The difference between "Munchkin" and "Powergamer Options

[Neraph]

First off, I'd like to wholeheartedly agree with the OP. I am proud to call myself a Powergamer.

[ Spoiler ]

I've always seen munchkinism (those that try to win the game) as pointless in RP games. THe point of roleplaying to me has always been the story of the characters. I will say that the biggest problem I have giving the "spotlight" to some players is that I don't see them take up the clue that it is their time to shine. But then again these are also the types of players who are not as involved RP wise. Here's a list of the types of role-player memes I've encountered over the years (with explanation/comments):

1. Power gamer:Uses the rules to get the best dice pool/skill/bonus possible. Usually focuses the PC in one area of expertise. This needs to be held in check when GMing SR though. NPC's always outnumber PC's and the use of edge can result in TPKs.

2. Rules-lawyer:Uses the rules, including omissions, bad grammer and such to get the best outcome possible for his/her PC. GMs with this quality are good at the mechanics of the game, but have difficulty when the Fluff (such as doing something beyond the rules written) does not match the crunch.

3. Story teller:Person tries to develop a story, as a GM this can be a good way to keep the plotline mooving and develop unique elements to a campaign (other than steal the mcguffin then get paid). A PC may also have a storyline, but within the confines of the group this may lead to a PC stealing the spotlight. The downside for the GM is similar, the GM has to make sure the story allows others to shine and be major players.

4. The FPS (First person shooter) or Personnal Combat Simulator (PCS): They like tactics, they like to kill things, they like to make things go boom. But they tend to ignore RPing.

5. The non conformist: This trait is the person that intentionally likes to take a game off the deep end. The do this partially out of a sense of "you can't make me" take the job. They despise rail roading. Best for more sandbox type campaigns.

6. The simplifier: A GM specific trait, a PC has no real way of doing it other than creating a very simple easy to use PC (Physads for example). GMs of this trait will not spend significant amounts of time looking up rules. They tend to keep things light on rules and try to keep the game moving. THe downside to this is that they may inadvetantly remove a PC's advantage and sometimes the dice rolling can get bland.

7. The house ruler: Likes to make house rules to compensate for real or percieved rules deficiencies. Not good for playing open games, and sometimes the changs result in a cascade of house rules (Chang X-so you need to chang ABCDEF).

8. Munchkin:Tries to be OP (regardless of the rules). They have a tendancy to be spotlight hogs, and if the rules don't allow them to do it they ask for an exception.

9. The wall flower: Tends to not engage in party discussion/planning or RP. Enjoys just being there, but does like to contribute to the story line when they feel appropriate. Sometimes when story tellers and wall flowers mix, you as GM have to make sure the wall flowers are given their opportunities. Otherwise you'll loose them to distractions.

10. The boss: Tends to either want to always lead the group or they tend to do so irrespective if their PC could be the boss.


I'm sure theres more, but I'm drawing a blank ATM. Note a person could have some of these traits, and vary degrees of these traits.

I don't like your sweeping generalization of "Rules-Lawyer" - it is akin to the massive amounts of jokes about how bad lawyers are. Not only am I a Rules-Lawyer, but I am going to be a lawyer IRL also. The reason I understand the rules is because this is a game of Rules, and to be played properly you must do your best to know said Rules. It just so happens, however, that I notice a lot of... interesting things along the way. In fact, if you look at many of my posts, I'll even include disclaimers about what the rules were probably meant to reflect and suggest House-Rules to fix them; but my primary focus of posting is to show the craziness of how the Rules are Written (submersible aircraft carriers and supertankers, Immunity [Fire] not actually being immune, ect.).

Another notable addition would be a Min-Maxer: someone who minimizes their weaknesses while maximizing their potential - this can be something as broad as making an 8-Edge character with dicepools of close-to-or-over 10 for all skills (so you can Edge for DP =/+ 18) or as narrow as simply choosing a Heavy Pistol over a Holdout (sword over knife, longsword over shortsword for The Other Game, ect).

Now, a Powergaming, Rules-Lawyer, Min-Maxing Munchkin is the Bane of the Game; however, many of those (sans Munchkin) alone or even together can actually help the group as a whole, much in the way the OP stated.

[Neraph]

That's sure a lot of angry invective, there. You seem a bit touchy on this subject, had problems with people calling you out for your play style in the past?

That said, your entire first post goes on with the main reason that the powergamer mindset annoys me fairly often. It is based around the idea that every player does and should want to be maximally optimized for a particular party role, so as to shine in their 'niche', and that other players may need to be told that they've done so poorly and how to improve. There are a number of players out there, myself most often included, who are very much put off by that attitude, as we tend to construct characters with a personal narrative, whose skill sets are based on that narrative.

I may generally be too polite to tell someone to piss off when they start going off on how I could better optimize my character, but it is the quickest way to ensure that I have other plans next time game is scheduled.

You seem to be unable to tell when not to provoke people.

I tried to explain this Straw-Man argument that you are attempting to use to a close friend of mine with the same problem - the "I build characters then put stats, not stats that have characters" bit. It is incorrect.

There are three major aspects involved in Character Design: 1) Concept, 2) Build, 3) Character. Concept is very similar to Character, but distinctly different. Concept is the beginning stage of making a fully-usable character - the general feel or intent of the design (ie: gun-bunny, cyber-doctor, spirit-mage, ect.). Build is the actual mechanical nuts-and-bolts that makes a design function in the game (attributes, skills, ect.). Character are the things that you end up tacking on to the design to finish it off, and are most often represented with Positive/Negative Qualities (Addictions, Dependants, habits, quirks, ect.).

People like yourself see character design as being only Concept and Character, with Build to simply make the design complete so you can continue to develop Concept/Character in-game. The problem is that all three of these are developed at the same time. My friend, for example, got exasperated with me saying that "You make a build and then figure out a character - I make a character and then build it." I had to explain to him this exact thing that I am saying now: that there are actually three aspects to design, and they are all co-dependent. Just because I focus of making sure the Build is sound doesn't mean my design does not have Character or Concept.

[thorya]

Neraph, I think roleplayers get upset because "making a build sound" usually involves making trade-offs that don't fit with the character and concept. For example, starting with a 6 in pistols and no leaderships skill despite claiming to be a former company man that probably had to manage people in the past. Or a mage that has only combat and mental manipulation spells because they're the best, but who claims they learned their magic at a magical college where neither of those are taught. Or a player that has incompetent artisan as a negative quality.

I think another problem roleplayers have is that concepts (including the ones you listed) are usually defined by some mechanical role. And when powergamers describe their characters they only use mechanical terms. Whereas a roleplayer doesn't care that you're a gun-bunny with 22 dice to shoot things, they want to know that you were raised in a corporate enclave, your parents are wageslaves, you were abused by your uncle when you were seven, the first time you ever felt like you had any power in your life was when you first fired gun down your bastard uncle and since then you have lived with your gun by your side, never wanting to be powerless again. I don't think there's anything wrong with the approach you laid out (I know I've done it), but it does definitely start at the mechanical concept rather than the roleplay character.

[_Pax._]

There are three major aspects involved in Character Design: 1) Concept, 2) Build, 3) Character.

Entirely correct.

Look at the character whose pistol skills I showed off, upthread. The concept for him was "Gunslinger (non-Adept, with minimal Cyber/Bio)". Everything that the character is, flows from that basic concept, or the "add-on concepts" that grew as I refined the Character part of the equation: that he was an ex-cop; that he made his living as a bodyguard; that he was a pacifist. Every single BP of his build was made to support his Concept and his Character.

I don't like your sweeping generalization of "Rules-Lawyer" - it is akin to the massive amounts of jokes about how bad lawyers are. Not only am I a Rules-Lawyer, but I am going to be a lawyer IRL also. The reason I understand the rules is because this is a game of Rules, and to be played properly you must do your best to know said Rules. It just so happens, however, that I notice a lot of... interesting things along the way. In fact, if you look at many of my posts, I'll even include disclaimers about what the rules were probably meant to reflect and suggest House-Rules to fix them; but my primary focus of posting is to show the craziness of how the Rules are Written (submersible aircraft carriers and supertankers, Immunity [Fire] not actually being immune, ect.).

