[X] My Assistant

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If he's got no magic, but buys up appropriate knowledge skills, why is that cheating? It works out exactly the same either way. The difference is that he'll be more effective, and thus fun to play, than a deliberately gimped character.

There you go again. There is nothing Gimped about playing a Concept. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Cain, if he didn't burn out, he's not a burnout. Someone who had Magic (has an Awakened quality) and loses it is fundamentally different. If this example is no good for you, we can change the example. The point is that there are concepts that are inherently suboptimal. Another common example is 'Mr. No Augmentations, Drugs, or Magic'. (You also reiterated that 'more effective' = 'more fun', which is wrong.)

Draco18s, um, what? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Did you just say that a character bringing "only" 'contacts, knowledge, various skills, and anything else' to the table will raise eyebrows? You just described all characters.

[Draco18s]

Draco18s, um, what? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Did you just say that a character bringing "only" 'contacts, knowledge, various skills, and anything else' to the table will raise eyebrows? You just described all characters.

Minus the "other stuff" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[Cain]

There you go again. There is nothing Gimped about playing a Concept. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

But there's nothing fun about it either, especially if the character turns into nothing but a dramacopter that drags everyone else down. Humans tend to define themselves by what they do; if someone asks the character: "What do you do?" and the truthful answer is: "Not much", how is that an interesting character to play?

Cain, if he didn't burn out, he's not a burnout. Someone who had Magic (has an Awakened quality) and loses it is fundamentally different. If this example is no good for you, we can change the example. The point is that there are concepts that are inherently suboptimal. Another common example is 'Mr. No Augmentations, Drugs, or Magic'. (You also reiterated that 'more effective' = 'more fun', which is wrong.)

You can lose Magic through addiction test failures, at the GM's discretion. If the character burned out because of drug abuse, you can reflect that in the starting stats and backstory. You know, *gasp* via roleplay? Your Mr. Nothing also isn't even a concept-- he's a stat block. A character concept is a combination of abilities and personality, and if he's got no abilities worth mentioning, how can that be fun?

Here's a game for you. Name any Shadowrun character concept (personality and abilities) and I'll show you how optimization will not only improve the character, but make it more fun to roleplay.

[Yerameyahu]

I know *how* you can burn out. I'm saying fluffing the fact that you used to have magic is cheating and lying if you *didn't* use to have magic. That's the whole point of the example: *burnout*.

I didn't say 'no abilities worth mentioning'. On the contrary, my whole point is that you can have abilities worth mentioning without being 'optimized'. And you continue to wrongly say that more numbers means more fun to play. There is no connection (positive or negative) between better numbers and more fun.

My point was never that you can't (partially) optimize any given character, but that some concepts (fun ones) are inherently suboptimal. Valuing 'survival' or 'usefulness' above everything else precludes many fun characters for no reason.

I don't understand why you keep ignoring what people say and just making up things they didn't say instead. No one is suggesting 'worthless' characters that 'drag everyone down'. We're talking about sub-optimal, but perfectly normal, real, and valid, characters.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But there's nothing fun about it either, especially if the character turns into nothing but a dramacopter that drags everyone else down. Humans tend to define themselves by what they do; if someone asks the character: "What do you do?" and the truthful answer is: "Not much", how is that an interesting character to play?

You must not play concepts very often then. I play them all the time, and I gave great fun. Ask any of my characters what they do and they can give you an answer. Since I NEVER couch it in DP's (in game), the mecahnics become irrelevant. It is a descriptive, and that is what I give you. Characters are not aware of their DP's. And I rarely tell the other players my DP either. Actions speak way more than DP's do. I have great fun with my characters.

You can lose Magic through addiction test failures, at the GM's discretion. If the character burned out because of drug abuse, you can reflect that in the starting stats and backstory. You know, *gasp* via roleplay? Your Mr. Nothing also isn't even a concept-- he's a stat block. A character concept is a combination of abilities and personality, and if he's got no abilities worth mentioning, how can that be fun?

Except that if you do not have the requisite, actual, background and active skills to reinforce your backstory, well, then you are not truly playing a burnout, are you? You are, in effect, cheating. You are obviously no longer playing a concept, but a collection of favorable numbers that you attempt to get to the highest point you can, backstory be damnned. If you are incapable of coming up with a concept, and then actually following through with it, why are you even asking if it is fun. If backstory, personality, and abilities do not mesh, how can the concept even work?

Here's a game for you. Name any Shadowrun character concept (personality and abilities) and I'll show you how optimization will not only improve the character, but make it more fun to roleplay.

