Archetypes, Replacements for the SR4A Sample Characters Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Actually, TJ, he wasn't criticizing your choices, but your attitude. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but the way I read your "numbers" post, you were pretty condescending. If you don't ever intend to raise a skill that you took a flaw for, that's fine, but why are you criticizing how others choose to develop their characters? Growing out of incompetence is at least as valid a choice as paying extra.

If that is the case, then Apologies.

I was not crtiticizing the development of characters. I was crtiticizing the attitude of "Its all about the numbers." It isn't about the numbers. At least it should not be. It should be about the Character, and how he faces his adversities, not the underlying mecahnics. When all that matters is the numbers, well, the character misses out.

In relation to the differences between Uncouth and Incompetant (4x Socials), there is a big difference in how they should afffect the character. Uncouth is a difficulty that can be overcome through work and effort, and though you may never completely remove the rough edges, you can strive to be better regardless. Incompetance creates an impenetrable barrier to development, and that barrier will remain until it is completely destroyed. They are not the same thing, nor should they be. And reducing them to just Numbers does them both a disservice to the character's development.

Growing out of incompetance is indeed a valid choice, but it should be because the character develops the tools to remove the psychological barrier that placed it there, not because you can just play a numbers game because it is more effecient. If that is what is being done, then it is just gaming the system. And I do have an issue with that. When a character is reduced to "just the Numbers," then it really isn't a character at all, is it?

Sorry if I sounded a bit preachy. I should have been more clear.

[Cain]

If that is the case, then Apologies.

I was not crtiticizing the development of characters. I was crtiticizing the attitude of "Its all about the numbers." It isn't about the numbers. At least it should not be. It should be about the Character, and how he faces his adversities, not the underlying mecahnics. When all that matters is the numbers, well, the character misses out.

In relation to the differences between Uncouth and Incompetant (4x Socials), there is a big difference in how they should afffect the character. Uncouth is a difficulty that can be overcome through work and effort, and though you may never completely remove the rough edges, you can strive to be better regardless. Incompetance creates an impenetrable barrier to development, and that barrier will remain until it is completely destroyed. They are not the same thing, nor should they be. And reducing them to just Numbers does them both a disservice to the character's development.

Growing out of incompetance is indeed a valid choice, but it should be because the character develops the tools to remove the psychological barrier that placed it there, not because you can just play a numbers game because it is more effecient. If that is what is being done, then it is just gaming the system. And I do have an issue with that. When a character is reduced to "just the Numbers," then it really isn't a character at all, is it?

Sorry if I sounded a bit preachy. I should have been more clear.

Apology accepted. For the record, my peeve isn't directly aimed at you, but rather an attitude I've seen in styles similar to yours. I don't know if you have that attitude or not, so it's not personal.

That said, however, saying that one is better than the others for roleplay reasons *is* roleplay snobbery. I get that there are reasons to play characters who stink at social situations, that can be a lot of fun. However, Uncouth is a really, really bad way of doing that. You could model it instead with 4 Incompetences; if you want to keep Intimidate and Leadership, though, you have the option of doing so (and heck, that might make a fun ex-Drill Instructor).

All that aside, what takes a character "past the numbers" is the player. I could hand a pregen to a good player, and I'd have a good character. I could hand the exact same pregen to a munchkin, and we'd have a power-mad collection of stats. Since it's all on the player, we may as well build archetypes that are roughly equal in numerical ability, so they both have the same starting point. That way, characters are not dependent on system mastery, but on the player's ability to roleplay.

[Blitz66]

We're talking about mechanics, which means, inherently, that it is all about the numbers. How you want to fluff it to rationalize your numbers choice is something else, and being aware of the crunch and handling it effectively doesn't inherently damage the fluff.

