Flawed characters vs Perfect skill/gear sets, who makes characters that are not perfect based on background? Options

[MortVent]

I see a lot of people make their characters to be perfect, with all the right skills and gear when created.

Now I understand the logic, and do it myself at times. If the concept fits.

But how many will sit down and come up with a concept, then set up the character to fit it. Even if the character is not the perfect adept/gun bunneh/ hacker/ spell slinger/etc that they could be.

I've had characters with skills that fit, but actually do nothing for the 'role' they have in the group (a good example was a hacker with artisan(singing) 2(4) that always wanted to be a singer and was decent at it...but never got a chance to do more than amateur nights at the local clubs)

But I have seen a lot of posted characters on websites where it's "so and so was a corporate brat, and after the corp did such and such to mom and dad they ran" as a background. With a skill set that was more "So and so was trained from birth to be a company man with advanced skills in hacking, firearms, and equipped with the best gear money can buy before they went rogue"

[Yerameyahu]

So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This'll end well…

[Ol' Scratch]

That's pretty much the only way I make characters, and have for years and years now. My profile here has a few of their concepts jotted down.

I don't get the people who create exercises in number crunching, either. I mean, I'm no louse at building strong characters myself, but the ones I usually see posted are so damn boring. Even their Knowledge Skills -- the easiest place to slip some fun into a character -- are completely uninspired and matter-of-fact. It's really disappointing.

There are some areas where you have to put aside your concept in order to make the character playable. A character with a Body and Willpower of 1 isn't going to survive long at all, for instance, nor is one who completely lacks any Perception or Dodge skill. Fortunately, this can be accounted for by the fact that these characters aren't "1st level;" it's assumed they've done enough to build a small reputation and gain contacts in the shadows before the game even begins. This allows you to work in some of those vital game mechanics without ruining your core concept.

But, in my opinion anyway, you still need an interesting concept to make a character a character, and not just a bunch of numbers so you can "win" the game.

[3278]

But how many will sit down and come up with a concept, then set up the character to fit it.

I don't make any other kind of character. My characters could all be a lot more "effective" in an objective way, but their background precludes it. But "power," or "efficacy" isn't what wins you props at our table, it's:

1. Thinking of a character, a "real" person who would exist in the game world,
2. Accurately rendering that character into stats, within the limitations the GM and players have established, and
3. Accurately portraying that character at the table.

Bonus points are given for being able to kick ass and get shit done, but it's not what earns respect. Anybody can make a character that kills people a bunch; we give praise to those who act accurately. Sometimes this means making decisions that the character would make that you wouldn't, even sometimes unto getting everyone else killed. That's cool. The ideal, though, is that you master both the game and the metagame, that you make characters who get shit done while still being charmingly flawed, that you play someone interestingly without impeding the progress of both the GM's game and the other stories being told by the other players with their characters. Roleplaying gets priority, but we give mad props when someone manages to fulfill the dictates of both.

[stevebugge]

So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This'll end well…

Quite unfortunately we've seen this debate a few times and it usually isn't pretty. I come down in the camp of build interesting characters with sub-optimal builds and interesting personalities and quirks

[MortVent]

So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This'll end well…

not exactly.

there is no cheating/metagaming issue or concern.

I'm more interested in knowing how people go about creating their characters.


I've played in games where we didn't do the character sheets, the GM and other players sat down and hashed them out based on our character premise and ideas. I've played in games where all the characters were 600bp prime runners with a bonus of 40 BP for fluff skills (to split between knowledge and active skills with a minimum of 16BP to each type). I've also done the make the best character at generation and then go from there games (filling in the background as we went with them being seasoned runners)

[Yerameyahu]

If the character's crunch is disconnected from their fluff (especially in the sense of optimized-vs.-'real'), that's what it means. Isn't that the definition of bad roleplaying and metagaming?

In any case, the obvious answer is that people don't (intentionally) do that. Everyone at least wants to pretend their character sheet matches their character concept, and that their concept is a good, 3D, non-boring-powerbuild one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Daylen]

So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This'll end well…

It sounds more like "do people build a character around a back story or a back story around a character?"

[Daylen]

If the character's crunch is disconnected from their fluff (especially in the sense of optimized-vs.-'real'), that's what it means. Isn't that the definition of bad roleplaying and metagaming?

