[X] My Assistant

[Cain]

Everyone knows that optimized doesn't mean bad roleplay or unfun. However, there are many good roleplay concepts that inherently can't be optimal.

As I already said, there's a difference between a team of specialists and a perfectly matched set of totally unrealistic, symbiotic characters.

And there's just as many extremely fun roleplay concepts that inherently can't be sub-optimal. Your point?

If roleplay is all you want, and stats don't matter, what's the difference between an optimized an an unoptimized build? In Shadowrun, it's that one will help the team, while the other will drag it down. So, in the end, the optimized build will actually be more fun to play, for both the player and the team.

[Dahrken]

I think your discussion revolves around a misunderstanding.

One of you answers the question "Is the optimised character more effective" (he is, at least in it's specialty), and the other "Is the non-optimised character effective enough" (he can, depending on the table)...

[KarmaInferno]

Also misunderstood - I wasn't implying that roleplay means unoptimized.

But there are in fact players who don't pay much attention to the extreme details of the rules, and being only interested in roleplay can be one of the reasons why.

More generally, an awful lot of people I run into don't optimize because they simply aren't interested in doing so.

I know it's sometimes hard for a hardcore optimizer to understand the mindset, but some folks just don't find searching and scratching out every little loophole and min-max rule to perfect a character build all that fascinating. They cobble together a character that fills their particular basic needs and that's as far as they want to think about optimization.



-k

[Yerameyahu]

That *is* my point, Cain: the categories 'optimized' and 'fun roleplay' are not congruent. I said exactly that earlier: they overlap some, and they also have areas where they don't overlap.

Your second point is crap, though. Fun-optimized is not more fun than fun-unoptimized. They are both fun, by definition.

That's the thing, Dahrken: I'm saying that 'effective' is irrelevant either way.

[Draco18s]

More generally, an awful lot of people I run into don't optimize because they simply aren't interested in doing so.

Falling back to the good ol' "because I want to" argument. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Let's refocus. Here are the questions I think I've been answering all along:

There is no real reason why you should [be fully optimal] though.

Survival isn't a reason? What strange world do I exist in then?

Survival is not properly the primary focus of a tabletop RPG character. It depends on how that fits the game, group, story, etc.

No, but usefulness is. If you have a character that's only half as useful as another character, what was the point?

My position is that, no, survival and usefulness are *not* reasons (not primary ones, anyway). Fun characters are, which fit the game/group/table. This might arbitrarily be high- or low-powered, but that's unrelated. If your *concept* is 'god of pistols', you need to be optimized—if you're not, you're not playing the character right. However, if your concept is 'burnout mage', you basically *can't* be optimized without playing your character *wrong*.

So… that's why you'd see suboptimal characters: don't fit the game/group/table, and/or don't fit the concept. Being non-optimized 'because I want to' is one of the *best* possible reasons.

[Draco18s]

However, if your concept is 'burnout mage', you basically *can't* be optimized without playing your character *wrong*.

So… that's why you'd see suboptimal characters: don't fit the game/group/table, and/or don't fit the concept. Being non-optimized 'because I want to' is one of the *best* possible reasons.

And what, exactly, is a burntout mage bringing to the table? I'm remembering this post, from the CLUE files.

When I was in the Marine Corps I played with a group of Marines who approached Shadowrun like any good Marine would-by the numbers! They were a particularly lethal group, who excelled at close quarters combat. We had a cat from another company decide he wanted in, so we gave him some SR2 books and the guidelines and he built a character. In the first game he never says a word except every time something happens he pipes up and says, " I stealth away!" After three sessions we decide to try and approach him about this. He gets really upset and says we're being dicks, and then decides to press up against the wall and starts trying to creep away. While we're staring at him.

Not saying you can't play a burnout mage, just that I don't see what they're bringing to the table if all they can do is yammer on about magic and how they used to be good at it (it's the only thing they were skilled at, but no longer).

[Yerameyahu]

A character! That's the point: usefulness is not *the* factor. If he can help the team at all (knowledge, contacts, other skills, anything), then he could conceivably be part of a shadowrun—especially if the overall power level is low.

I don't understand the clue bit. Bad player is bad? Shock.