Personally, I view the NQs as being significantly below the baseline skill level. Once you begin to consciously work on being better at the skill you're so lacking in, you can no longer be described as incompetent. If you start working to be more effective socially, you're training out the bad traits as much as you are replacing them with new traits. Buying off the Negative Quality takes a lot of Karma investment, and having a blank spot where it used to be can be just as much of a character-defining element as having one. Maybe your previously Uncouth tusker makes a point of leaving a good impression on a Johnson, now that keeping his mouth shut isn't the only viable option. Maybe your teenage elf girl who was Incompetent at Pilot: Ground Craft jumps at the chance to drive the team to the meet, now that she's no longer a danger to herself and others. After all, these characters have put a lot of effort (a lot of Karma) into developing these skills, and now they're just as good as everybody else. Why not be proud of their accomplishments?

Really, if you want to advance in skills that you have a NQ handicapping, going about it the more numbers-efficient way is nothing to be ashamed of.

[Glyph]

Most of the time, I actually tend to pick flaws that give purely mechanical disadvantages (allergy, sensitive system), because when I create a character's flaws, I prefer to remain in complete control of when the character succumbs to them, or doesn't, rather than a dice roll determining it.

I had the uncouth flaw in an SR3 game (where the flaw was, in my opinion, a lot better implemented than the SR4 version). I took it because it would be fun to roleplay, but started buying off the flaw when Rat started, oddly enough, turning into the "face" of the team. The only incompetency that I have ever taken for a social skill was in SR4, for Null in the Witch Hunt game, and it was an extremely character-defining trait for him. Usually, though, I tend to shy away from both qualities, which are far too crippling in actual play due to how social skills are resolved (and take a lot of work, back-story wise, to explain how the character is completely unaware of these skills).

[Cain]

The only incompetency that I have ever taken for a social skill was in SR4, for Null in the Witch Hunt game, and it was an extremely character-defining trait for him. Usually, though, I tend to shy away from both qualities, which are far too crippling in actual play due to how social skills are resolved (and take a lot of work, back-story wise, to explain how the character is completely unaware of these skills).

I've seen it pulled off. The example someone posted on Dumpshock was a guy going for Mr. Furious from Mystery Men. He had Incompetent: Intimidate. When some characters tried to bluster, they puff up, but fold like a bad poker hand the minute someone blusters right back at them.

[UmaroVI]

I wouldn't QQ nearly so much about Uncouth if it was called Autistic, since that's a decently accurate description of what it does. My problem is it makes people think Uncouth means "like Jayne from Firefly," which it doesn't.

[Kirk]

re the Iron Will and part of the mods question:

No, you can't Command + Gunnery. Of that much I'm certain, because:

it has no autonomy, nor was it built
for any remote piloting.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

We're talking about mechanics, which means, inherently, that it is all about the numbers. How you want to fluff it to rationalize your numbers choice is something else, and being aware of the crunch and handling it effectively doesn't inherently damage the fluff.

Personally, I view the NQs as being significantly below the baseline skill level. Once you begin to consciously work on being better at the skill you're so lacking in, you can no longer be described as incompetent. If you start working to be more effective socially, you're training out the bad traits as much as you are replacing them with new traits. Buying off the Negative Quality takes a lot of Karma investment, and having a blank spot where it used to be can be just as much of a character-defining element as having one. Maybe your previously Uncouth tusker makes a point of leaving a good impression on a Johnson, now that keeping his mouth shut isn't the only viable option. Maybe your teenage elf girl who was Incompetent at Pilot: Ground Craft jumps at the chance to drive the team to the meet, now that she's no longer a danger to herself and others. After all, these characters have put a lot of effort (a lot of Karma) into developing these skills, and now they're just as good as everybody else. Why not be proud of their accomplishments?

Really, if you want to advance in skills that you have a NQ handicapping, going about it the more numbers-efficient way is nothing to be ashamed of.