So, now you know what kind of Fun I like too? Wow, you are truly amazing; and highly arrogant. Who are you to tell me what kind of fun I like? And believe me, I can improve my character's just fine, without having to optimize or hyper-specialize. Just amazing...

[KarmaInferno]

There is, in fact, a difference between "useless", "adequate", and "hyperoptimized"

It's not like there's a binary switch that flips between only "can't accomplish anything" and "super-min-maxed demigod".




-k

who actually plays super min-maxed demigods much of the time, but appreciates other play styles

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There is, in fact, a difference between "useless", "adequate", and "hyperoptimized"

It's not like there's a binary switch that flips between only "can't accomplish anything" and "super-min-maxed demigod".

-k

No one is suggesting 'worthless' characters that 'drag everyone down'. We're talking about sub-optimal, but perfectly normal, real, and valid, characters.

Thank You KarmaInferno and Yerameyahu. This cannot be said often enough...

[Cain]

I know *how* you can burn out. I'm saying fluffing the fact that you used to have magic is cheating and lying if you *didn't* use to have magic. That's the whole point of the example: *burnout*.

Is it cheating when a character says "I used to be a cop" when he's starting out? I mean, technically he never was a cop; the character only really existed at the start of the game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif) It all amount to the same thing: Backstory and roleplay. If you had magic, but lost it during your backstory, it's just color and direction.

I didn't say 'no abilities worth mentioning'. On the contrary, my whole point is that you can have abilities worth mentioning without being 'optimized'. And you continue to wrongly say that more numbers means more fun to play. There is no connection (positive or negative) between better numbers and more fun.

You're missing my point. By fixing your concepts, I'm not making them hyper-optimized. But I am 'optimizing' them, so they do something well. If you can't do anything well (not optimized), then it's not fun to play. If you can do something well, you're min/maxed and optimized to some degree. There is nothing wrong with optimizing a character-- in fact, since it involves a greater player investment, min.maxed characters are often more fun to play.

Now, hyperoptimized one-trick-ponies? Those can get annoying. But that depends on the game.

My point was never that you can't (partially) optimize any given character, but that some concepts (fun ones) are inherently suboptimal.

Name a few, then. Burnout mage is disproven, see below. Mr. No-nothing? That's not a concept, that's a stat block, give me something to work with. (Although I can see a starting character who not only hates magic and augmentation, but doesn't even realize he's an initiated adept. That would actually be more fun.)

You must not play concepts very often then.

In fact, I never play concepts. I play *characters*. Fully fleshed-out and realized concepts, who take on a life of their own and are fun for everybody.

Except that if you do not have the requisite, actual, background and active skills to reinforce your backstory, well, then you are not truly playing a burnout, are you? You are, in effect, cheating. You are obviously no longer playing a concept, but a collection of favorable numbers that you attempt to get to the highest point you can, backstory be damnned. If you are incapable of coming up with a concept, and then actually following through with it, why are you even asking if it is fun. If backstory, personality, and abilities do not mesh, how can the concept even work?

Who says I don't? Given that you can't take any active Awakened skills unless you have Magic, you can't start a burnout with any of those skills... but you could invest heavily in magical Knowledge skills. You could also have a ton of magical contacts (representing people who trained you magically, and take pity on you) and otherwise gear yourself up as a burnout. Making a burnout with magical Active skills *is* cheating.

See? Not only does backstory, personality, and abilities mesh, you've now got more points for abilities, making him more capable and fun to play with.

[Yerameyahu]

A cop is totally different from an Awakened character, and a burnout. For one thing, cops don't know anything to start with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Mr.-Pure isn't my concept (and I didn't say it was a complete character), but it's an aspect of character concepts I've seen here before.

… How could a character not know he's an initiated adept? Crazy.

"If you can't do anything well (not optimized), then it's not fun to play." "… making him more capable and fun to play with."

Nope. Fun has nothing to do with 'usefulness'. However, I still don't understand why you're mentioning this at all. I already said, "My point was never that you can't (partially) optimize any given character". There's no question at all of 'fixing', 'hyper-optimizing', or anything even vaguely like that. My point is that some character concepts are inherently less powerful than others, which has zero bearing on being fun. T

Let's re-refocus:

My position is that, no, survival and usefulness are *not* reasons (not primary ones, anyway).

That's the only thing I'm talking about. They asked 'why would you ever play a character who's not super-powerful?' That's not even 'the best version of himself', it's 'why isn't everyone a pornomancer [or other 'super build']?'

[Cain]

My point is that some character concepts are inherently less powerful than others, which has zero bearing on being fun.