Indeed, there is also something of the Rules-Lawyer within me.

But not, as Warlordtheft's description would imply, so I can "get ahead" by (mis)using those rules. No, mymotivations for a light touch fo rules-lawyery is twofold.

First, because above all else except Story (and that's a narrow victory on Story's part), i desire one great thing: CONSISTENCY. if the rules say that a Character with Strength X should be able to leap Y far, or lift Z much ... then every single time a character with X strength tries to lift or leap, the results should be in line with that rule - whether it's a PC or an NPC. One of the greatest compliments any GM ever paid me - a Shadowrun GM, no less - was to say "Yeah, Sean's a bit of a rules lawyer, but he's the kind I like to have in my games; he's as quick to remind me of penalties on himself, or bonusses for the NPCs, as the other way around." ^_^

As you say, Neraph: it's a game of Rules. If you want a rules-light game? They make those. (For example, I would highly recommend Minimus; it's so rules-light, it fits on only TWO PAGES. Yet, it reads to me like it would easily enable good story-based RP.) Shadowrun, however, is not one of them. Nor has it ever been.

Second, because I really do take simple joy in the mechanics of a well-designed game system. Or even, in bits and pieces of those systems, which I then import into other systems.

For example: Stunt dice, in Exalted. I think it's a great mechanic, for two reasons. On the one hand, it helps the non-mechanist players gain some die-pool parity with the powergamers, just by doing what they naturally do: describe their actions in loving detail. On the other hand, it challenges the powergamers to up their RP, by giving tangible bonusses for investing some energy into good descriptive/narrative contributions to the game.

And it's a mechanic I can import into any die-pool game as is; 1 or 2, even 3, bonus dice aren't going to break SR's mechanics. Even single-die games (D&D 3.X, for example), I can convert the bonus dice into a circumstance bonus of +2, +4, or +6. Any way you look at it, though ... the underlaying benefit (mechanical parity for Narrativists; pro-narrative impetus for Mechanists) remains intact.

I've never played a game of Exalted. Nonetheless, having got a (legally) free copy from DriveThru years and years ago, I went and bought a hardcopy of the book too. I found the mechanics that compelling. (I also like how non-combat is supported so thoroughly in the core book - even tongue-tied wallflower players can still make effective, suave diplomat charactrs in Exalted. Just pick the right Skills and Charms!)

Neraph, I think roleplayers get upset because "making a build sound" usually involves making trade-offs that don't fit with the character and concept. For example, starting with a 6 in pistols and no leaderships skill despite claiming to be a former company man that probably had to manage people in the past. Or a mage that has only combat and mental manipulation spells because they're the best, but who claims they learned their magic at a magical college where neither of those are taught. Or a player that has incompetent artisan as a negative quality.

I disagree, strongly.

First off, "Powergamers" can be "Roleplayers" too. They're not incompatible species.

Second off ... that example of mine? The one with Pistols at 7? Here's my notepad-based "worksheet" sections for his skills:

CODE

[[ ACTIVE SKILLS ]]
BP    Total    ##    Why
-----    -----    ----    -----------------------------------
+36     36    7    Pistols
+ 2     38    (+2)      - Specialised, Revolvers
+ 8     46    2    Unarmed Combat
+ 2     48    (+2)      - Specialised, Subdual combat
+ 8     56    2    Armorer
+ 2     58    (+2)      - Specialised, firearms
+ 8     66    2    Etiquette
+ 8     74    2    Intimidation
+ 8     82    2    Pilot Ground Craft
+ 8     90    2    Perception



[[ KNOWLEDGE SKILLS ]] (21pts free)
BP    Total    Free points    Why
-----    -----    -----------    -----------------------------------
+    .    4 =  4        Police Procedures
+    .    2 =  6        Gangs
+    .    1 =  7         - Specialised: Identifiers
+    .    4 = 11        Security Procedures
+    .    2 = 13        Law
+    .    1 = 14         - Specialised: Licensing and Permits
+    .    2 = 16        Literature
+    .    1 = 17         - Specialised: Sun Tzu


[[ LANGUAGES ]]
BP    Total    Free points    Why
-----    -----    -----------    -----------------------------------
N    N    N        English
+    .    4 = 21 !    Japanese

Notice how his Knowledge skills nicely support the idea of "ex-cop". (As does an expensive contact - his ex-partner, a KE detective at C3/L6.) Now, his Qualities:

CODE

[[ QUALITIES ]]
BP    Total    Why
-----    -----    -----------------------------------
+15    +15    Adrenaline Surge
+10    +25    Aptitude: Pistols
+ 5    +30    Fame, Local (respected bodyguard)
+ 5    +35    Code: Semper Paratis (Bodyguard)
+10    +45    Martial Art: "Firefight"
            Ranged attack in melee penalty reduced by 2
-10    +35    Day Job, 20hrs; 7500/month
- 5    +30    Pacifism, Lesser
- 5    +25    SINner, legal
-10    +15    Records on File: (Police)
+48    +63    Resources: 250,000

(Yes, I know, the Positive side is overspent. I was less-facile with the system when I made him, than I am now.)

Nothing in there that doesn't fit the character, either. Nor can I think of anything missing.

But trust me, he's min/maxed well enough. Seventeen dice to attack with that pistol of his, for example.

I think another problem roleplayers have is that concepts (including the ones you listed) are usually defined by some mechanical role.

"Gunslinging ex-cop turned bodyguard (with actual principles!)".

"Half-japanese gnome rigger (with a gambling problem and serious debts)".

Neither of those are "defined by a mechanical role" - other than the first guy using guns, and the second guy being a rigger. No more mechanical than anything you've ever played, I'll bet.

And when powergamers describe their characters they only use mechanical terms. Whereas a roleplayer doesn't care that you're a gun-bunny with 22 dice to shoot things, they want to know that you were raised in a corporate enclave, your parents are wageslaves, you were abused by your uncle when you were seven, the first time you ever felt like you had any power in your life was when you first fired gun down your bastard uncle and since then you have lived with your gun by your side, never wanting to be powerless again. I don't think there's anything wrong with the approach you laid out (I know I've done it), but it does definitely start at the mechanical concept rather than the roleplay character.

Really, now. Well how about the third (of three) 4E character I have made so far (as other than a thought experiment with the rules, and Hero Builder): a Troll, just a kid (~15, maybe 14); born human and then abandoned on the streets by his parents, card-carrying Humanis members (as the boy was, prior to going UGE). He went from a pretty happy, if shallow, life in an all-human (maybe some token elves or dwarves) corporate enclave - middle child of an upwardly-mobile middle-Management family of a mid-tier corporation. Hit with UGE (and the pain that comes with it) at 12 or 13, then after weeks in a hospital dumped (still groggy from pain meds) with a duffle bag, 250 nuyen on a certifid credstick, two changes of clothes, and spit all else - and told "never ever try to come back".

Yeah. That was the basis for a Troll Adept, with very little Resources and very young (though beign a Troll helps hide that, at least from non-Trolls). D'you see any mechanics in there? I don't.

Of course, I'm sure that at some point, were I playing this alongside you in a game, I would talk about the mechanics of the character - what his unarmed skills are, what his adept powers are, and so on. But you know what? That's just because I happen to care about those things. And I tend to talk about the things I care about.

See, sometimes (the gnome rigger) I start out with the mechanics. Sometimes, however? I start out with the backstory. ALL the time, I "powergame" - that is to say, I make sure I'm spending my BP in as efficient a way as I can to build the Character I have described.

No, I don't sacrifice Concept or Character on the altar of Build. I don't sacrifice ANY of the three, if I can help it.

[Warlordtheft]

I don't like your sweeping generalization of "Rules-Lawyer" - it is akin to the massive amounts of jokes about how bad lawyers are. Not only am I a Rules-Lawyer, but I am going to be a lawyer IRL also.