At that point, though, why are you taking a Negative Quality for that, when you can adequately model that with just not taking the Skill? See, I see something like Incompetant as being a mental block that just completely eliminates your capability in that area (which it does mechanically). Sure, you can buy it off (mechanically), but why would you? Up to the point where you bought it off, it would never have even occurred to you to even do so (as a Character, obviously) because you would never even attempt to do whatever it is that you are incompetant at, because it is so completely foreign to you (You are UNAWARE in that skill). There is a disconnect in the wiring, so to speak.

I don't know... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[squee_nabob]

Good roleplaying and good optimization are not exclusive. Good mechanics is something you do before the game starts, and good roleplaying is some you do at the table. Neither one impacts the other.

[Cain]

At that point, though, why are you taking a Negative Quality for that, when you can adequately model that with just not taking the Skill? See, I see something like Incompetant as being a mental block that just completely eliminates your capability in that area (which it does mechanically). Sure, you can buy it off (mechanically), but why would you? Up to the point where you bought it off, it would never have even occurred to you to even do so (as a Character, obviously) because you would never even attempt to do whatever it is that you are incompetant at, because it is so completely foreign to you (You are UNAWARE in that skill). There is a disconnect in the wiring, so to speak.

Sometimes, characters set goals for themselves at character creation. Additionally, being unaware *at* a skill is not the same as being unaware *of* that skill. A teenage girl could dream of someday driving a car, but since she was raised in the barrens and always rode busses, she might be unaware of the basics of Pilot Ground Craft; however, that doesn't mean she doesn't know that people can drive cars and buses.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sometimes, characters set goals for themselves at character creation. Additionally, being unaware *at* a skill is not the same as being unaware *of* that skill. A teenage girl could dream of someday driving a car, but since she was raised in the barrens and always rode busses, she might be unaware of the basics of Pilot Ground Craft; however, that doesn't mean she doesn't know that people can drive cars and buses.

So you don't pick up that skill at character creation. WHY do you need a Negative Quality to represent that sentiment? That is my question. Why are you Mentally Handicapping an individual, and then just "resolving" that mental handicap when it becomes convenient to do so. That is not how those things tend to work.

Incompetant (specifically) is meant to render a Skill Unknowable to a character due to some "thing" that exists in their physical, emotional or psychological make up. WHY would that just "Disappear" when it becomes convenient to learn that skill. That is what I am trying to get at. If you don't want that particular hang-up, why are you taking the NQ in the first place, rather than just not taking the skill, and not performing actions requiring the skill until you have a rank in it? If the reason is to just "Get More Points", then I submit that it is not being adequately considered. Especially since it has a notorious propensity for being taken for skills that Cannot even be defaulted to (Incopmpetant: Aerospace Pilot anyone?).

[Blitz66]

Personally, I don't use those NQs. However, I'm aware that sometimes people select Negative Qualities that they intend to buy off later, as part of their character's story. Part of it might be for more BP up front, but that doesn't invalidate the in-character aspects of it. The Negative Qualities don't just "disappear." They're worked out. If Incompetence is a mental block preventing you from acquiring the skill effectively, I don't see why resolving that issue wouldn't be part of learning the skill later.

But yeah, taking it for Aerospace Pilot is still silly.

[Cain]

So you don't pick up that skill at character creation. WHY do you need a Negative Quality to represent that sentiment? That is my question. Why are you Mentally Handicapping an individual, and then just "resolving" that mental handicap when it becomes convenient to do so. That is not how those things tend to work.

Incompetant (specifically) is meant to render a Skill Unknowable to a character due to some "thing" that exists in their physical, emotional or psychological make up. WHY would that just "Disappear" when it becomes convenient to learn that skill. That is what I am trying to get at. If you don't want that particular hang-up, why are you taking the NQ in the first place, rather than just not taking the skill, and not performing actions requiring the skill until you have a rank in it? If the reason is to just "Get More Points", then I submit that it is not being adequately considered. Especially since it has a notorious propensity for being taken for skills that Cannot even be defaulted to (Incopmpetant: Aerospace Pilot anyone?).