No, but it's easier. If you hand the players characters without strong points and weak points, there's much less to build a personality on. You need those strong and weak points, because every human has them. Shadowrunners, being somewhat larger than life, need bigger ones. At any event, if your character isn't strong enough at something to be useful to a Shadowrun team, why are they there?

That's the only thing I'm talking about. They asked 'why would you ever play a character who's not super-powerful?' That's not even 'the best version of himself', it's 'why isn't everyone a pornomancer [or other 'super build']?'

Please note, you're the one discussing super-builds. I'm talking about strong builds, not "leaping over a tall building in a single bound" builds. And strong builds are inherently more fun that weak ones, because they can do more and accomplish their goals. Even suboptimal "concepts" can be made into strong builds, as my twist on the burnout mage shows. Or Mr. Nothing; if he hates magic and swears to hunt down everything magical and destroy it, while unknowingly being an initiated adept with masking, *that*'s a fun concept.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Please note, you're the one discussing super-builds. I'm talking about strong builds, not "leaping over a tall building in a single bound" builds. And strong builds are inherently more fun that weak ones, because they can do more and accomplish their goals. Even suboptimal "concepts" can be made into strong builds, as my twist on the burnout mage shows. Or Mr. Nothing; if he hates magic and swears to hunt down everything magical and destroy it, while unknowingly being an initiated adept with masking, *that*'s a fun concept.

You cannot "unknowingly" initiate... It takes focus and effort, which does not coincide with the "unknowingly" that you posit.
And nope, NOT a fun concept. Not for me anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Cain]

You cannot "unknowingly" initiate... It takes focus and effort, which does not coincide with the "unknowlingly" that you posit.
And nope, NOT a fun concept. Not for me anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Oh yes you can. First recorded instance was in Shadowbeat, an athlete who turned out to have multiple initiate grades without knowing it.

And it's only not fun if your into sour grapes. A magic-hater who doesn't know he's magical? Fun on a bun..(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Oh yes you can. First recorded instance was in Shadowbeat, an athlete who turned out to have multiple initiate grades without knowing it.

And it's only not fun if your into sour grapes. A magic-hater who doesn't know he's magical? Fun on a bun..(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

From what I know, that is the Only recorded Instance. Could be more, maybe, but not likely. And my guess is he tells people that to divert them. See, even you believed it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It has nothing to do with sour grapes. I do not like the concept, so it would be no fun for me. See how that works. You cannot dictate what is fun for others. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Cain, that's the question I was responding to all along. If it's not what you're talking about, then you're not talking to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Draco18s and Neraph asked 'why play if you're not powerful?' or possibly 'why not be powerful (given you can)?'.

That's a *different* fun concept, which is fine (AFAIK, though, you can't *currently* initiate accidentally, but I don't particularly care either way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ). As I said, there are lots of powerful (fun) concepts, and lots of not-powerful (fun) concepts.

[Cain]

Cain, that's the question I was responding to all along. If it's not what you're talking about, then you're not talking to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Draco18s and Neraph asked 'why play if you're not powerful?' or possibly 'why not be powerful (given you can)?'.

That's a *different* fun concept, which is fine (AFAIK, though, you can't *currently* initiate accidentally, but I don't particularly care either way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ). As I said, there are lots of powerful (fun) concepts, and lots of not-powerful (fun) concepts.

You're talking super-builds, they're talking powerful builds. There's a huge difference there. You can be an effective Face without being a Pornomancer, for example. And before we start quibbling over what counts as "powerful" and what counts as "super", the point is that a Shadowrun character needs to be good at something. If he's not effective somewhere, without anything worth contributing to the team, it's no fun for anyone.

Even your "non-powerful" concepts can be more fun if they can actually accomplish something, which means they're capable in some area.

Also: there's at least two cases of people initiating without knowing it from SR1: the guy I mentioned and Sam Verner. Additionally, all SR4.5 says is that it requires preparation and karma expenditure, not deliberate magical effort. Things like building your own sword, going on a walkabout, crafting your own lucky charm/religious icon, and so on, can all count. You can even do an Ordeal "accidentally", the magic-hunter "Mr. Nothing" might take on a hive of bug spirits, and earn a Deed. Even though TJ wouldn't play the concept, he has to admit it's interesting, and therefore fun for the right player. The only difference is, it's not deliberately gimped, and much more fun with a more interesting hook for the GM.

[Yerameyahu]

That's not the case. Draco18s said 'why would you ever play someone who can summon F3 spirits when you could just make one who can summon F6 all day long?'. Neraph said "it's fairly easy to build a character with 400 BP that matches or exceeds the capabilities of some of the most powerful NPCs depicted in the setting," and followed with the assertion that you therefore *should*. That's them talking 'super', not me. I'm not even talking powerful.