I never direct this at you Neraph so don't take it personally. As with all genralizations, like being a rules lawyer, there are varying degrees of it. I used the example of the most extreme. They do exist, and I run into them--and the fact that the gaming lexicon offends your future profession--lets face it lawyers, congessmen, journalists, Wall St financier, statisticians, and a whole host of other professions get the same level of respect. Actually accountants are more respectable than alot

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/extinguish.gif)

[binarywraith]

Neraph, I think roleplayers get upset because "making a build sound" usually involves making trade-offs that don't fit with the character and concept. For example, starting with a 6 in pistols and no leaderships skill despite claiming to be a former company man that probably had to manage people in the past. Or a mage that has only combat and mental manipulation spells because they're the best, but who claims they learned their magic at a magical college where neither of those are taught. Or a player that has incompetent artisan as a negative quality.

I think another problem roleplayers have is that concepts (including the ones you listed) are usually defined by some mechanical role. And when powergamers describe their characters they only use mechanical terms. Whereas a roleplayer doesn't care that you're a gun-bunny with 22 dice to shoot things, they want to know that you were raised in a corporate enclave, your parents are wageslaves, you were abused by your uncle when you were seven, the first time you ever felt like you had any power in your life was when you first fired gun down your bastard uncle and since then you have lived with your gun by your side, never wanting to be powerless again. I don't think there's anything wrong with the approach you laid out (I know I've done it), but it does definitely start at the mechanical concept rather than the roleplay character.

That is the general frustration, yes. The idea that a character is 'good' based on the mathematical ideal template for build point usage rather than for the value it brings to the game by providing an interesting and fun experience for the person playing it, the rest of the group, and the GM is pretty ass-backwards to me. But that's me. I still get blank stares I get when I ask a player who paid for that $1m in perfectly matched top of the line cyber to all be installed at once.

[thorya]

Look at the character whose pistol skills I showed off, upthread. The concept for him was "Gunslinger (non-Adept, with minimal Cyber/Bio)". Everything that the character is, flows from that basic concept, or the "add-on concepts" that grew as I refined the Character part of the equation: that he was an ex-cop; that he made his living as a bodyguard; that he was a pacifist. Every single BP of his build was made to support his Concept and his Character.

I disagree, strongly.

First off, "Powergamers" can be "Roleplayers" too. They're not incompatible species.

First off, I didn't say that the two were incompatible. I was responding to Neraph, who seemed to be have a problem with a roleplayer that was not a powergamer not being comfortable with powergaming.

Second off ... that example of mine? The one with Pistols at 7? Here's my notepad-based "worksheet" sections for his skills:

CODE

[[ ACTIVE SKILLS ]]
BP    Total    ##    Why
-----    -----    ----    -----------------------------------
+36     36    7    Pistols
+ 2     38    (+2)      - Specialised, Revolvers
+ 8     46    2    Unarmed Combat
+ 2     48    (+2)      - Specialised, Subdual combat
+ 8     56    2    Armorer
+ 2     58    (+2)      - Specialised, firearms
+ 8     66    2    Etiquette
+ 8     74    2    Intimidation
+ 8     82    2    Pilot Ground Craft
+ 8     90    2    Perception



[[ KNOWLEDGE SKILLS ]] (21pts free)
BP    Total    Free points    Why
-----    -----    -----------    -----------------------------------
+    .    4 =  4        Police Procedures
+    .    2 =  6        Gangs
+    .    1 =  7         - Specialised: Identifiers
+    .    4 = 11        Security Procedures
+    .    2 = 13        Law
+    .    1 = 14         - Specialised: Licensing and Permits
+    .    2 = 16        Literature
+    .    1 = 17         - Specialised: Sun Tzu


[[ LANGUAGES ]]
BP    Total    Free points    Why
-----    -----    -----------    -----------------------------------
N    N    N        English
+    .    4 = 21 !    Japanese

Notice how his Knowledge skills nicely support the idea of "ex-cop". (As does an expensive contact - his ex-partner, a KE detective at C3/L6.) Now, his Qualities:

CODE

[[ QUALITIES ]]
BP    Total    Why
-----    -----    -----------------------------------
+15    +15    Adrenaline Surge
+10    +25    Aptitude: Pistols
+ 5    +30    Fame, Local (respected bodyguard)
+ 5    +35    Code: Semper Paratis (Bodyguard)
+10    +45    Martial Art: "Firefight"
            Ranged attack in melee penalty reduced by 2
-10    +35    Day Job, 20hrs; 7500/month
- 5    +30    Pacifism, Lesser
- 5    +25    SINner, legal
-10    +15    Records on File: (Police)
+48    +63    Resources: 250,000

(Yes, I know, the Positive side is overspent. I was less-facile with the system when I made him, than I am now.)

Nothing in there that doesn't fit the character, either. Nor can I think of anything missing.

But trust me, he's min/maxed well enough. Seventeen dice to attack with that pistol of his, for example.



"Gunslinging ex-cop turned bodyguard (with actual principles!)".

Second off, this is exactly what I mean. Did you start from a character concept that was an ex-cop turned body guard? Or did you start from, I will be awesome with pistols to a power level at the top end of what the GM will allow in his game? I don't have a problem if you did, I think a lot of good characters are built that way and it's very common. I just think that it's a reality that Neraph seemed to be denying exists.
Third off, that character suffers heavily from trade-offs made towards making him more effective without regards to what a character with that background would actually have. He got better than the best navy seal level training acting as a bodyguard? Doesn't strike you as a bit not fitting with the character?
He doesn't have any of the clubs training that a Lone Star officer would have had (why would you need two melee skills right, it's just a waste of points?). He doesn't have any of the atheletics skills that a more standard body guard would have (for jumping in front of a bullet for example). He never took any training in how to avoid getting hit despite picking a profession where it's very likely that he'll end up being shot at. He has no knowledges that are not directly applicable to his career and has the lowest number of knowledge skills possible. He doesn't have any skills to help him case a joint to figure out possible lines of attack on his client, etc.
I think a roleplayer (which I'm not really, but I GM for a few of them) would look at your character and question what his motivation is for such a massive investment in shooting things and never learning any skills that were not directly applicable to making him better in combat or the barest social interactions. He seems like an assassin dressed up as a "ex-{insert your favorite militant organization}".
Fourth off, the question is not whether he's min/maxed enough when you're talking to a roleplayer.

"Half-japanese gnome rigger (with a gambling problem and serious debts)".

Neither of those are "defined by a mechanical role" - other than the first guy using guns, and the second guy being a rigger. No more mechanical than anything you've ever played, I'll bet.

Except that "rigger" is a mechanical role. Just like street sam, mage, and face are mechanical rolls. Or niches, if you prefer and you are using it to define that character. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but serious roleplayers I've played with would not describe their characters or build them based upon what niche they fill. I would, because I think it's useful if you're going to define a team that has many different strengths that they are made explicit and I usually am a "powergamer", but I think non-powergamers have a point and a perfectly valid style of play. It seems like the opinion expressed here is that they do not. I don't think the "right" way to play is maximizing efficiency and I think doing so makes a lot of players that are not interested in it uncomfortable and feel like they have to in order to compete. Sorry if I'm misreading what you intended.

Really, now. Well how about the third (of three) 4E character I have made so far (as other than a thought experiment with the rules, and Hero Builder): a Troll, just a kid (~15, maybe 14); born human and then abandoned on the streets by his parents, card-carrying Humanis members (as the boy was, prior to going UGE). He went from a pretty happy, if shallow, life in an all-human (maybe some token elves or dwarves) corporate enclave - middle child of an upwardly-mobile middle-Management family of a mid-tier corporation. Hit with UGE (and the pain that comes with it) at 12 or 13, then after weeks in a hospital dumped (still groggy from pain meds) with a duffle bag, 250 nuyen on a certifid credstick, two changes of clothes, and spit all else - and told "never ever try to come back".

