, the players take lower level missions that they believe that they are capable of finishing.

I mean, being average is a 6 DP. And average is not so hot in SR.

Depends on the difficulty level. The game considers a 3 to be professional level (skillwise). The GM should remember this and adjust the game and their NPCs accordingly. Doing otherwise only pushes players to create min/maxed characters.

There are a lot of must have skills IMO, I end up with things like a perception of 2 and negotiations 3(with 2 Cha). Is it a waste of points?

Not in my campaign. A 5DP is better than none. And if your clever that 5 DP skill can be increased (blackmail, gadgets, or any other sort of edge).

I guess Edge is the balance?

No one should have to depend on their edge to get them through skill checks. That sort of luck will run out. Ever seen someone that doesn't really know how to do their job but they are good at improv and BSing? Eventually that luck will run out. Or they get better before they get fired. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

how much do the gm's out there let slide/punish a gun bunnie with no stealth or social skills? or a face with no perception? especially when they are game breakingly good at their specialty?

It's like I tell my players "I don't do anything to you, the game world does". Shadowrun is based on gritty realism. The gameworld plays out realistically; it's their jobs to interact with it. If your characters doesn't have the skills to survive in it then you'll be making a new one very soon - better luck next time.

[Tyraxus]

Can I just throw in a couple of nuyen on the min/max issue?

First, some background. Personally, I have degrees in corporate accounting and finance, as well as further basic background in engineering, process improvement, statistics, and programming (jack of all trades kinda thing during my undergraduate career). I'm also more than passingly familiar with the D&D 3e CharOp forums, a place on the net with a reputation for some of the most awful rpg constructs to ever see the light of day. So I guess I'm predisposed to building those hyper-hyper-specialists that everyone has problems with at the table.

With that out of the way, my perception of min/maxing seems a little different from yours, and I'd like to share it for discussion. I learned, way back when on CharOp, that min.maxing wasn't about making something that focused on one thing to the exclusion of everything else. No, that way lay theoretical optimization, the way to find the constraints of the system. Min/Maxing, on the other hand, was shorthand for minimizing weaknesses/maximizing strengths. In other words (at least as it was explained to me), it's about finding synergies. My Ork hacker, for example, I consider an example of min/maxing, since I get free body and strength points, and the lower logic cap doesn't hurt that much. I minimize a weakness (combat) and spend the points in a more efficient manner in order to better fill my primary and secondary roles (in this specific case, hacking and ranged combat). With the points I saved on body/strength, I was able to pick up a couple of points in the stealth and interaction groups to start minimizing the secondary gaps. I roll 10 dice to hack, 15 to shoot, and can usually at least attempt to help with any task the team tries, save magic.

So... take from that what you will. Not saying anybody else's definitions of min/max are wrong, just that I learned differently.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Due to the extreme lethality of the Shadowrun game system, it is unlikely failure in the PC's chosen area will help character development. It may help your character development but it is almost quite detrimental to your PC's continued well being. If you are building a specialist, you should be ready to fail somewhat at other tests not relating to your primary focus, but should your PC fail in his primary focus, then likely the story ends or has taken a very bad turn. Even if you do have more dice, it does not mean that you will always succeed, it simply means that the likelihood of success is better.

Failure only helps you to grow if you survive it.

Again... If you never Fail (are never challenged) in your primary specialty, Then what is the Point of the Story?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The BP system encourages hyper specialization with the skills and stats maxed or mined.

It charges any where between 1.5 to 2 times the Karma rate for most skills and stats unless you get really high.

It even cost double to specialize.

I understand why they did the BP system that way, but they should have made it a quickstart option.


Use the Karmagen system if you want rounded characters.

The character will have more low low level skills and fewer very low dump stats, but they won't be so maxed out.

You can also give some starting karma to round the character out. People will use it to get specializations and pick up a few skills at rating 1.

Stuff they should really start the game with but cannot afford with the BP system.



IMHO, a character should have his specialization covered, after all the Johnson is hiring specialist and can afford to hire professionals.

But a character should also be well rounded enough to to keep up with the rest of his team if called to fill in some other role.

I would disagree with this... when I used Karmagen, the character created had the same skills as in BP (at even higher levels) and a great deal more in the way of support skills and even better attributes... Karmagen was broken in SR4 as it allowed more powerful characters than BP did, leading to imbalance when both systems were in use together... with the increase in cost to attributes, and keeping everything else equal (i.e 750 Karmagen Karma to create characters) this would decrease the imbalannce between the two and bring things back into some alignnment...

But of course, that is just my opinion and some people here on the forums vehemently disagree with that opinion...

Keep the Faith

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I disagree. The char I've used as an example isn't a slacker. He's competent, but not a specialist.

He overpowered a few guards easily (though he might have trouble against an elite HTR member) and hacked a lot of security nodes (rating 4) on the fly. What he didn't do was hack a rating 6+ node but he used social engineering to get a legitimate access to that one.
When in a team with a hacking specialist (maxed out hacking stats, nearly nothing else), he was still the one who was sent when you had to physically jack-in since he was able to handle the infiltration on his own and to fight his way out if needed. And while less competent than the hacking specialist he's also less of a burden to the team when he has to tag along.

