Character Generation - Best Bang for the Buck, 5th ed. Options

[Moirdryd]

I've never used any of the BP/Karma gen systems in SR3 and never played 4. I like priority gen. My reason is simple. With a priority gen (or some of the non-karma/xp systems) you get a very clear idea of where the Starting strengths and weaknesses are intended to be and where you go from there. Which means whenever an XP gen system is introduced that system is often designed to allow for the same variance of the TOP end of each points category otherwise the beginning character feels underwhelming compared to the core standard, of course this also means to avoid that you end up with a more "abusable" system.

Either way if your game desires (and I would hope most do) characters who's stats fit concept it's upto the GM and the Players to generate characters in this way. If you don't find min maxing into specialist fields is an issue then that's fine too. No system, save adding artificial caps, will prevent min maxing if that's the argument.

[Mikado]

Technically, karmagen is more abuseable, mainly because the base amount you get for karmagen is more generous than the base amount you get for build points. However...

Yes, the points given for karmagen in 4th was more than what you got point for point in the build point system. However, that does not mean that karmagen is more abusable it just means that the designers did not balance both systems to correctly each other, if balancing them to each other is even possible. I think the 4th Ed karmagen was about 100 karma to high.

Just having the disconnect between your point allotment when creating a character to how much that character is "worth" in the after creation karma costs shows a clear difference in how much swing you can have in those two costs. Sometimes that difference can be over 100 (virtual) karma. That difference is what drives people to select getting a stat/skill of 6 on one thing instead of getting a stat/skill of 3 in something else just because to buy that 6 later is vastly more than to buy that 3. That disconnect is where the abuse is.

When the creation costs and the advancement costs are the same that level of disconnect goes away. It does not stop someone from getting that stat/skill of 6 but it does not penalize getting the stat/skill of 3 either. Therefore, the "suboptimal" builds are due to player choice or character concept not from the loss of virtual karma from choosing a stat/skill 3 instead of 6.

[apple]

I assure you you get the same picture with a karma/BP system - if you can distribute 10 attribute points or 20, if you have 0 magic - or magic 5 - or 10 skill points to distribute .. or 40.

SYL

[Mikado]

I assure you you get the same picture with a karma/BP system - if you can distribute 10 attribute points or 20, if you have 0 magic - or magic 5 - or 10 skill points to distribute .. or 40.

SYL

Karmagen is not build points...
They are two different concepts. Build points do not equal karma in 4th. Not even close...

Buld points is closer to the "Sum to 10" build system in 3rd Ed.

[apple]

That may be but thats not the point: you still get a very clear picture of your strength, limitations and possibilities with either BP or Karma.

SYL

[Shinobi Killfist]

That may be but thats not the point: you still get a very clear picture of your strength, limitations and possibilities with either BP or Karma.

SYL

The difference is priority has clear cut offs. BP and karmagen tend to blend things a bit more so there are less obvious steps between attributes and skills or whatever. Though it is possible to build even larger contrasts, its just not as common I think.

[Samoth]

It was hard to build minmaxed monsters using karmagen in SR4 because attributes and skills at high level took up so much of your resources that you would just plain run out. You can search this board and find the BP monsters who abused Troll attributes, bonded foci and selected augmentations that no karmagen character could touch since BP worked on a linear scale.

[Moirdryd]

Indeed Mikado, it makes a difference. But that's kind of the point. Being good at something is instantly accessible with a BP/Priority system, where as the cost is steeper with an XP system. But if the DP system is balanced against any core system, then costing more is just numbers on paper, if it's not balanced then XP gen characters are going to be weaker out the box.

Ultimately Priority gives you some very definite numbers for each part of your character. BP gives you flexible numbers for parts of your character and Karma/XP gives you a directly related flexible set of numbers. If they're all balanced against one another then you'll see mostly similar characters, if they're not then you'll see a trend depending on system. Again, non prevent any element of min maxing. It the more flexible the system the easier it is to min max. The only way to prevent that is you add more caps (which just means a lower min max). It was a common thing on the WoD chats that you could have a max combined combat skills of 5 or 7, only Two Attributes of 4 etc. which meant the combat characters filled those points immediately and the Stats went into what you wanted to be good at. While it evened a playing field for PVP it otherwise very little difference to the storyline play.

[Cain]

Interesting...
Would you still think a karmagen system would be more abusable if it had the same starting restrictions as any other build system? If you have a fair assessment of racial and qualities costs in karma as well as a fair assessment of karma for cash then restrict the ability to initiate/submerge (can you even use the starting karma in 5th to initiate?) a karmagen system is more balanced that any other system.

My experience is, the fiddlier a system is, the more prone to abuse it becomes. SR4.5 BP had 400 moving parts to abuse, which made it easily breakable. Karmagen has 800 points to mess with, making it even fiddlier.

Really, to quote Montgomery Scott, "The more complicated the plumbin', the easier it is to stop up the drain." I've discovered to simpler, easier systems are less prone to breakage.

That has been my experience of karmagen in play. I tend to min-max less with karmagen, not because it is harder to do so (I have fiddled around with builds and numbers, and did one min-maxed character for a PVP game, so I know you can min-max with karmagen), but because, as you said, I don't feel like I need to squeeze the most value out of every point.