[Draco18s]

A character! That's the point: usefulness is not *the* factor. If he can help the team at all (knowledge, contacts, other skills, anything), then he could conceivably be part of a shadowrun—especially if the overall power level is low.

So it's ok to show up to a table and be in a game and contribute nothing towards completing the mission?

[Yerameyahu]

That's the exact opposite of what I *just* said. I specifically mentioned contributions. I'm not sure how you got from 'non-optimized' to 'nothing'.

But if that's what happens, sure, fine. The object is to *play* the game, and playing the concept of 'character who doesn't help on shadowruns' is a valid, if short-lived, concept. He'll get cut loose, which is a perfectly good narrative event. I still don't think it's *likely*, but it's your example, not mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are other (infinitely many) possibilities, even in that weird subset: un-ditchable tag-along of another character, maybe. If someone thinks it's fun and they can make it fit the setting and game, that's the point. Lord knows we've seen 'optimized' super-sams with literally zero social skills, contacts, knowledge, etc., which is just as bad.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And what, exactly, is a burntout mage bringing to the table? I'm remembering this post, from the CLUE files.

Not saying you can't play a burnout mage, just that I don't see what they're bringing to the table if all they can do is yammer on about magic and how they used to be good at it (it's the only thing they were skilled at, but no longer).

Depends upon the build, doesn't it?
It really is very amusing that you are incapable of seeing any character that is not hyper-optimized as being useful.

Not long ago, I talked about a build that was non-Augmented, who had more than 30 Skills, many of which were in the 9-12 Dice Pool range. Yet, That was just not good enough. I have to tell you that, maybe at YOUR table, it may not be good enough for you; but any table I would play at, he would probably be the team leader. Why? Because he was competant at many, many things, including Leadership. 9-12 Dice is competant. No, he was not hyper-specialized, nor was he over-optimized, but that is okay. As I have said previously: Why would a character need 20 Dice if 10 will suffice? If the answer is so that the character never fails, well, that is boring.

I have yet to find a table where 10-12 Dice was not sufficient for most things. Will that number creep up over time? Yes, with experience and Karma, the DP's will increase, but it is not a mandatory thing. For reference: Most of My characters tend to top at around 16 dice (give or take a few), once they have received sufficient (100+) Karma. On rare occasions, I will build one with close to 20, but that is because the concept demands such proficiency. I don't do it very often. And when I do, I often do not play the character very long because, as I said before, never failing a roll is boring to me.

And for an answer to your question. Say you have a Burntout Mage who was once very powerful (Magic 6). Now, he has some ware, and addiction or two, a Magic of 2, and 2 Initiate Grades. You can't see any redeeming qualities for this character? I sure can. For one, His Counterspelling is completely unaffected for Spell Defense purposes. Yes, His magic is weak, but he is still more powerful than any Non-Mage out there as far as Magic goes (Spell Selection for such a character is key here). And he likely has a ton of knowledge about magic and its dangers. I could see a lot of potential for this character, dependant upon his backstory and his character development. The fact that he is not OMG Powerful does not make him useless.

Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

So it's ok to show up to a table and be in a game and contribute nothing towards completing the mission?

Roleplaying games do have success or fail moments, but they are not, in fact, games with an overall "win" condition.

Even failing a mission can be fodder for roleplay. It doesn't have to mean the end of the game, put another quarter in, start over.

Being "the best" is only one possible roleplaying play style. There are many others just as fun.

I remember going and playing a game where all the characters were young girls and the premise was "the parents are out for the day and there's some weird noise in the basement". The characters were each one of the classic fantasy RPG classes, but down-powered to represent kids who haven't mastered their skills yet. The sorcerer could barely manage one spell, for example. None were min-maxed at all. Everyone at that game had an absolute blast.



-k

[Draco18s]

Roleplaying games do have success or fail moments, but they are not, in fact, games with an overall "win" condition.

Oh sure. Failing missions is good too. But my point is, if everyone is trying to succeed, and one character is a bump on a log, what's the point of that character?

[Cain]

A character! That's the point: usefulness is not *the* factor. If he can help the team at all (knowledge, contacts, other skills, anything), then he could conceivably be part of a shadowrun—especially if the overall power level is low.