But then again it depends on the average dice pool on your table. I've mostly played him when the BBB was the only available book and 12+ pools were rare and 15+ even rarer.

This cannot be stressed enough... Thanks Blade...

Keep the Faith

[toturi]

@toturi:
See, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said sometimes it's better to have 15 dice in your specialty, and shore up some weak areas, than to have 20 dice. Yes, it's a lethal game where the cost of failure is high, but if the opposition is set up so that 15 dice are going to be enough, and going over 15 only gets you "a target on your forehead", then it's better to go with the flow and adjust your character to the table.

You should always include how the game is being run in your character creation calculations. If it's Kerrang's game, then 15 dice might be wise; if it's Zak's game, 20 dice might be better.

I understand, but unless the dice pools of the opposition is always less than 10 dice, 15 dice is still a dicey prospect. Think of it in terms of survival - if you are playing Russian roulette and there are 2 rounds in the 6-shooter, you have 2/3 chance of not being shot, or let's be even more generous, there is only 1 round, do you want to put the gun to your head even with a 1 in 6 odds? It is not about challenge, it is about survival. Unless I have some suicide fetish, I won't be taking those odds.

Again... If you never Fail (are never challenged) in your primary specialty, Then what is the Point of the Story?

The point obviously is to survive and not to fail. The whole point of the story is that you are not supposed to be challenged in your primary speciality if you are playing a specialist. Even if you have 20 dice against 12 dice, there is a still good chance of you failing, much less 15 against 10-12. The challenge in the story lies in other areas. When it is your main schtick, the theme song kicks in and the audience knows you won't fail.

[MusicMan]

It also depends on the size of the team... a 3 man team will need a broader array of skills per member as opposed to a 10 man team.

[MusicMan]

It also depends on the size of the team... a 3 man team will need a broader array of skills per member as opposed to a 10 man team.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I understand, but unless the dice pools of the opposition is always less than 10 dice, 15 dice is still a dicey prospect. Think of it in terms of survival - if you are playing Russian roulette and there are 2 rounds in the 6-shooter, you have 2/3 chance of not being shot, or let's be even more generous, there is only 1 round, do you want to put the gun to your head even with a 1 in 6 odds? It is not about challenge, it is about survival. Unless I have some suicide fetish, I won't be taking those odds.


The point obviously is to survive and not to fail. The whole point of the story is that you are not supposed to be challenged in your primary speciality if you are playing a specialist. Even if you have 20 dice against 12 dice, there is a still good chance of you failing, much less 15 against 10-12. The challenge in the story lies in other areas. When it is your main schtick, the theme song kicks in and the audience knows you won't fail.

Perhaps... But I find that extremely Boring and predictible... If there is no risk, then there is no reward either... *Yawn*
If I can figure out a novel in the first chapter, there is no reason to read the novel... not for me thanks...

Keep the Faith

[Cheshyr]

I think you're assuming that the GM will fail to recognize your specialty, and present a challenge that either limits or circumvents it. If your game becomes boring because you have 20 dice in a single skill, your GM may need some creative stimulus.

[toturi]

Perhaps... But I find that extremely Boring and predictible... If there is no risk, then there is no reward either... *Yawn*
If I can figure out a novel in the first chapter, there is no reason to read the novel... not for me thanks...

Keep the Faith

There is risk - and the risk even at 20 dice is not insignificant. An antagonist with 12 dice has a shot at beating the protagonist at those odds.

The game system is not like D&D where you could well survive a lucky hit from a kobold. You die just like the rest if you get hit by a punk kid in SR. If I can't figure out who is supposed to be the main character in the novel by the first chapter or worse, the person I think is the main character get dead by the 2nd chapter, I'd be going "WTF?" and dump the book.

I trust but verify.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I think you're assuming that the GM will fail to recognize your specialty, and present a challenge that either limits or circumvents it. If your game becomes boring because you have 20 dice in a single skill, your GM may need some creative stimulus.

That is not what I said, and no I am not failing to recognize this fact... I said that if YOU CANNOT FAIL, as is the purpose of hyper-specializing, then IT BECOMES BORING and predictible, and there is no longer any reason to roll the dice to resolve the conflict... Using others arguments, you are trying to obtain the highest dice pool you can in order to circumvent the oppositions dice in an opposed test, in essence never failing at that test...

By that logic, I should NEVER FAIL in my primary Function... BORING... Even James Bond (or John Mclain, or Quigley, etc) Failed (a great many times in fact) and the results made for an interesting story... you can apply this to a great many of the best movies and even fiction on the market... protagonists that never fail are BORING, BORING, BORING...

Keep the Faith

[Cheshyr]

I agree that if you could never fail, the game would quickly lose it's appeal; although I have a couple issues with the phrase 'never fail'. Even if it's 20 dice vs 1 die, there's still ~5% chance of failure, and I have trouble believing a GM would pit a specialist directly against an incompetent. I also have trouble understanding why a GM would attack a specialist from within their specialty. Carl the Ghoul may be able to beat the mage senseless, but that didn't stop the mage from Mind Controlling him first. No matter how many dice a character has, there's always a chance they can fail... moreso with the Glitch and Critical Glitch rules. This makes it difficult for me to understand your argument.

