[X] My Assistant

[Fatum]

You seriously want to claim that taste is a matter of 'objective truth'? Feel free, but I'll stop taking you seriously at this point.

Taste isn't. Archetype usefulness is.

There are the archetypes you mention, really vanilla:
Combat Mage, Drone Rigger, Face, Hacker, Shaman (*2 even), Street Samurai, a Technomancer and a Weapons Specialist.
Don't these characters fill just about every 'standard SR character trope' slot?

Where's the ever-popular melee specialist, for example? Be it adept or not. The Mystical Adept - one of the quality-defined archetypes?

Why complain about the unusual ones? Do they take something away from the game? Do you need a 2nd type of Street Samurai or a third Shaman? Would that make the game better?

Yes, as I said in the comment before the previous one.

There's a lot to be said about the level of optimization, sure. But the characters ARE there.

Indeed, there is a lot to be said.

[_Pax._]

You seriously want to claim that taste is a matter of 'objective truth'? Feel free, but I'll stop taking you seriously at this point.

There are the archetypes you mention, really vanilla:
Combat Mage, Drone Rigger, Face, Hacker, Shaman (*2 even), Street Samurai, a Technomancer and a Weapons Specialist.
Don't these characters fill just about every 'standard SR character trope' slot?

Hmm, I think "Adept Ninja" is missing from that list. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Lionhearted]

Funny thing, had a guy in my group last week who never played an RPG in my life, he picked the occult investigator from the premades. The result? He learned the magic rules in three seconds flat, really enjoyed himself and almost lost his liver on a mob casino.
Working as intended.

Add to wishlist: Power armor

[All4BigGuns]

You can't hope to give people stuff to play with for every specific play style, so you necessarily have to go with the builds useful for the most players possible. This is why pregens are there: to help the new players understand what's what, and maybe give them a playable character out of the box.
IP 1 combat characters are not useful for the majority of the players. Neither are combat characters without Dodge (like Gunslinger Adept). Neither "infiltration specialists" with Perception 2.

One very rarely needs more than TWO passes as a combat character, and really if the GM does his job right and doesn't just throw the party up against things intending to slaughter them, 1 pass can work for a combat character. Your assertion that it can never work, never, never, never is just plain wrong.

Whether the pregen archetypes are "optimized" or not, oh well, they don't need to be. Try breaking out of the mold and putting away your calculator for a change.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

The only problems are Drones, bc. they have 3 IPs out of the box. And according to fluff (and common sense), drones should be numerous.

[All4BigGuns]

The only problems are Drones, bc. they have 3 IPs out of the box. And according to fluff (and common sense), drones should be numerous.

And a good GM will ignore that if the majority of the team has 1 pass (2 passes will work fine against them). This idea of "must always have equal or more passes to ALL opposition" is just bunk.

[binarywraith]

And a good GM will ignore that if the majority of the team has 1 pass (2 passes will work fine against them). This idea of "must always have equal or more passes to ALL opposition" is just bunk.

It is the inevitable end result of the 'optimization' (read : munchkin) mindset. Clearly if the players can do it, they must do it, as the opposition can also do it and therefore must.

Part of why that isn't my preferred style of play.

[All4BigGuns]

It is the inevitable end result of the 'optimization' (read : munchkin) mindset. Clearly if the players can do it, they must do it, as the opposition can also do it and therefore must.

Part of why that isn't my preferred style of play.

I like decent characters that are actually capable, but this "optimization" thing just seems wrong to me. Heck, when I say that 2 passes is plenty, I speak from experience (and no those experiences are not from "hand holding" or any drek like that).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I like decent characters that are actually capable, but this "optimization" thing just seems wrong to me. Heck, when I say that 2 passes is plenty, I speak from experience (and no those experiences are not from "hand holding" or any drek like that).

Agreed... 2 IP is plenty for most characters, and I have often been okay with just 1 IP.

[Lionhearted]

It's a matter of scale, the group full of low IP characters should either a) not get signed for work where they go up against throngs drones or b) be expected to be able to avoid a situation where they need to go heads on with them.

In the fluff, the cutting edge keeps you alive and keeps you in biz. An 1P face is not the cutting edge in combat, if he runs into encounters where he would need that edge.
He already screwed up, run and hide little bunny, run or die.

[All4BigGuns]

It's a matter of scale, the group full of low IP characters should either a) not get signed for work where they go up against throngs drones or b) be expected to be able to avoid a situation where they need to go heads on with them.

In the fluff, the cutting edge keeps you alive and keeps you in biz. An 1P face is not the cutting edge in combat, if he runs into encounters where he would need that edge.
He already screwed up, run and hide little bunny, run or die.

And as a follow up, when the drones come out, the hacker can take over the automated defenses of the facility to throw some "friendly fire" at the drones, the face could lay down suppressive fire with an SMG, the mage...well he does his thing and frags the crap out of things and the street sam just unloads on them. All this done, and those drones should be down before the end of the second pass.