I lost count how many times I've said this about non-optimal characters: they *are* good for something. They *are* effective somewhere. They *are* contributing something. They *are* capable in some area. What they're *not* is 'optimal'.

It's a fine concept, if irrelevant. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I was just surprised by the idea that they wouldn't be aware.

[Draco18s]

Neraph said "it's fairly easy to build a character with 400 BP that matches or exceeds the capabilities of some of the most powerful NPCs depicted in the setting,"

If by "easy" you mean "accidentally" then yes.

From my understanding, it's actually really hard to build a 400 BP character to be "less effective/useful/whatever" than a setting NPC.

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug*. When he says "the most powerful NPCs depicted in the setting", I give him the benefit of the doubt that's meant to be something relatively powerful. If he actually meant, 'all NPCs are crap', then I don't understand his statement at all.

Your sentiment seemed clear, as well: 'why be okay at magic (F3 spirits are very handy) when you could instead be awesome?' If I'm mis-stating your position, tell me. The way I read it (along with your following comments), you were saying that F3 spirits (or any character of that power level) is useless (by vice of not being optimal).

My constant point has simply been that F3-spirit-summoner (or equivalent) is not worthless, unfun, dragging the team down, etc., especially given that there are different power levels, amounts of combat, or other group/table variations. Cain distracted me into the subpoint that power is totally unrelated to fun, but it's really all the same. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[3278]

...the point is that a Shadowrun character needs to be good at something. If he's not effective somewhere, without anything worth contributing to the team, it's no fun for anyone.

It's no fun for you, and perhaps no fun for persons of your acquaintance. There are other people, however, who enjoy things which differ from the things you enjoy; for those people, it's possible to play a non-optimal, sub-optimal, or even downright useless character, and enjoy it as much or more than a more "effective" character. In fact, many players find it's the incapabilities, or "flaws," of a character which make it interesting or memorable. One of my most popular characters was the the Street Kid contact; I daresay he was less-than optimal, and he was fun for myself and the others at my table. The very fact that there are people in this thread saying, "I play sub-optimal characters and they're just as fun," should indicate that not everyone's experiences match your own; or are you under the impression you know what's fun for them better than they do?

Shadowrun's a big game, and it's played by an incredibly wide variety of people. It's great that you share your experiences at the table with other people; that's the reason forums like this exist. But it's a lot less helpful, and often completely unreasonable, to make absolutist statements like, "it's no fun for anyone," because while it might not be fun for you, or for persons in your experience, it's important to remember that the world is broader than our own experiences. Indeed, that's the purpose for sharing them at all.

[Cain]

It's no fun for you, and perhaps no fun for persons of your acquaintance. There are other people, however, who enjoy things which differ from the things you enjoy; for those people, it's possible to play a non-optimal, sub-optimal, or even downright useless character, and enjoy it as much or more than a more "effective" character. In fact, many players find it's the incapabilities, or "flaws," of a character which make it interesting or memorable. One of my most popular characters was the the Street Kid contact; I daresay he was less-than optimal, and he was fun for myself and the others at my table. The very fact that there are people in this thread saying, "I play sub-optimal characters and they're just as fun," should indicate that not everyone's experiences match your own; or are you under the impression you know what's fun for them better than they do?

Shadowrun's a big game, and it's played by an incredibly wide variety of people. It's great that you share your experiences at the table with other people; that's the reason forums like this exist. But it's a lot less helpful, and often completely unreasonable, to make absolutist statements like, "it's no fun for anyone," because while it might not be fun for you, or for persons in your experience, it's important to remember that the world is broader than our own experiences. Indeed, that's the purpose for sharing them at all.

I have yet to see someone who played a truly "suboptimal" character that wasn't also a dramacopter. All the character/player could do was drown the others into their personal drama, which might *sound* like fun, but really blows chunks in the long run.

What I see is people saying they play "suboptimal" characters when they really mean "not min/maxed to hell and back again". Those sort of characters can be fun. But a deliberately gimped character, not good for anything? Nope, sorry. There's nothing they can bring to the table except maybe roleplay, and that roleplay is only about themselves. The original "Mr. Nothing" concept is an example: no magic, no drugs, no augmentations, no nothing. In SR4.5, there's nothing he can do that someone else can't do a hell of a lot better. But if you bend the concept a little, you can both be effective and an interesting character.