[Tyraxus]

Tymeaus: I respectfully disagree. It's not people failing that makes an interesting story, or even simply overcoming adversity, else the Special Olympics would be more highly rated than the Super Bowl or World Cup. And I also disagree that people that don't fail make for boring stories, else Sherlock Holmes (who solved every case he was ever given, IIRC) would never have seen print. No, interesting stories are interesting or not based on a variety of factors mostly independent of whether the protagonist is a pro or not, and interesting RPG storylines depend far more on player engagement than character competence.

EDIT: Rereading, I need to clarify that bit about the Special Olympics. That was meant to be associated with "overcoming adversity," not "people failing." Sorry for not making that clearer.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I agree that if you could never fail, the game would quickly lose it's appeal; although I have a couple issues with the phrase 'never fail'. Even if it's 20 dice vs 1 die, there's still ~5% chance of failure, and I have trouble believing a GM would pit a specialist directly against an incompetent. I also have trouble understanding why a GM would attack a specialist from within their specialty. Carl the Ghoul may be able to beat the mage senseless, but that didn't stop the mage from Mind Controlling him first. No matter how many dice a character has, there's always a chance they can fail... moreso with the Glitch and Critical Glitch rules. This makes it difficult for me to understand your argument.

I agree that everyone has a weekness and that they should be properly exploited to maximum usage... however, the argument is that a specialist should never fail, and therefore teams of specialists should never fail any task that the team takes on...

Take your standard team of 6:
Infiltrator: Never fails at Infiltration
GunBunny: Never Fails at Gun Play
Rigger: Drones always cover the team and never fail to do so
Hacker/Technomancer: Never fails to Hack
Face: Never fails to obtain the optimal social benefit
Mage: Never fails to outmagic the opposition...

Where is the fun here... any given obstacle will be overcome by a member of the team, with no significant opposition to stand in their way (Assuming that they never fail)... Would YOU play that game? I would rather have characters that have a substantial chance that they could be defeated than a team of characters that could never fail in anything that they attempted... when this occurs, your choices tend to mean more,, which fosters a better story in the long run... And by substantial chance, I mean that hte dice pools should be considerably closer than 20 to 1... more like on the lines to withn a dice or two of each other, if not dead even...

I play the game for the story that comes out of the playing that the characters are involved in... a good story requires that there be substantial risk/conflict (note that I did not say Combat) so that the reward means something... as I said before, if there is no Risk, then there is no reward either... Without Risk the game quickly degenerates into nothing...

Not everyone agrees with this, I know, but there it is...

Keep the Faith

[Red-ROM]

ok,
thanks for the input folks, I agree with almost all of it. The consensus seems to be that its table specific, which is what I figured. i'm trying to highlight the trouble with deciding on how much to invest in non focused skills.for example:

how many points did you put in the swim skill?

treading water=str +hits in Minutes:

default to str? -1
cyberlimb/torso? -1/ limb
wet clothes? -1
armor? -1/kilo
ork or troll?-1
highly developed muscles? -1
bone lacing? -1

[Cheshyr]

Yeah, I think this really is getting into the realm of personal preference. I think that's the reason pen and paper games are still popular. We're given a framework, and then we can tweak them to allow us to play the game we want to play. For some, the fun may be an unopposed rampage through a corporate lobby. For others, it could be winning despite heavy odds. Or perhaps it's just the joy of spending time with their friends, regardless of the setting or rules. Or maybe the need to create an interesting story. Or solve a numerical challenge.

No matter which variant of SR we choose to play, we win. I say we table this debate for now, and appreciate the game. It did spark a fairly heated discussion that led us to disclose some rather personal views. Here's to a great game.

[CanadianWolverin...]

<snip> I am they type of GM that does not care for Power Gaming, and by extension, Min/Maxing. If you come to my table with a min/maxed character, the first thing I am going to do is make an observation that your character looks a bit unbalanced, and that you may want to fix that. Ignore my observation, and you will have a target on your forehead. Others will look at it differently, <snip>

In my experience this kind of attitude from a GM has resulted in me walking away from gaming with that group. Almost wrote off SR4 altogether till I analyzed the situation and realized it had more to do with someone else's perception of what my character, and by extension me, should be doing. It just wasn't any fun for me as a player to be scolded for roleplaying that my character not interested in doing a dangerous job on short notice and my adept gunslinger to be targeted by a hidden camo sniper with no surprise test, nigh instantly offing the character to the words of the GM going "Eagle Eye, we hardly knew you...", with a roll of his eyes. Yeah, that's gonna leave a chip on my shoulder, so I figured my gaming days with that particular group were done for the mean time.

My impression is that in a game of such widely differing roles for characters, every player's character should be allowed a moment to shine / slip on a banana peel and have it be accepted rather than frowned upon. Being targeted by the facilitator of the setting doesn't exactly come across as accepting of another player's fun.