In any case, the obvious answer is that people don't (intentionally) do that. Everyone at least wants to pretend their character sheet matches their character concept, and that their concept is a good, 3D, non-boring-powerbuild one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Its the sign of someone who doesn't really want to write a back ground.

[Yerameyahu]

I must have misread, then. I thought he said the backstory (the character) didn't *fit* the crunch (the character sheet). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If it's just the simpler question of 'interesting character versus strong character', that's a different (and equally fraught, old) debate. The order doesn't matter, if your concept is 'perfect soldier'. (Just to be crystal clear, I *am* saying that it's a false dichotomy between 'roleplay' and 'power'; I think everyone knows this to be false, but I don't wanna get angry letters.)

[Christian Lafay]

Honestly I don't think it matters if you have the story or the stats first. As long as there is a good story eventually. Every the "I've abused Trust Fund and Advanced Lifestyles" character had a story to explain him. Metagaming and roleplay aren't binary.

[Faraday]

Honestly I don't think it matters if you have the story or the stats first. As long as there is a good story eventually. Every the "I've abused Trust Fund and Advanced Lifestyles" character had a story to explain him. Metagaming and roleplay aren't binary.

Basically this. I tend to look at what role(s) I want to be solid at and build numbers there. Then I flavor the character with additional skills/qualities/contacts as desired. Then, when all the numbers are down, I look at any holes in the story I've left, and try to fill them as needed or even leave them to be explained later. It makes for a fairly effective character that is fun to roleplay with a decent amount of wiggle room for working with the campaign's and other characters' stories.

[Christian Lafay]

Another thing, my GM has this great thing where every character has to take at least one active skill that has no foreseeable benefit for runs. My Trust Fund character has gotten quiet good at golf. Eventually had to buy a permit to drive balls off of his penthouse balcony.

[Glyph]

I like making characters with interesting personality quirks and an organic feel to their stats, but I generally start out with a concept, rough out what it needs, and then tweak it as needed as I detail the background out more. I don't think a flawed character is necessarily synonymous with good roleplaying - I do think that characters should make sense within the game universe. They should have skills that would be useful within a group of corporate espionage specialists, but they should also be characters who could have conceivably survived on their own before meeting the group. Skills should come in clusters of things that logically go together, without omissions that make no sense. That is, unless you are deliberately making the character limited in some way (a fighting machine who is manipulated by his fixer and others because he is naive, etc.).

Characters should match their concept, stat-wise. This is true of weak characters as well. An in-book example of a weak character that doesn't match its concept is the weapons specialist. The character in question is not a "literal martial artist". The flavor text would fit her better if she was described as an armorer who likes to play with her toys. Similarly, if your character is only rolling 11 dice for pistols after adding in his muscle toner and smartlink, that's cool, but don't describe him like he's an awesome gunslinger (unless it's from his POV and he overrates himself - that could actually be pretty interesting to see it play out).

I think cookie cutter characters are less interesting (although they can be useful the same way the archetypes can - for quick pickup games). But I still think character creation should involve lots of metagaming - not just for making an effective character, but for making a character that won't be too strong, too weak, or otherwise disruptive for the specific table. Characters are not freeform creative writing assignments. They are more focused creations. They are made not only to function within the parameters of the game world, but to function in conjunction with the creations of the other players.

[Jet]

Personally I like to do the backstory first then make up the character with BP. I have never used the Karma build system, but I heard it makes a slightly more organic character. In any case I like to make up my story then use the BP to bring the story to life. Sometimes I am too ambitious and have to prune away some things I originally wanted or adjust things, but generally I am able to get in the ballpark of what I was going for. My backstory keeps me on the path rather than looking for "effecient" combinations of skill and or gear. If it doesn't make sense for my guy to have something I think it is better to stay true to your backstory than compromise in favor of some extra dice.

I also recomment talking with your GM and other players to find a baseline for the game. A character that fits into the group and the world will be easier to write up if you know what you are looking for and at. It may save your GM some headaches later on by making sure that he doesn't have a bunch of square pegs for round holes.

[Faraday]

They are made not only to function within the parameters of the game world, but to function in conjunction with the creations of the other players.

This here. This is important right here.

It takes teamwork (between everyone involved) both in game and out of game to make for a good shadowrun. Without good communication, there can be no teamwork. Without teamwork, there can be no good outcome to ANY roleplaying game.