You're missing the point. Simply because you're Incompetent at a skill doesn't mean you don't know it exists. It simply means you are treated as "unaware", which has a precise definition in SR4.5. (An oddly contradictory one at that: it says you sometimes have to roll for things that others take for granted, but also says that you often can't roll at all.)

But you want an example? Ever read Neuromancer, one of the classics of Cyberpunk? At the start of the book, Case was Incompetent at Decking, he couldn't use a VR cyberdeck at all. Breaking that Incompetence was a major character goal in the early part of the book. In SR4.5 terms, that'd be buying off an incompetence and raising a skill very quickly.

What you're saying (and a point I can agree with) is that flaws should take more than just karma to buy off. They should take roleplay and in-character effort. However, that's something that needs to be decided on a table-by-table basis. Mechanically speaking, Incompetence is a better buy than Uncouth, Uneducated, etc. It's also easier to roleplay, gives you more character flexibility, and has the better point return. This means that the value of Uncouth et al needs to be re-examined before you put them into a game.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You're missing the point. Simply because you're Incompetent at a skill doesn't mean you don't know it exists. It simply means you are treated as "unaware", which has a precise definition in SR4.5. (An oddly contradictory one at that: it says you sometimes have to roll for things that others take for granted, but also says that you often can't roll at all.)

But you want an example? Ever read Neuromancer, one of the classics of Cyberpunk? At the start of the book, Case was Incompetent at Decking, he couldn't use a VR cyberdeck at all. Breaking that Incompetence was a major character goal in the early part of the book. In SR4.5 terms, that'd be buying off an incompetence and raising a skill very quickly.

What you're saying (and a point I can agree with) is that flaws should take more than just karma to buy off. They should take roleplay and in-character effort. However, that's something that needs to be decided on a table-by-table basis. Mechanically speaking, Incompetence is a better buy than Uncouth, Uneducated, etc. It's also easier to roleplay, gives you more character flexibility, and has the better point return. This means that the value of Uncouth et al needs to be re-examined before you put them into a game.

I don't miss the point. I just have a different opinion on what Incompetant implies than you do. I do not see it as just not having the skill, and requiring a bit more effort to acquire it once that skill is desired. I see it as a total and complete lack of ability in that skill, no matter what you do to remedy that. They just CANNOT get past whatever is creating that Incompetance. Just becasue you know a Skill exists, does not mean that you can ever participate in any meanigful way in that skill. I think that Incompetance (as the NQ is defined) is a very rare thing in this (or any) world.

Yes, I have read it. See, I would say that he was not incompetant at Decking, he just had no expereince with it. Very different feel at that point.

What I am trying to say is that Some Flaws Should NEVER be allowed to be bought off. I place Incompetant into that category. Uncouth, Uneducated and Infirm can be bypassed, per skill, by just the simple purchase of that Skill. So no real need to buy them off either, which is also why I would tend to put them into that category (Though I might allow them to be bought off, possibly). They are character defining Flaws, after all, and should not be treated as something to discard when they become inconvenient. You apparently agree with that sentiment, from what I can tell above.

No worries, though. I am pretty sure that I understand what you are saying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ascalaphus]

Actually, Case knew Decking just fine, he just had a peculiar medical condition preventing him from experiencing VR.

[CanRay]

Actually, Case knew Decking just fine, he just had a peculiar medical condition preventing him from experiencing VR.

An INDUCED medical condition, no less.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

An INDUCED medical condition, no less.

I will have to go back and read it again. Its been a while.

[Neurosis]

So aside from variants of "I don't like this in the first place," are there any general requests for character fitting a certain type or criterion? I've seen a few people who would like more humans so far.

Speaking personally, I'd like to see a human adept with a focus on martial arts (definitely including kali) for melee combat, parkour, and non-explody throwing weapons. No 'ware of any kind, but other than that cheesed/optimized to the absolute maximum. My most-played 4E PC is such a character, and I am curious if someone seriously into charop could do it better/differently than I did. (One mistake I made was putting a lot of points into both Unarmed and Blades, I really should have stuck with just one. Of course, from a strict optimization perspective, going with melee at all was probably a mistake, but I really am not looking to be that hardcore about things.)