Yeah. That was the basis for a Troll Adept, with very little Resources and very young (though beign a Troll helps hide that, at least from non-Trolls). D'you see any mechanics in there? I don't.

Of course, I'm sure that at some point, were I playing this alongside you in a game, I would talk about the mechanics of the character - what his unarmed skills are, what his adept powers are, and so on. But you know what? That's just because I happen to care about those things. [i] And I tend to talk about the things I care about.

See, sometimes (the gnome rigger) I start out with the mechanics. Sometimes, however? I start out with the backstory. ALL the time, I "powergame" - that is to say, I make sure I'm spending my BP in as efficient a way as I can [i]to build the Character I have described.

No, I don't sacrifice Concept or Character on the altar of Build. I don't sacrifice ANY of the three, if I can help it.

I'm sure you can make up a hundred characters to demonstrate how you build characters from whatever direction and I was not arguing that you are not a powergamer or that you never have characters that are interesting. My point was that roleplayers don't care about the mechanics and they don't spend BP in the most efficient way possible, because the reality of the abstraction of roleplaying games is that to make a character that is consistent with the fluff, you frequently have to do things that are inefficient with BP. Do I spend points inefficiently because it makes sense for the character? Most of the time, No. Do I know people that do and get upset that other people are not roleplaying, Yes.

[binarywraith]

Second off, this is exactly what I mean. Did you start from a character concept that was an ex-cop turned body guard? Or did you start from, I will be awesome with pistols to a power level at the top end of what the GM will allow in his game? I don't have a problem if you did, I think a lot of good characters are built that way and it's very common. I just think that it's a reality that Neraph seemed to be denying exists.
Third off, that character suffers heavily from trade-offs made towards making him more effective without regards to what a character with that background would actually have. He got better than the best navy seal level training acting as a bodyguard? Doesn't strike you as a bit not fitting with the character?
He doesn't have any of the clubs training that a Lone Star officer would have had (why would you need two melee skills right, it's just a waste of points?). He doesn't have any of the atheletics skills that a more standard body guard would have (for jumping in front of a bullet for example). He never took any training in how to avoid getting hit despite picking a profession where it's very likely that he'll end up being shot at. He has no knowledges that are not directly applicable to his career and has the lowest number of knowledge skills possible. He doesn't have any skills to help him case a joint to figure out possible lines of attack on his client, etc.
I think a roleplayer (which I'm not really, but I GM for a few of them) would look at your character and question what his motivation is for such a massive investment in shooting things and never learning any skills that were not directly applicable to making him better in combat or the barest social interactions. He seems like an assassin dressed up as a "ex-{insert your favorite militant organization}".
Fourth off, the question is not whether he's min/maxed enough when you're talking to a roleplayer.

Yeah, as a GM, my first question about that character would be 'So, what's he do on a Friday night?'. He's clearly streamlined to do one thing and one thing only, to the detriment of everything else.

Even on a mechanical level he's a 'bodyguard' without any of the stealth skills to blend in with a crowd and be unobtrusive. At minimum I'd expect to see Shadowing, likely a little bit of Disguise too, for dressing to blend in. No Leadership either, so hopefully he never has to convince whoever he's gaurding to do anything for their own safety. Knowledge wise, you've got nothing when it comes to city layout at all, so I can assume that despite being able to drive, he doesn't know wherever he's based out of well enough to have found the good routes, and zilch when it comes to physical security knowledge.

[Darksong]

I don't like your sweeping generalization of "Rules-Lawyer" - it is akin to the massive amounts of jokes about how bad lawyers are.

To be fair, as both a practicing lawyer and rules lawyer, I can assure you those jokes are all based in fact.

[_Pax._]

Second off, this is exactly what I mean. Did you start from a character concept that was an ex-cop turned body guard? Or did you start from, I will be awesome with pistols to a power level at the top end of what the GM will allow in his game?

"Gunsligner, bodyguard, ex-cop". In that order. And "gunslinger" rather inherently says "good with pistols" ... but I started with the image of an old-west gunslinger. I did not start with "Hey, Agil 5, Pistol 7+2, what can I do with that?"

I started with an image - "duster, western style hat, revolver. Shoot-out at high noon, who slaps leather first, and who walks away after?" I tweaked that to fit the Shadowrun setting/genre andmechanics, yes - but that was the starting point: the image in my mind. NOT text in a rulebook, nor numbers on a character sheet.

Third off, that character suffers heavily from trade-offs made towards making him more effective without regards to what a character with that background would actually have.

For one: I have never been, myself, a bodyguard. Nor a police officer. Beg pardon for not being a real-life expert, and for daring to think of a character outside my own life experience. I have been a soldier. So perhaps I should just stick to the heavy-weapons-toting gun-bunny characters? Of course, by that same logic: no technomancers allowed to anyone, ever. No mages or Adepts, either.

Or maybe we can not be quite so nitpicky over minor details like that?

But, to address them all anyway:

Athletics: there's no roll to Intercept (SR4A p161).

Clubs: mea culpa, I probably should have 1 point of that (remember, Agil 5). Teeny tiny oversight.

Avoiding hits: unless you go full defense, it's just a Reaction test. What skill(s) are you referring to?

Number of Knowledge skills: excuse me? Since when is "number of skills on your sheet" a rolE playing concern? I thought rolEplayers didn't care about mechanics at all?

Skills to case a joint: um ... Perception isn't good enough? How about Security Procedures (which I rather thought would cover things like "what to look for when securing a person or place") ...?

Except that "rigger" is a mechanical role. Just like street sam, mage, and face are mechanical rolls.

... no, they're not. The mere fact that the rules have specific mechanical support FOR those roles, doesn't make the roles themselves "based on the mechanics". The relationship is most definitely the other way around: the mechanics are based on the roles.

Saying "I want to play a rigger" means "I want to be the guy who drives the getaway car, and maybe has a cool R/C thing with a gun on it". Saying "I want to be a hacker" means "I want to be the computer-techie guy, and break into computers and cameras and stuff". Saying "I want to be a street samurai" means "I want to be the cool action hero with the awesome gun/sword/etc". And so on. I've had total newbies to SR get excited about those roles, and several others besides. Newbies who knew so little of shadowrun, they didn't yet even know what kind of dice the game uses. Therefor, they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be "mechanical roles". They're archetypes, basic categories of character types. A shorthand sort of concept, even.

[...] serious roleplayers I've played with would not describe their characters or build them based upon what niche they fill.

Not one of them would describe their character as "a mage" or "a shaman" ...? even when, mechanics aside, being such a thing would be a character and personality defining trait, shaping every facet of the character's outlook, touching every single part of their life story?

Wow. That's .... well, it's utterly incomprehensible to me.

As is the idea that anyone could just stumble into being a Rigger - whether they'd say "I'm a rigger" or not, that's not something that just happens coincidentally. Even IC, it's something that has to be a conscious choice at some point in the character's life. And thus, a choice made by the player, when creating that character.

My point was that roleplayers don't care about the mechanics [...]

Then, quite frankly? They should play a different game. You don't join a game of (American) football, and then complain it's a "touch" sport. Nor do you join a poker game, and complain it uses cards instead of dice.

So why is it suddenly okay to play a rules-heavy game and look down on the people who value those rules ...?

You can play in the SR setting just fine, using Minimus, and have none of thsoe "pesky" mechanics get in the way. Nor have even the possibility of anyone min/maxing their character. So ... why don't they?

Do I know people that do and get upset that other people are not roleplaying, Yes.

And, am I a person who gets upset at the intimation - or worse, outright accusation - that not making my characters in their One True Holy And Sacred Way, makes me less of a "roleplayer" ...? Damned right, I am!

Because even if I did start from "Hey, Skill X, Gear Y, and Attribute Z sound like a fun combo", and built a character around that ... that doesn't mean I won't be roleplaying every bit as much, and as "well", as the non-powergamer across the table from me.

[_Pax._]

Yeah, as a GM, my first question about that character would be 'So, what's he do on a Friday night?'.