[Fatum]

1 IP? Are you even serious?
Let's start from the beginning. We may be playing in a world where elves drink coffee with dragons, but we're using the same logic as in RL unless the rules openly state otherwise.
It's costing a corp 50k a man to outfit its security detail to have 3 IPs. Having a runner team succeed against it is costing the corp times, if not hundreds of times, more. Why exactly would a megacorp not have combatants with 3 IPs? "We must use every edge we can" is not munchin thinking, it's the natural law.
A 1 IP combatant is non-viable in the world of 3 IP threats. An "infiltration specialist" with a perception pool of 6 against thresholds ranging from 3 to 5 he's facing daily is non-viable. Etc.

[All4BigGuns]

1 IP? Are you even serious?
Let's start from the beginning. We may be playing in a world where elves drink coffee with dragons, but we're using the same logic as in RL unless the rules openly state otherwise.
It's costing a corp 50k a man to outfit its security detail to have 3 IPs. Having a runner team succeed against it is costing the corp times, if not hundreds of times, more. Why exactly would a megacorp not have combatants with 3 IPs? "We must use every edge we can" is not munchin thinking, it's the natural law.
A 1 IP combatant is non-viable in the world of 3 IP threats. An "infiltration specialist" with a perception pool of 6 against thresholds ranging from 3 to 5 he's facing daily is non-viable. Etc.

It's called one simple thing:

The GM should be building the game around the PCs.

[bannockburn]

Why?

Edit: Sorry, that sounds hostile. I'm genuinely asking, why I should build my game around the PCs the players think up?
I am putting the same work, if not more into the game as the players do, so IMO there should be a middle ground there. I'm not the go-to guy if you want fun and dispense it in doses appropriate to your tastes. I want my fun, too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Of course, in the ideal case, this isn't even an issue, as I talked to my players what kind of characters they should make / bring.

[All4BigGuns]

Why?

Edit: Sorry, that sounds hostile. I'm genuinely asking, why I should build my game around the PCs the players think up?
I am putting the same work, if not more into the game as the players do, so IMO there should be a middle ground there. I'm not the go-to guy if you want fun and dispense it in doses appropriate to your tastes. I want my fun, too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Of course, in the ideal case, this isn't even an issue, as I talked to my players what kind of characters they should make / bring.

It means that if the players make characters with 1 or 2 passes, you don't design encounters with a bunch of tweaked out 4 pass special forces operatives. That said, having one or two on occasion for an "oh crap what have we gotten into?" moment is all right, but it should be very rare.

You seem to be assuming that the statement means "sandbox" only, and that is not what is being said.

[bannockburn]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification, then we mean the same thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If I think up a gutterpunks ganger campaign, the characters of course shouldn't go up against the red samurai.
But if they DO get the idea to go raid that Renraku compound, I won't pull punches, just because they're player characters (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Lionhearted]

Sod that bigguns, if the players don't build to be competitive in straight up combat doesn't mean that there shouldn't be challenges that have the opportunity of straight up combat.
It also means that they should be expected to work around their limitations with creativity and clever thinking, not GM pandering.
I don't run my games using chekov's rifle.

[Fatum]

It's called one simple thing:

The GM should be building the game around the PCs.

There's a fine distinction here. The game (and its story) should be built around the PCs, sure. But the world exists independently of them, and its laws, be it physical or logical, still work whether they want it or not.
Let's take a couple of examples. Suppose your player takes Quadriplegic quality and declares he's going to levitate himself throughout sheer force of will, despite not being Awakened. Do you allow that?
Suppose your player (whose character has 1 IP) says: "I'm going to Essen, finding Lofwyr and rearranging his Golden Snout". Will he only face opposition with 1 IP and no more skilled than himself?

Now, I'm not saying that characters with 1 IP are never finding employment. They are, but they're on the same level as ganger trash, and their runs (stealing candy from little girls) will be compensated as such. But players mostly seem to want something a bit more engaging than mugging grammas for 50 nuyen a piece.

[All4BigGuns]

Sod that bigguns, if the players don't build to be competitive in straight up combat doesn't mean that there shouldn't be challenges that have the opportunity of straight up combat.
It also means that they should be expected to work around their limitations with creativity and clever thinking, not GM pandering.
I don't run my games using chekov's rifle.

It's not "pandering" to build encounters appropriate to the "power level" of the characters. That is just plain good encounter building. Hell, I even said that it is all right to have the occasional encounter that is above their "power level". The job of the GM is not to slaughter the characters, but rather to provide appropriate levels of challenge that can be overcome without the players being tactical geniuses on the level of Sun Tzu (which it seems like you expect going by your post).

[Fatum]

Except players also get to choose the encounters unless you railroad them like a madman.