In the case you describe, while the character concept might say "burned out mage", we could simply put the sub-heading "Face" on it, and have at. We now have someone who's social primary, magic secondary. The concept doesn't inherently mean he's unoptimized, it means he's unoptimized at magic, but very optimized at face skills and contacts. I'm afraid your argument isn't holding water:

[Draco18s]

In the case you describe, while the character concept might say "burned out mage", we could simply put the sub-heading "Face" on it, and have at. We now have someone who's social primary, magic secondary. The concept doesn't inherently mean he's unoptimized, it means he's unoptimized at magic, but very optimized at face skills and contacts. I'm afraid your argument isn't holding water:

Goodness, what a difference that makes. Now he has a primary ability (amazing!) that can be built towards and be optimized within the bounds of the concept. Obviously he's not going to be great at magic, he burnt out. But he can still be a great face/hacker/rigger/gunbunny or whatever.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Goodness, what a difference that makes. Now he has a primary ability (amazing!) that can be built towards and be optimized within the bounds of the concept. Obviously he's not going to be great at magic, he burnt out. But he can still be a great face/hacker/rigger/gunbunny or whatever.

Except that you were the one saying he was useless; no on else was (except maybe Cain)... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
And yet, to be a burntout mage, he should have magical Skills and Knowledges. Otherwise how was he even a Magician? The concept demands it.

[Yerameyahu]

Cain, I didn't say he was 'very optimized' at *anything*. I said, as I've always said, that he's not 'worthless'. And I think you'll find that a burnout mage can *never* be optimal… he wasted BP on lost magic. Duh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

He'd be functional, but sadly, the loss of that much BP might actually be too great to have a viable character, except in a street level game.

Similar to my drake adept. Functional, but would have been better if I'd specialized more.* Better still if he hadn't been a drake.

*I had hacking at like, 2. With a logic if ~5. I had 4 edge at that point in the game, tops, and spent three of it not-failing some hacking tests to disable a ceiling mounted turret (I was doing hardware hacking, getting a scanner to accept a single valid passkey multiple times for different people, rather than doing a software spoof/hack which I'd never have been able to pull off). Instead, I could have been pure mage-side (still a mystic adept, probably) and spent those BP on spells and spirit summoning. Would have both been more effective AND effective in more situations.

[Yerameyahu]

'Better' numerically. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

What's 'viable'? People keep posting concepts and asking if they're viable… anything is viable, if it's part of the setting and *fits*. At a lower-power group/game, a pornomancer is *not* viable.

[Cain]

Cain, I didn't say he was 'very optimized' at *anything*. I said, as I've always said, that he's not 'worthless'. And I think you'll find that a burnout mage can *never* be optimal… he wasted BP on lost magic. Duh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That depends on how you do it, why his magic is so low, and so on and so forth. Really, you could make him as a total mundane with serious Addiction flaws, he burned out his magic through drugs, not heavy cyber. There's also several people who play with house rules that starting essence only lowers your Magic cap, not your actual Magic rating. So yeah, there are ways of having a character who's a burned out mage (low magic or no magic) and still not waste too many points. The burnout mage can be done, the way you describe it is a face with a minor magical punch. That's entirely doable.

Point is, if he's not good at something, if he's not "very optimized" at something, he's good for nothing.

[Yerameyahu]

And that's a bad and wrong point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can be good for something without being 'very optimized' at anything.

If he's a burnout, then making a mundane with addictions (or ware) is cheating. He has to have had magic and lost it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And that's a bad and wrong point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can be good for something without being 'very optimized' at anything.

If he's a burnout, then making a mundane with addictions is cheating. He has to have had magic and lost it.

Indeed... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

And, for the record, I wasn't describing any kind of face (primary or otherwise). All characters can (should) have contacts, knowledge, various skills, and the last item in my list of examples was 'anything'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

And, for the record, I wasn't describing any kind of face (primary or otherwise). All characters can (should) have contacts, knowledge, various skills, and the last item in my list of examples was 'anything'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Precisely, which is why a character that brings ONLY that to the table is going to get raised eyebrows.

[Cain]

And that's a bad and wrong point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can be good for something without being 'very optimized' at anything.

If he's a burnout, then making a mundane with addictions (or ware) is cheating. He has to have had magic and lost it.

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.