"Fridays? Dinner with his ex-partner and her family, twice a month. Otherwise, most weekend nights he's out clubbing - and drumming up business. Got that pesky 'day job' thing and all, remember?"

Even on a mechanical level he's a 'bodyguard' without any of the stealth skills to blend in with a crowd and be unobtrusive. At minimum I'd expect to see Shadowing, likely a little bit of Disguise too, for dressing to blend in.

Shadowing? Why ..? No, seriously, why?? Shadowign is for following someone withut them knowing you're doing so. What possible use would that be for a bodyguard? Do you really think bodyguards hide their presence from the people who hire them ...???

As for Disguise "to blend in" ... um, no. That's not Disguise, that's buying the right clothes and using Etiquette.

Maybe you're confusing "freelance bodyguard" with "secret service agent" ...?

No Leadership either, so hopefully he never has to convince whoever he's gaurding to do anything for their own safety.

Leadership isn't the only way to convince people of something.

Knowledge wise, you've got nothing when it comes to city layout at all, so I can assume that despite being able to drive, he doesn't know wherever he's based out of well enough to have found the good routes, and zilch when it comes to physical security knowledge.

Mapsofts, and the GPS that comes standard in every vehicle and commlink. *sigh*

[binarywraith]

"Fridays? Dinner with his ex-partner and her family, twice a month. Otherwise, most weekend nights he's out clubbing - and drumming up business. Got that pesky 'day job' thing and all, remember?"

So how does he drum up business? His sole and only social skill is Intimidation, does he hang around clubs and glare at people until they want to hire him?

Shadowing? Why ..? No, seriously, why?? Shadowign is for following someone withut them knowing you're doing so. What possible use would that be for a bodyguard? Do you really think bodyguards hide their presence from the people who hire them ...???

Or for following someone (say, your client) without observers realizing you're following them. Half of being a decent bodyguard is knowing when to be unobtrusive.

As for Disguise "to blend in" ... um, no. That's not Disguise, that's buying the right clothes and using Etiquette.

Is this where I get to quote the rulebook to the self-declared powergamer?

Disguise (Intuition)
When a character wants to take on a false appearance of some kind,
she uses the Disguise skill. This is true whether she wants to look like
someone else or blend into the background..

Etiquette is for covering social gaffs, not blending into a crowd. And 'buying the right clothes' is exactly what Disguise is for.

Maybe you're confusing "freelance bodyguard" with "secret service agent" ...?

I may have a much broader definition of what makes a good bodyguard than you're building off of, yes. Not to mention that this is supposed to be an ex-cop, so he should at least have the skills to work a beat, no?

Leadership isn't the only way to convince people of something.

Your employer is definitely going to want to re-hire the guy whose only means of dealing with other people and his employer is to try and frighten them into doing what he says. Just because the skills can sub across by game mechanic does not mean that they will (or should) get the same IG reaction.

Mapsofts, and the GPS that comes standard in every vehicle and commlink. *sigh*

Sure thing, hope that you never have to deal with a hacker, or try to figure out where best to cut someone off when they do a snatch-and-grab on your client.


In short, you've got a very mechanically sound character going there. But as far as fitting into his world? Not so much.

[_Pax._]

So how does he drum up business? His sole and only social skill is Intimidation, does he hang around clubs and glare at people until they want to hire him?

Read that list again. What's the skill directly above Intimidation ...?

Or for following someone (say, your client) without observers realizing you're following them. Half of being a decent bodyguard is knowing when to be unobtrusive.

Not what I understand Shadowing to be about.

Etiquette is for covering social gaffs, not blending into a crowd. And 'buying the right clothes' is exactly what Disguise is for.

Ehem:

Thee Etiquette Skill allows a character to function within a specific subculture
without appearing out of place. It allows the character to fit in, [...]

I disagree that Duisguise is required to buy appropriate clothes, for an obvious bodyguard.

I may have a much broader definition of what makes a good bodyguard than you're building off of, yes.

No, I would say, narrower. There's a place for the subtle, unseen, unnoticed-until-things-go-south bodyguard you obviouslyhavein mind.

There's also a place for the bodyguard you do see well beforehand. Which is what I had in mind when I built the character.

See, right now you're nitpicking mostly based on what kind of "bodyguard" you want, versus what kind I want.

Your employer is definitely going to want to re-hire the guy whose only means of dealing with other people and his employer is to try and frighten them into doing what he says. Just because the skills can sub across by game mechanic does not mean that they will (or should) get the same IG reaction.

Again: Intimidate is not his only social skill.

Sure thing, hope that you never have to deal with a hacker, or try to figure out where best to cut someone off when they do a snatch-and-grab on your client.

If someone does a snatch-and-grab, and the character is more than 2-3 meters away from the client? I've already done something desperately wrong. Despite that, said snatch-and-grabcertainly calls for moving to Combat Turns, and thus, using Initiative rules. At which point, the quality "Adrenaline Surge" comes into play, and my character acts first. Period. Barring the other guy(s) also having that quality, or else spending edge, they could have an Initiative of 500 dice ... don't care, I'm still going first.

In short, you've got a very mechanically sound character going there. But as far as fitting into his world? Not so much.

That's clearly a matter of some dispute.

[thorya]

"Gunsligner, bodyguard, ex-cop". In that order. And "gunslinger" rather inherently says "good with pistols" ... but I started with the image of an old-west gunslinger. I did not start with "Hey, Agil 5, Pistol 7+2, what can I do with that?"

I started with an image - "duster, western style hat, revolver. Shoot-out at high noon, who slaps leather first, and who walks away after?" I tweaked that to fit the Shadowrun setting/genre andmechanics, yes - but that was the starting point: the image in my mind. NOT text in a rulebook, nor numbers on a character sheet.

For one: I have never been, myself, a bodyguard. Nor a police officer. Beg pardon for not being a real-life expert, and for daring to think of a character outside my own life experience. I have been a soldier. So perhaps I should just stick to the heavy-weapons-toting gun-bunny characters? Of course, by that same logic: no technomancers allowed to anyone, ever. No mages or Adepts, either.

Yes, that's clearly what I said. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

Or maybe we can not be quite so nitpicky over minor details like that?

But, to address them all anyway:

Athletics: there's no roll to Intercept (SR4A p161).

Clubs: mea culpa, I probably should have 1 point of that (remember, Agil 5). Teeny tiny oversight.

Avoiding hits: unless you go full defense, it's just a Reaction test. What skill(s) are you referring to?

Number of Knowledge skills: excuse me? Since when is "number of skills on your sheet" a rolE playing concern? I thought rolEplayers didn't care about mechanics at all?

Skills to case a joint: um ... Perception isn't good enough? How about Security Procedures (which I rather thought would cover things like "what to look for when securing a person or place") ...?

A bodyguard's job is literally to look for danger and prevent it, but your perception is 2 whereas you've spent about a fourth of the character's resources to be able to shoot things really well.
I'm sorry, I meant, the number of points you spend on knowledge skills, i.e. 0. That was a purely mechanical choice, correct? Spending points on interests or other things that would define your character as a person is not an efficient use of BP?

... no, they're not. The mere fact that the rules have specific mechanical support FOR those roles, doesn't make the roles themselves "based on the mechanics". The relationship is most definitely the other way around: the mechanics are based on the roles.

Saying "I want to play a rigger" means "I want to be the guy who drives the getaway car, and maybe has a cool R/C thing with a gun on it". Saying "I want to be a hacker" means "I want to be the computer-techie guy, and break into computers and cameras and stuff". Saying "I want to be a street samurai" means "I want to be the cool action hero with the awesome gun/sword/etc". And so on. I've had total newbies to SR get excited about those roles, and several others besides. Newbies who knew so little of shadowrun, they didn't yet even know what kind of dice the game uses. Therefor, they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be "mechanical roles". They're archetypes, basic categories of character types. A shorthand sort of concept, even.


Not one of them would describe their character as "a mage" or "a shaman" ...? even when, mechanics aside, being such a thing would be a character and personality defining trait, shaping every facet of the character's outlook, touching every single part of their life story?