[Lionhearted]

If I put a dragon in my game, it's up to the players to decide what they want to do with the dragon.
If they investigate they learn that it's a fraggin' big dragon.
They can choose to leave the dragon alone, try to sneak in and steal it's horde, heck even barter with him.
They might even have rushed in blind. Either way it's a fraggin' big dragon and if they engage it. They better be ready to deal with the consequence.
Chekov's gun is the concept that if you put a gun on set, it must be used before the end of the act, otherwise don't put a gun there... I don't adher to that.
There's challenges, how the players approach them are up to them, there's some challenges they may simply back down from and that's fine.
But if they break into the Ares robotics labs you can bet your arse there will be throngs of drones patrolling the place. How they deal with that, is up to them to figure out.

[tjn]

It's called one simple thing:

The GM should be building the game around the PCs.

That is entirely an opinion and stating your opinion in bold, italicized, and with an increased size in font, does not make it a statement of fact.

Look, your approach is an entirely valid approach. Crafting encounters or story specifically around the PC's targets the "challenge" aspect of gaming and adds a layer of surety that every player will have something to do, or time in the spotlight, and therefore their own share of the story.

But so is the approach that a GM builds a world, and the game comes from the emergent consequences from the PC's actions. It's called "sandbox" play. The "challenge" comes not from the situations themselves, but not getting into situations that the PCs shouldn't be in and attempting to manipulate the setting's factors to give them every advantage possible. Furthermore the story and spotlight comes not from the GM, but from the players choice and therefore the players get rewarded in proportion to the effort they put into the game.

So, just because other people have differing opinions to you, does not mean that they are wrong, or having BADWRONGFUN, and unless the avatar of RPGs came down from on high and pinned the Gaming Police Badge on your chest, kindly please stop with the proclamations of what GMs should, or should not, do.

[_Pax._]

1 IP? Are you even serious?

As a heart attack.

True story: one of teh early Season 4 SRMs - #0 or #1, I believe - includes a pair of drones, in what amounts to a prepared kill-box. IIRC, my group of players included:

• an Elf Face (1 IP)
• a Troll Adept (3 IP, Archery/Melee)
• a Human Technomancer (1 IP in meatspace)
• a Pixie Mystic Adept (2 IP, pyromancer/pyromaniac)
• a Nartaki Samurai (3 IP, pistols and swords)
• a Dwarf mundane EMT/Medic (1 IP)

Both drones died pretty quickly; IIRC, in a single IP, maybe two. Thus, rendering all those other IPS they had pretty much superfluous (except that, you know, it was a bit of a target-rich environment, so they had other things to do with those passes.

It's costing a corp 50k a man to outfit its security detail to have 3 IPs. Having a runner team succeed against it is costing the corp times, if not hundreds of times, more. Why exactly would a megacorp not have combatants with 3 IPs?

Because, a corporation is not just ONE location, and ten "security guys", at a time. The big AAA corporations have tens of thousands of locations, requiring a security workforce of millions.

For every shadowrunner out there in the world, the corporation is equipping, and paying salary for, tens of thousands of security guards.

"We must use every edge we can reasonably afford based on current available resources" is not munchin thinking, it's the natural law.

Fixed that for you.

[Fatum]

As a heart attack.

True story: one of teh early Season 4 SRMs - #0 or #1, I believe - includes a pair of drones, in what amounts to a prepared kill-box. IIRC, my group of players included:

• an Elf Face (1 IP)
• a Troll Adept (3 IP, Archery/Melee)
• a Human Technomancer (1 IP in meatspace)
• a Pixie Mystic Adept (2 IP, pyromancer/pyromaniac)
• a Nartaki Samurai (3 IP, pistols and swords)
• a Dwarf mundane EMT/Medic (1 IP)

Both drones died pretty quickly; IIRC, in a single IP, maybe two. Thus, rendering all those other IPS they had pretty much superfluous (except that, you know, it was a bit of a target-rich environment, so they had other things to do with those passes.

So you had six full round actions against two on IP 1. Fairly balanced, sure.

Because, a corporation is not just ONE location, and ten "security guys", at a time. The big AAA corporations have tens of thousands of locations, requiring a security workforce of millions.
For every shadowrunner out there in the world, the corporation is equipping, and paying salary for, tens of thousands of security guards.

The runners are not robbing a bubblegum warehouse. And a corporation does not have tens of thousands of crucial locations that are likely to be a target of a run.
And for those not covered by IP 3 security details, there are always HTR teams.

Fixed that for you.

All of that is included in that "can".
And yeah, a corp can afford 50k a man: that's just 10 monthly wages, based on Day Job quality. Alternative costs, as already pointed out, are hundreds of times higher.

[nezumi]

I agree with Fatum regarding the pre-gens.

In the core book, the game should be focused on getting NEW players under a NEW GM up and running in a STANDARD campaign with a minimum of fuss and confusion. A character who can't do basic Shadowrunner activities won't meet those requirements. Those are great pre-gens to release with additional books, but as a GM, there's nothing worse than having a player pick a pre-gen and I have to warn him that his character won't be useful in X, Y, or Z activities, which make up 80% of the mission.

I do echo the vote for power armor though. More diversity in gear would be cool in general (as opposed to 25 different handguns).