That's just me, though.

[UmaroVI]

Speaking personally, I'd like to see a human adept with a focus on martial arts (definitely including kali) for melee combat, parkour, and non-explody throwing weapons. No 'ware of any kind, but other than that cheesed/optimized to the absolute maximum. My most-played 4E PC is such a character, and I am curious if someone seriously into charop could do it better/differently than I did. (One mistake I made was putting a lot of points into both Unarmed and Blades, I really should have stuck with just one. Of course, from a strict optimization perspective, going with melee at all was probably a mistake, but I really am not looking to be that hardcore about things.)

That's just me, though.

Unfortunately, the Missions ruleset bans Martial Arts qualities/manuevers, which makes melee combat a generally iffy proposition. No Way of the Adept makes it even more so. Unaugmented seals the deal. Under these conditions, melee combat is good as a combination of a highly concealable weapon and a way to get a melee defense bonus against stuff that uses it (paracritters and spirits are often melee-centric, and a lot of NPCs have a completely irrational hardon for melee), and (for the Bad Enough Trog) a way to get people to focus attention on him, but it doesn't work well as a primary attack.

Under the conditions of human, pure adept, melee and throwing weapons, the way to optimize under the Archetypes ruleset would be armed combat, because I am assuming you cannot apply adept unarmed combat powers to non-unarmed Unarmed Combat attacks (ie, Hardliner Gloves or the like), which locks you out of Weapon Foci. However, Blades is actually not a good idea, because as an unaugmented human you simply cannot do enough damage with them; with STR 5, you'd be doing only 7P with a nodachi. There are several sensible ways to go, all of which involve using weapons that do fixed, Strength-independant damage: that means monofilament whips or stun clubs. Because you rely on a Weapon Focus you kind of are forced to pick a single weapon type. You probably want either Monofilament Whip (8P/-4) or some variety of stun baton (the winners being the plain one for 6S(e), the AZ-150 for 8 charges but +1 DV, or the Stun Staff for +1 reach but no concealability), and then carry lethal club weapons for beating down drones/vehicles. Either path leads to a similar character though.

Let me hock up a quick outline:

Magic 6, powers Improved Reflexes 2 (2.5), Imp. Ability Blades 3 (1.5), Quick Draw (.5), Combat Sense 1 (.5), Improved Ability (Agility) (.75), Power Throw 1 (.25)

Body 5, Agility 5(6), Reaction 5 (7), Strength 1, Charisma 1, Intuition 5, Logic 1, Willpower 5, Magic 6, Edge 6 (305 bp)
Qualities Adept 5, Aptitude (Weapon) 10, Restricted Gear 5, 35 points of negative qualities of your choice (-15 bps back)
Skills:
34 Weapon 7, spec Specific Weapon (unless Exotic)
16 Throwing 4
Gear:
10 Force 5 Weapon Focus (chosen weapon)
Throwing Weapons: Nets, Molotov Cocktails, Boomerangs (yes, really. Nets are generally the most useful since you can use those with Quick Draw to immobilize 2 people per pass, the idea is to net people and then close in and kamurder them. Molotov Cocktails do 5P vs. half impact which is nifty. Boomerangs have the best range of any thrown weapon.

This leaves 50 for other gear and more skills; you can probably fit in the bare basics on that.

The core problem this character has is severe one-trick-ponyism. Probably the best version of this character is the monofilament whip user; you end up with 18 dice, reach 2, and an 8P/-4 attack. Unfortunately, that just isn't very impressive - you can do much, much better as an Augmented gun user without specializing nearly as hard.