Wow. That's .... well, it's utterly incomprehensible to me.

As is the idea that anyone could just stumble into being a Rigger - whether they'd say "I'm a rigger" or not, that's not something that just happens coincidentally. Even IC, it's something that has to be a conscious choice at some point in the character's life. And thus, a choice made by the player, when creating that character.

Exactly, it's utterly incomprehensible to you.
But I'll admit that I'm wrong here. Character archetypes can define a large part of a character and be a large of who they are, but they do not make an entire character. Otherwise you end up playing every game with the exact same generic street sam, mage, hacker, face, etc. The important things are what separates your generic optimized street sam from the last twenty that everyone has seen at the table. And while you might not have a problem defining that and actually putting it into practice, there are players that do.

Then, quite frankly? They should play a different game. You don't join a game of (American) football, and then complain it's a "touch" sport. Nor do you join a poker game, and complain it uses cards instead of dice.

So why is it suddenly okay to play a rules-heavy game and look down on the people who value those rules ...?

You can play in the SR setting just fine, using Minimus, and have none of thsoe "pesky" mechanics get in the way. Nor have even the possibility of anyone min/maxing their character. So ... why don't they?

I think the rest of that sentence that you cut out was sort of important. If you take it out of context it's not clear that I'm talking about not caring about mechanics in terms of metagaming a character to be awesome regardless of what the mechanics are supposed to represent.

And, am I a person who gets upset at the intimation - or worse, outright accusation - that not making my characters in their One True Holy And Sacred Way, makes me less of a "roleplayer" ...? Damned right, I am!

Because even if I did start from "Hey, Skill X, Gear Y, and Attribute Z sound like a fun combo", and built a character around that ... that doesn't mean I won't be roleplaying every bit as much, and as "well", as the non-powergamer across the table from me.

Again, I did not say that you could not be a roleplayer in play and a power gamer. But if you build Skill X, Gear Y, Attribute Z sounds like a fun combo, that's not building a character. That's building a build. Sure you can roleplay a build. And I'm sure you do.
But consider what a player that does not optimized experiences, when they realize that their character is interacting with heartless machines built for one or two very focused criminal roles. Their character has to wonder how it is that no one they work with has any hobbies, interests, knowledges, or skills that are not directly applicable to anything but killing people and stealing things. That their character is surrounded by people that never go out for a beer, play a game (unless they can bet on it and then only if they are the best in the world), go on vacation, or do anything that a normal person would and because their world is populated by driven maniacs with no social lives when the time comes to do their job, if their character is not also a driven maniac their character gets pushed to the side.

You used yourself as an example, you were a soldier. Are your only skills in using a gun, driving a vehicle and basic social interaction? Don't you have academic knowledge roleplaying games at least? Or interest knowledge internet arguments? Well then clearly you must not be a former soldier, because I've seen lots of former soldiers in games and they never have any of those. I think it's valid for people that want a consistent world to expect some skills that are not "the most useful and efficient". I think SR does a pretty good job at it by giving knowledge skills for free and making contacts useful, but it's still easily abused by powergamers. I never said that it was "wrong", just that it's not the right way.

[_Pax._]

A bodyguard's job is literally to look for danger and prevent it, but your perception is 2 whereas you've spent about a fourth of the character's resources to be able to shoot things really well.

Yep, Perception 2. Intuition 4, too. Oh, and Vision enhancement 3 in his cybereyes - please don't assume that everything about a character can be seen in just the skills and qualities.

His final DP for spotting that danger? A reasonable (IMO, obviously) 9.

I'm sorry, I meant, the number of points you spend on knowledge skills, i.e. 0. That was a purely mechanical choice, correct? Spending points on interests or other things that would define your character as a person is not an efficient use of BP?

*shrug* I couldn't think of much else, honestly.

And while you might not have a problem defining that and actually putting it into practice, there are players that do.

And you know? I've seen "rolEplayers", the very people who look down their nose at the mechanics of character generation? Fail just as hard at coming up with a character, and not just a 2S (atbest) cardboard cutout constructed from over-used tropes and stereotypes. For some of them, the same 2D cardboard cuout in game after game, with little or no regard to the setting, genre, or anything.

IOW, "poor roleplay" and "poor characterisation" are not the sole province of Powergamers. Nor are all "roleplayers" necessarily GOOD at being roleplayers - just like not all Powergamers are good at, well, powergaming. Both camps are afflicted with lenty of "wannabes".

I think the rest of that sentence that you cut out was sort of important. If you take it out of context it's not clear that I'm talking about not caring about mechanics in terms of metagaming a character to be awesome regardless of what the mechanics are supposed to represent.

No, it wasn't important in any way that would change my response. If someone feels a total disdain for the way characters are put together for X or Y system, I would argue that those are the wrong systems for them to be using.

Have you checked out Minimus? (I linked to it above.) If someone wants a fast-and-loose, "describe your character, describe their relationships with NPCs and other PCs, and outline the character's short- and long-term goals" sort of character creation process, I'd say Minimus is the right system for them. Don't blame a hammer for being poor at driving screws - blame yourself for not using a screwdriver in teh first place.

Again, I did not say that you could not be a roleplayer in play and a power gamer. But if you build Skill X, Gear Y, Attribute Z sounds like a fun combo, that's not building a character. That's building a build.

Of course not. It's just a starting point. Just like "Hmm, I feel like playing an Elf for this game" is a starting point. Or "I feel like playing a rock-star". Those aren't the whoel caracter, either; they're starting points, too.

But consider what a player that does not optimized experiences, when they realize that their character is interacting with heartless machines built for one or two very focused criminal roles.

... "heartless machine" ...? Really? Really?? /facepalm

Their character has to wonder how it is that no one they work with has any hobbies, interests, knowledges, or skills that are not directly applicable to anything but killing people and stealing things.

Mm-hm. You mean, like literature? Sure sure, it's only one. But not every interest necessarily confers even a single point of skill.

Real-life example: I'm interested in etymology. And in archaeology. And in home improvement/renovation. I enjoy watching documentaries about them. I sometimes enjoy reading some books about them - especially when I was a kid, you couldn't pry me away from books on archaeology with a crowbar.

Know what my skills for those would be, in SR terms?

Exactly and precisely 0. That's zero, zip, zilch, nada, nihil, nothing, nicht, bupkiss.

So who's to say that any given character doesn't like ... oh ... Survivor-style reality shows? There really isn't a skill for that, nor do I think there needs to be one. And even that's leaving aside the very broad, if modestly-rated, "Literature" skill. So, he's a voracious reader ... with sub-par retention. It's still not nothing.

That their character is surrounded by people that never go out for a beer, play a game (unless they can bet on it and then only if they are the best in the world), go on vacation, or do anything that a normal person would and because their world is populated by driven maniacs with no social lives when the time comes to do their job, if their character is not also a driven maniac their character gets pushed to the side.

There's a skill for "going out for a beer" ...? You must have a skill to play a game, even merely as a diversion? There's a skill for going on frelling vacation ...?!?

Oh, PLEASE ... pull the other one, already! :rolleyes:

You used yourself as an example, you were a soldier. Are your only skills in using a gun, driving a vehicle and basic social interaction? Don't you have academic knowledge roleplaying games at least? Or interest knowledge internet arguments?

Not everything needs to be a skill. "Internet arguments" would not be a skill in my book, not in terms of "if you don't have it, then you don't go on forums at all".

Just like you don't need any skill to drive a car under normal circumstances (only when you try something unusual, or conditions go to pot, do you need to start dropping those dice).

Well then clearly you must not be a former soldier, because I've seen lots of former soldiers in games and they never have any of those. I think it's valid for people that want a consistent world to expect some skills that are not "the most useful and efficient". I think SR does a pretty good job at it by giving knowledge skills for free and making contacts useful, but it's still easily abused by powergamers. I never said that it was "wrong", just that it's not the right way.

There Is NO One True Way.

What upsets me is rolEplayers essentially looking down on anyone who DOES powergame, with the clear attitude of "our way is better than yours".