I will acknowledge that a character's flaws are just as interesting as his strengths. Any good personality should have its highs and lows, that's part of what makes a character. But concept-wise, what's the difference between someone who can only summon Force 3 spirits, versus the guy who can summon force 6's? Without knowing anything else, the more powerful guy sure sounds a lot better, because that means he can do more. Now, there might be atradeoff somewhere, more effectiveness in some other area, but it's hard to say. There's nothing to be gained from gimping a character, and a whole lot to lose.

[Yerameyahu]

Ugh. So boring. Your personal experience is not evidence. Power does not equal fun; it doesn't even equal 'the ability to do more things'. I shouldn't have to tell you the character-concept difference between a mage that can summon F6 spirits 'all day long' and one who can only manage F3; those are totally different concepts, just by that interacting with the setting.

A character who *can* summon F6 'all day long' *is* "min/maxed to hell and back again". We *are* talking about 'super' being the only thing that's good enough… and you're on my side of that (original, central) argument. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Even a 'deliberately useless' character (a weird edge case that other people brought up, I guess) is perfectly fine if it's fun for the group—this isn't impossible, unlikely, whatever. Bad roleplay is bad roleplay; it has nothing to with power. 'Drama' has nothing do to with power. Spotlight hogs are spotlight hogs, whether via mechanical power or 'just' roleplay.

[Cain]

Ugh. So boring. Your personal experience is not evidence. Power does not equal fun; it doesn't even equal 'the ability to do more things'. I shouldn't have to tell you the character-concept difference between a mage that can summon F6 spirits 'all day long' and one who can only manage F3; those are totally different concepts, just by that interacting with the setting.

A character who *can* summon F6 'all day long' *is* "min/maxed to hell and back again". We *are* talking about 'super' being the only thing that's good enough… and you're on my side of that (original, central) argument. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Even a 'deliberately useless' character (a weird edge case that other people brought up, I guess) is perfectly fine if it's fun for the group—this isn't impossible, unlikely, whatever. Bad roleplay is bad roleplay; it has nothing to with power. 'Drama' has nothing do to with power. Spotlight hogs are spotlight hogs, whether via mechanical power or 'just' roleplay.

Actually, the character that can summon Force 12 spirits all day long is min/maxed to hell and back again. Force 6 is powerful, but not game stopping. Force 12's? Insane, and I've seen it in enough different environments that I know it's not just me. Summoning a force 6 at little risk is easy to do, it doesn't require significant cheese. Force 12's, now.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Power does not equal fun, but the ability to accomplish your character's goals does. What's the fun in not being able to accomplish anything? And the ability to accomplish things is a form of power, although admittedly it's not the only one.

Deliberately gimped characters, however, are universally no fun. Not only can they not actually do anything, they tend to drag others down with them. It's not just that they're inept, (that can be comical) but that they can't be relied on for anything. Role-playing games are team play games; you always rely on the other characters. What's more, they might be "roleplay characters", but if they don't have the stats to back it up, *they're not even good at that*. A fast talking street waif with Charisma 1, Con 0, isn't going to be able to convince anyone to give him spare change, let alone be able to convince a guard he's harmless. The player is relying on roleplay cheese, using superior roleplay skills to get things he should have spent points on. That's at least as bad as relying on superior system mastery skills.

[3278]

I have yet to see someone who played a truly "suboptimal" character that wasn't also a dramacopter.

Okay, sure, you have yet to see that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, right? I've never seen a black swan, but I hear they're real. Well, here's your black swan: several people in this thread have seen it, and while you can't see it for yourself until you play at our tables, surely the fact that several people are showing you pictures of their black swans means that you'll change your position from, "There are no black swans," to, "I've never personally seen a black swan, but I've heard they're real." Right?

Without knowing anything else, the more powerful guy sure sounds a lot better, because that means he can do more.

This, by the way, is the initial assumption from which you're operating that is incorrect, and on which your other incorrect views are based. You're taking as a given that everyone equates "can do more" with "better," and many, many groups and individuals don't agree with this initial assumption. It's totally cool if you feel this way - I think a lot of people do - but other people feel differently; you probably want to avoid assuming your own experiences are universal, as a general rule, in roleplaying as elsewhere.

[Yerameyahu]

Cain. The theoretical character *can* accomplish something. Read that again. Stop arguing that he can't, and therefore isn't fun.

The elf example is a character whose stats don't fit his concept, so he's automatically bad and disqualified. The same goes for characters whose stats are too *high* for their concept.

F12-summoner would be even worse (if it's even a possibility), but someone who can consistently never take drain from F6's is plenty super, and they're plenty game-breaking.