Of course, this is all talking about under the restrictions of the Archetypes - no Ways, no Martial Arts, and very conservative assumptions about how the rules work. It might be more interesting to see how things work in a more relaxed environment, more similar to the campaign you played your PC in. Do you allow Ways? I assume you allow martial arts. What is your campaign's answer to Critical Strike with unarmed combat vs. Unarmed Combat (ie, do those adept powers work with stuff like Hardliner Gloves)?

[Ascalaphus]

Speaking personally, I'd like to see a human adept with a focus on martial arts (definitely including kali) for melee combat, parkour, and non-explody throwing weapons. No 'ware of any kind, but other than that cheesed/optimized to the absolute maximum. My most-played 4E PC is such a character, and I am curious if someone seriously into charop could do it better/differently than I did. (One mistake I made was putting a lot of points into both Unarmed and Blades, I really should have stuck with just one. Of course, from a strict optimization perspective, going with melee at all was probably a mistake, but I really am not looking to be that hardcore about things.)

That's just me, though.

I'll second that. Adepts have always been portrayed as martial artists. That's definitely an archetype that should be in the set.

[Seerow]

I'd say an augmented martial artist would be a fair compromise. It lets you get the adept toner/augment and some bone lacing, which will jack the unarmed damage a fair amount, even lacking martial arts.

[Ascalaphus]

Bioware Adepts are powerful, sure. But the pure, unaugmented martial artist adept, who kicks ass in a "natural" way, is really an archetype.

[Seerow]

Bioware Adepts are powerful, sure. But the pure, unaugmented martial artist adept, who kicks ass in a "natural" way, is really an archetype.

It's an archtype the game failed to support by making initiative and stat enhancements way too expensive to be actually used.

[Shinobi Killfist]

It's an archtype the game failed to support by making initiative and stat enhancements way too expensive to be actually used.

While I agree those 2 things are way too expensive for an adept with magic I think you can make perfectly fine pure adept characters especially post way of the adept. You can't make a high powered character though.

[Cain]

I don't miss the point. I just have a different opinion on what Incompetant implies than you do. I do not see it as just not having the skill, and requiring a bit more effort to acquire it once that skill is desired. I see it as a total and complete lack of ability in that skill, no matter what you do to remedy that. They just CANNOT get past whatever is creating that Incompetance. Just becasue you know a Skill exists, does not mean that you can ever participate in any meanigful way in that skill. I think that Incompetance (as the NQ is defined) is a very rare thing in this (or any) world.

I used to work extensively with adults with "special needs". They're more common than you might realize, and inabilities to do some things are fairly common. What's more, even serious barriers can be overcome, given enough effort; if one lady can go from needing 24 hour behavioral support to working 40 hours a week and maintaining her own apartment, just about anything is possible.

But to put this back into less extreme terms: I'm tone deaf. I have a hell of a time distinguishing between notes, and if I go off-key, I don't even realize it. This is the functional equivalent of an Incompetence in SR4.5. The first and most important thing to realize is that this is not a major defining point of my personality. In fact, it rarely comes up. What's more, I can sing karaoke; I just pick songs that are so funny, no one cares if I go off-key. An incompetence should not be a major defining point of a character; it's a minor flaw, and a minor note in the overall harmony.

What I am trying to say is that Some Flaws Should NEVER be allowed to be bought off. I place Incompetant into that category. Uncouth, Uneducated and Infirm can be bypassed, per skill, by just the simple purchase of that Skill. So no real need to buy them off either, which is also why I would tend to put them into that category (Though I might allow them to be bought off, possibly). They are character defining Flaws, after all, and should not be treated as something to discard when they become inconvenient. You apparently agree with that sentiment, from what I can tell above.

I sorta agree with your sentiment. I think that if a player spends the karma and spends the in-game effort as well as roleplays getting rid of the flaw, *any* flaw, then he should be allowed to get rid of it. I also disagree that Incompetent is a character-defining flaw. Basically, though, I leave it up to the player to determine what sort of roleplay is needed and what in-game efforts they need to take.