Because no, no it's not. It's just different.


And on the skill front? Like I said, not everything you do in your entire life must be represented by, nor result in, ranks of X or Y skill. You can enjoy playing poker every week, and not have a single rank of skill. Sure, you probably LOSE more than you win. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. You can watch every crime drama on TV, and enjoy the crap out of them. Doesn't mean you necessarily have, or gain, any ranks of skill from doing so. Maybe you watch, enjoy, then put it out of your head ...? Poof: 0 skill.

Assuming that because a character is (a) built by a powergamer, and (b) doesn't list at least X different "useless" window-dressing skills, that therefor the character has no interests at all, and never does anything outside of work at all? That's insulting. Really, it is.











Now I want you to look back over the last ... oh, I guess dozen posts. Notice which side of things has been "on the attack", and who's had to defend himself over and over.

Then ask yourself: why is it that a guy who started a thread pretty much to say "why can't we all get along, and not assume bad things of each other", the one who's on the defensive? If it's power gamers who're the problem, why are the "roleplayers" the ones picking a fight?

And yes, your insistence to the contrary aside, I do count you in that camp. Not as extremely so as, say, binarywraith is. But more on that side of the spectrum than you claim ... yes.

[binarywraith]

Again, I did not say that you could not be a roleplayer in play and a power gamer. But if you build Skill X, Gear Y, Attribute Z sounds like a fun combo, that's not building a character. That's building a build. Sure you can roleplay a build. And I'm sure you do.
But consider what a player that does not optimized experiences, when they realize that their character is interacting with heartless machines built for one or two very focused criminal roles. Their character has to wonder how it is that no one they work with has any hobbies, interests, knowledges, or skills that are not directly applicable to anything but killing people and stealing things. That their character is surrounded by people that never go out for a beer, play a game (unless they can bet on it and then only if they are the best in the world), go on vacation, or do anything that a normal person would and because their world is populated by driven maniacs with no social lives when the time comes to do their job, if their character is not also a driven maniac their character gets pushed to the side.

You used yourself as an example, you were a soldier. Are your only skills in using a gun, driving a vehicle and basic social interaction? Don't you have academic knowledge roleplaying games at least? Or interest knowledge internet arguments? Well then clearly you must not be a former soldier, because I've seen lots of former soldiers in games and they never have any of those. I think it's valid for people that want a consistent world to expect some skills that are not "the most useful and efficient". I think SR does a pretty good job at it by giving knowledge skills for free and making contacts useful, but it's still easily abused by powergamers. I never said that it was "wrong", just that it's not the right way.

Heck, if he's a US soldier, he's probably got a higher skill rating in Powerpoint than Firearms. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Edit : _Pax._, I don't know what to tell you, man. Clearly if you're so far down the rabbit hole that the specific wording of the rules isn't enough to tell you what a skill's used for, I've got nothing much to work with here. Funny, that. The damn, dirty 'roleplayer' beign the one insisting on reading the text of the rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[FriendoftheDork]

Heck, if he's a US soldier, he's probably got a higher skill rating in Powerpoint than Firearms. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Edit : _Pax._, I don't know what to tell you, man. Clearly if you're so far down the rabbit hole that the specific wording of the rules isn't enough to tell you what a skill's used for, I've got nothing much to work with here. Funny, that. The damn, dirty 'roleplayer' beign the one insisting on reading the text of the rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

Yeah, obviously a lost case. Imagine having fun making characters that are both interesting and effective. Heresy.

I have a power player in my group, but he's far from a munckin. In fact, he makes very interesting characters that adds to the color and flavor of the game, and he roleplays those well. All the while having effective and even awesome characters. I also have one who specializes in making useless characters. He is in no way better at playing them.

[TeChameleon]

... looking at the wording of the Disguise rule, I find myself annoyed once again at how incredibly vague some of the things in SR4 are. If it came up in a game that someone was foolish enough to ask me to run, I'd probably rule similarly to what _Pax._ said. Disguise pretty specifically says a 'false appearance', so if it was just dressing like a wageslave and walking enough like one to not stand out, I'd ask for either an etiquette test or a stealth test, depending on the character and situation. Unless you were a human trying to look like an Orcish wageslave or something >.>

*shrug*

I most likely fall at least marginally on the powergamer side of things (using the terminology of this thread, anyhow). I will- to a point- attempt to optimize my character for the role I have chosen. However, this does not mean that I will sacrifice concept for it. I actually rather like digging through the rules and seeing how they all fit together- a major part of my impetus to start a Shadowrun game with my gaming group was my desire to try a Trollish Adept. As a wuxia-esque bounce-over-the-rooftops barefisted monk type (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Hardly the most munchkin-ed out build out there, I know, but with some tinkering, he should do alright. Given that with even modest rolling, he can take out three average enemies per round <.<

So... he is rather good at what he does. And he doesn't have a lot of social skills, true. Mind you, the character grew up in an isolated, remote location with a strong emphasis on martial arts (no, not a Shaolin monastery, heh. Similar deal, though). So even though he's been in the sprawl a few years now, he's not that comfortable there, and tends to be unsure of himself when he isn't doing violence to the deserving. I partly did it this way because I loved the idea of this enormous troll bouncing around like Jackie Chan on fast-forward, and partly because I'm quite new to the system (we only did our first gaming session this week) and wanted to keep things relatively simple for myself. So yeah. I started with concept (huge, strong, improbably nimble martial artist), poked at the mechanics to the best of my ability until he was going to be quite good at what I wanted him to be able to do, and fleshed him out in my mind as I was going along.

Given that... am I a powergamer or a 'real' roleplayer? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[_Pax._]

Clearly if you're so far down the rabbit hole that the specific wording of the rules isn't enough to tell you what a skill's used for, [...]

Reread the Etiquette quote I gave you:

The Etiquette Skill allows a character to function within a specific subculture without appearing out of place. It allows the character to fit in, [...]

Do you notice that phrase there, "without appearing out of place" ...? Yeah. That right there.

Disguise would be used to, for example, try to pass yourself off as firefighters responding to an alarm (that your hacker has oh so conveniently triggered from outside).

Or to get access to an apartment, because you're dressed as an employee of the power company, or even the apartment complex's own groundskeeping staff.

...

But to simply wear a nice suit, clearly be a security employee, and not make an ass of ones' self while accompanying a client to a poker game? Or put on "street" fashions, and do the same while escorting him or her to Underworld 93? No, I'm sorry, that doesn't call for a Disguise check, because you're not trying to look like something you are not. You're just dressing and behaving appropriately for the circumstances. Oh, and not concealing the fact that you're a bodyguard.

OTOH, if you're going to pose as your client's *cough* "escort" *cough*, for the night? Yes, THAT might require some Disguise, and maybe some Con: you are trying to look and act a particular part, not project a general "not out of place" appearance.

...

See how that works?

"I'm me, wearing appropriate clothes and not being an ass" ... Etiquette, and go shopping if you need to.

"I'm Joe from Maintenance" (when you're no such person or thing) ... Disguise and/or Con.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[thorya]

Now I want you to look back over the last ... oh, I guess dozen posts. Notice which side of things has been "on the attack", and who's had to defend himself over and over.

Then ask yourself: why is it that a guy who started a thread pretty much to say "why can't we all get along, and not assume bad things of each other", the one who's on the defensive? If it's power gamers who're the problem, why are the "roleplayers" the ones picking a fight?

And yes, your insistence to the contrary aside, I do count you in that camp. Not as extremely so as, say, binarywraith is. But more on that side of the spectrum than you claim ... yes.

Woah, sorry if you feel attacked. I wasn't trying to start a fight. Maybe you're reading a different thread than me, but I wasn't even responding to you until you started criticizing me. I was just responding to Neraph because I think the "straw man" argument that Neraph criticized is not a straw man argument, it's just a different way of looking at the game. Not a better way, but a different way and for people that care about it it's important. It's like arguments between people that want perfect reality matching mechanics and people that just want consistent easy to use game mechanics. There's no winning, because neither side wants the same thing, so their definitions of "right" are vastly different. It's fluff vs. crunch and I think powergamers usually win that fight (hence the negative feelings of roleplayers), because we have the numbers and mechanics on our side and it's largely up to a GM to enforce fluff or limit exploitation of crunch.