[Tech_Rat]

I've always found my fully optimized charcacters to be rather dull and flat. That said, I will build my character to be about 80% optimized. Pick a PQ that is hit or miss, and an NQ that hurts the character in a noticeable way. Maybe not severely, but noticeable. Picking about half of my knowskills to be completely random and fluffy, and one or two good actives[useful or not in the game], and play with them. I really like to break from the couch and table, roleplaying the character. That's where the fun is to be had.

[Tech_Rat]

Double Post. I blame the mages.

[Irion]

There are reasons standart Karma-Gen characters are always described as "more of a character" than BP based...

So well, if you use BP you will need to finde a compromise between character and playable.
You have to think about giving your Sam the influance group on 1 or some thing like that. Because if you do so, you start bleeding points fast.
Same thing with for example a mage or a hacker. It might fit to increase strength from 1 to 2 or get the athletic group at least at one.
But are already 20BP (For actually just 20 Karma...)
Compare that to increasing willpower from 4 to 5 and getting the summoning group from 3 to 4. It is probably more usefull and would have cost 45 Karma..

[Faraday]

Yeah, I really like karmagen. Optimizing in that system usually makes for pretty organic characters. Lots of skills at 1-2, several at 3-4. Attributes can look like something other than a bubbleheaded sex machine/mindless killing machine/idiot savant.

[Daylen]

I don't always start with a back story, or stats. What I start with is usually up to what is being played and what others make. Either way I will optimize my character 100% for what I want. I don't do unused stats "just for character". If I give a character max points in active skill singing, then I have a plan for how to make it useful either in prep for a run, during the run or somewhere else. If the outcome will never matter in game and its all fluff, then I WILL NOT put points in such an active skill, but I will use background skills for such fluff; that's what background skills are for. However, I do not usually make one trick ponies; that's an easy way to get a third of the pay I'm due and miss out on at least half the run. The guy who usually plays the face tries to scam the rest of the party out of most of the pay, so for those who can't keep up on face stuff or at least keep an eye out for such activities will loose out.

[3278]

In any case I like to make up my story then use the BP to bring the story to life. Sometimes I am too ambitious and have to prune away some things I originally wanted or adjust things, but generally I am able to get in the ballpark of what I was going for.

I think this process is a lot of fun. I use character generators, so I can easily flip things around, so it's trivial to design the character in my head, then just throw the numbers that fit that onto the sheet, and then see where I stand. If I have points left over, maybe I change the idea to add some new points expense [although sometimes I don't; usually I have some points left over when play starts]; if I've been over-ambitious, then I prune and whittle until I can fit within the table limits. Sometimes I'll spent 20 or 40 hours or more tweaking and adjusting, trying to serve the GM, the other players, myself, and the character, all as best I can.

Pick a PQ that is hit or miss, and an NQ that hurts the character in a noticeable way.

I often use Qualities as inspiration for character ideas - so I start there - but when I don't, I'll just go through the books one Quality at a time, and take any of those that apply to my character concept. Sometimes I end up with -80/+35 or something, but I have a very understanding GM who doesn't really concern himself deeply with "balance," at least partially because we work hard to make sure he doesn't have to.

[The Jopp]

I usually base a character from a concept. The concept can be Gear or Ability or Background.

When creating the character I never do number crunching to see how good they are at hitting things for example or a specific dicepool. I DO however numbercrunch Essence/Cash/Magic rating when combining Cyberware and such things to get an optimal build that is as close to my vision as possible.

I also like to add the odd skill somewhere that is related to their background.

For example, my exbaptist preacher turned Ghoul hve the knowledge skill "Rabble Rousing - Biblical" and a leader ship skill of "Leadership/Persuade" at 1/3.

It didnt stop me from giving him a signature tri-barreled shotgun with a plethora of awakened hunting ammunition and giving a damage equal to a panther assault cannon at times.

[Patrick Goodman]

I've never made an optimized, min-max character. Okay, I haven't since junior high. They're boring, and real people...at least the interesting ones...are flawed and not optimized. The characters you'll get from me (with the exception of Martin de Vries, and I did what I could with him) won't be number-crunched to within an inch of their lives.

[Daylen]

I've never made an optimized, min-max character. Okay, I haven't since junior high. They're boring, and real people...at least the interesting ones...are flawed and not optimized. The characters you'll get from me (with the exception of Martin de Vries, and I did what I could with him) won't be number-crunched to within an inch of their lives.

...by flawed I are you referring to taking flaws for more BP? Those are usually fun.