I've seen lots of self described "powergamers" ruin games (what you would call munchkins) and in my experience, they're really bad at judging when they're being a jerk or ruining a game, because all munchkins think they're just powergamers. Sure that's probably not you (and I never said it was) and I get that making the distinction clear is what you're trying to do here. Maybe my experience is different than the SR community as a whole, but generally I have way more problems with self described powergamers than with self described roleplayers. I have had problems with roleplayers too, but generally they just ruin the game for themselves rather than everyone else.

[_Pax._]

Woah, sorry if you feel attacked. I wasn't trying to start a fight. Maybe you're reading a different thread than me, but I wasn't even responding to you until you started criticizing me.

Wait. Stop right here, for a moment. Criticising you? No, that's not what happened. I even went back, just now, and re-read the start of the interaction between you and I personally. I did not "criticise" you at all. I countered some of yur claims, yes. But criticise? Nope. Not you, not anything. Not in the post where I first directed comments to you, personally; what I did there was show you on example, from my own efforts, where I did not (as yu had originally described) "[make] trade-offs that don't fit with the character and concept." To the contrary, everything that I shared, did fit with the character.

Then I shared some concepts - three of them - that are not "defined by some mechanical role", as you claimed powergamer characters usually are - and one of them demonstrated the fallacy of your claim that powergamers tend to describe their charactres only in "mechanical terms" rather than story.

... and how did you respond to that? Wat reply did you post to me?

Criticism. Finding fault. Casting aspersions.

Friend, even if you weren't trying to start a fight ... well, you were doing a pretty damned fine job of it anyway.

...

In the final measure: if anyone here has criticised someone, it's you. Please do not mistake your own faults, as being mine. Thank you. >_<

[Glyph]

I alluded to this earlier, but a lot of roleplayers seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to make a character with personality put ahead of optimization, but then they get upset when an optimized character performs better than they do. If they truly desire to roleplay their character, then they should be roleplaying their character being weaker, not complaining because someone else killed more guards than they did.

Ironically, roleplayers can be worse than powergamers when it comes to the character matching the background. Perhaps it is not so surprising - when you start with a complete story, then try to give it numbers, you can have a hard time making things fit just right. I prefer to start with a concept, figure out what I need for that concept, then adjust things as I flesh out the more specific background. The stats and story bounce off each other, so they fit together.


A more valid complaint from roleplayers is when they feel pressured to make a more optimized character simply to survive the campaign, or to have any sense of accomplishment. To me, though, that is more of a GM problem than a problem with a powerful character.

One thing that a lot of GMs seem to lack the knack for is challenging people of different power levels, which, frankly, you will run into even in a game purely of min-maxers. Because one of them will be a perfectly tweaked vatjob killing machine, and the other one will be a perfectly tweaked private eye with great perception and data search skills, combat skills in the low teens, driving, stealth, and so on. Shadowrun characters don't have levels, just varying degrees of specialization versus versatility.

It can be hard to have an occasional enemy with a rocket launcher show up to battle the vatjob without smearing that detective all over the asphalt, but it can be done, not so much by completely segregating their niches, but by letting the player who is good at something handle the lion's share of it, and have the other characters support him in that role. In other words, the detective can hide behind a dumpster and occasionally plink a shot with his pistol when that hit team has them cornered in an alley, while the vatjob screams and hoses them down with his LMG. The detective can take center stage when he is negotiating the sale of some hot contraband to Vlad the fixer, while the vatjob exchanges menacing glares with Vlad's goth-looking bodyguards.

I think characters need to be tailored to the individual game, though. If it is a game heavy on combat, then the guy playing the detective character might want to re-work him, making him more of a Mike Hammer type of PI. If it is a game with lots of intrigue and little combat, the vatjob might want to consider replacing his orthoskin with some tailored pheromones and some senseware, while investing more than the minimum in social skills. This is another area where powergamers can often have an edge over roleplayers. They can easily bring their character down to a new minimum, or tighten them up for a campaign where the characters are more hyperspecialized, but it is a lot harder to tweak a story that is already set in stone.

[thorya]

Wait. Stop right here, for a moment. Criticising you? No, that's not what happened. I even went back, just now, and re-read the start of the interaction between you and I personally. I did not "criticise" you at all. I countered some of yur claims, yes. But criticise? Nope. Not you, not anything. Not in the post where I first directed comments to you, personally; what I did there was show you on example, from my own efforts, where I did not (as yu had originally described) "[make] trade-offs that don't fit with the character and concept." To the contrary, everything that I shared, did fit with the character.

Then I shared some concepts - three of them - that are not "defined by some mechanical role", as you claimed powergamer characters usually are - and one of them demonstrated the fallacy of your claim that powergamers tend to describe their charactres only in "mechanical terms" rather than story.

... and how did you respond to that? Wat reply did you post to me?

Criticism. Finding fault. Casting aspersions.

Friend, even if you weren't trying to start a fight ... well, you were doing a pretty damned fine job of it anyway.

...

In the final measure: if anyone here has criticised someone, it's you. Please do not mistake your own faults, as being mine. Thank you. >_<

I see, when I disagree with you or give examples, it's attacks, but when you do it to me that's reasonable arguing? Yeah, I was criticizing your arguments and finding fault with them. Just like you were with mine. I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion board and I was trying to discuss a differing view point. I tried apologizing for what you seem to think are personal attacks, but since you're clearly having none of it. Enjoy your thread. I'll stop wasting my time and yours.
Edti: And stupid wording on my part, I meant criticizing my position. I wasn't trying to imply you were making personal attacks (though I clearly did). Oops.

[Neraph]

Yep, Perception 2. Intuition 4, too. Oh, and Vision enhancement 3 in his cybereyes - please don't assume that everything about a character can be seen in just the skills and qualities.

His final DP for spotting that danger? A reasonable (IMO, obviously) 9.

And when he's Observing In Detail like it's his job he's got a +3 for a final DP of 12. I work security for a living and I can tell you the most important part of Perception is paying attention, reflected in SR as a +3.

Ironically, roleplayers can be worse than powergamers when it comes to the character matching the background. Perhaps it is not so surprising - when you start with a complete story, then try to give it numbers, you can have a hard time making things fit just right. I prefer to start with a concept, figure out what I need for that concept, then adjust things as I flesh out the more specific background. The stats and story bounce off each other, so they fit together.

It may surprise some people, but I tend to build Concept, Build, Character, which is exactly what you described above. Even my Blood Lord (nosferatu mystic adept getting up to a 7 [or 10] Magic from chargen) was built off of concept first (White Court, Sith Lord, Lich King).

Also, I've built an old-western-styled revolver-totin' character before. Unfortunately, this was before I started keeping records of stats, so unless I find his character sheet, he's lost to the world. He was an ork from the Underground who thought himself the marshal of his neighborhood (the 'Star doesn't come out in these parts, so I'm the Star you should be worried about). He did revolvers, the Desperado shotgun, long coat, and even had a personality soft for his motorcycle (with gyro-stabilizer) to make it act like a horse.

Good times.

[binarywraith]

"I'm me, wearing appropriate clothes and not being an ass" ... Etiquette, and go shopping if you need to.

You mean go out and buy some sort of outfit that will make you look like one of the sort of people that belong in your target environment instead of a shadowrunner? We should call that something! Like a costume... or a disguise! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

... looking at the wording of the Disguise rule, I find myself annoyed once again at how incredibly vague some of the things in SR4 are.

That is, in fact, half of why I don't run SR4. They made some serious assumptions in their rules-writing that the reader has played a similar game before, and didn't bother to spell out a lot of the details needed to logically lay out skill use beyond casting and combat. You can hear the rules lawyers and munchkins getting aroused from down the hall.