YMMV, but my experience is that the more points you give, the more min/maxers try to squeeze the life out of them.

It was hard to build minmaxed monsters using karmagen in SR4 because attributes and skills at high level took up so much of your resources that you would just plain run out. You can search this board and find the BP monsters who abused Troll attributes, bonded foci and selected augmentations that no karmagen character could touch since BP worked on a linear scale.

My experience is that it's easier to shore up your dump stats under karmagen. It doesn't prevent min/maxing, it just shifts the burden around a bit.

[tjn]

People, you have to define how exactly you're using the term min/max. The first approach is literally setting stats at a minimum you can get away with to maximize other stats, while the second is to minimize your weaknesses, while maximizing your advantages. These are two different, but related concepts in the linear/exponential model, but once you jump into a karma character creation system, the two theories get divorced from each other because maximizing your stats is, in itself, a weakness under karma creation.

No, to properly maximize your advantages in karma creation, you get as many different modifiers that apply as possible because it's cheaper to buy more, different individual things at a lower overall level than investing in one thing at a higher level. Human Cyber-Mystic Adepts become Karma creation's Melee Trolls because they have so many different ways to spend that karma at a low exponential level. Further, to minimize weaknesses specifically goes against having any sort of dump stat and since eliminating dumpstats is cheap, it's very easy to minimize weaknesses. You put a little karma into attributes, skills, adept power points, spells to boost the rolls, cyber to augment them, and the proper gear to give an additional boost, and suddenly you're probably as effective as the specialist in his field who paid through the nose to "max" his attribute and skills, while having the versatility to dominate in every other area that the specialist "minimized" in.

Just because karma creation combats a specific type of optimization in the linear/exponential model, does not translate into the fact that karma creation cannot be "minmax"ed.

[Lobo0705]

I never played 4e, so I can't speak to the karma /bp generation system in it. I played 1e through 3e alot, and once it came out, we used Becks Karma Gen system. I always liked the creator's comments on it:


Why create BeCKS at all when the existing
Shadowrun sourcebooks already provide two viable
methods for character creation?
I created BeCKS to remove the discrepancy between
how characters develop during character creation and how
they develop in game play. The existing character creation
methods for Shadowrun both encourage a min/max-ing
attitude. For example, let’s say you’re using priorities to
build a troll strongman. He currently has a Charisma of 1
and a Strength of 9, and you have one attribute point left
to spend. Where should you spend that point? The “good
roleplayer” would say to put it in whichever would best
suit the character, but the smart money says to put it into
strength. After all, the extra point of Charisma may be
more in-character, but you can always buy up that extra
point with 4 Karma after one or two sessions of game
play. Raising the Strength score to 10 after initial creation
would cost 20 Karma. The primary rule of BeCKS is that
all elements of a character should cost the same amount
whether purchased before or after starting play.
A pleasant side effect of this, I’ve found, is that starting
characters tend to be more well-rounded, with more midrange
skills and fewer high-level skills. As was pointed
out to me, when you can buy two skills at 4 for slightly
less than one skill at 6, which option do you think will be
most useful to your character? This means the sixes are
reserved for the most vital skills of each character, and
everything else tends to be more diversified. This works
ideally for the sort of campaigns I like to run. I understand
that other people like to see specialist characters who have
a narrower focus but are better at what they do. That’s fine.
That’s why BeCKS is simply one option among many.


BeCKS is extremely complicated. Shouldn’t
character creation be more about the character and less
about fiddling with numbers?
By its nature, BeCKS is complicated—as complicated
as character advancement in Shadowrun with the added
hardship of having to allocate so much Karma at one time.
And as I’ve said before, it’s not for everybody, but for me
personally, it allows me to focus more on creating exactly
the character I want without worrying about if I’m getting
the most bang for my karmic buck. The example I used
in the first BeCKS article is still my favorite: Jack Bull, the
ork decker, is almost done with his character— he just has
two skill points left to allocate. He realizes that his history
mentions his time as a chauffeur, and he thinks that he
should really spend those points to take Car 2. But on the
other hand, if he instead raises Assault Rifle from 4 to 6,
he’ll be that much more effective in combat, and he can
always buy the car skill later for just 4 Karma, when the
gun skill would have cost 16 Karma at least. By staying
true to his character concept and taking the vehicle skill,
he essentially shorts himself out of a 12-Karma advantage.
Why should he be punished for staying in character?
Of course, I personally prefer freeform character
creation with no artificial constraints, but that sort of
thing doesn’t work so well in Shadowrun where there is
more emphasis on and need for fairness and game balance.
In that vein, BeCKS is as fair and balanced as character
creation gets."

At the end of the day, use whatever method you like - you can min-max with either - and if the GM has players who min-max, then he just needs to either accept that they do so, or talk to them and say, "Don't make your character so overpowered, here, let's talk about how we can keep your concept, but make it friendlier for the game I'm going to run."

Conversation between GM and player stops min-maxing, character generation systems do not.

[tjn]

Conversation between GM and player stops min-maxing, character generation systems do not.

This, a thousand times, this.

[Glyph]

People, you have to define how exactly you're using the term min/max. The first approach is literally setting stats at a minimum you can get away with to maximize other stats, while the second is to minimize your weaknesses, while maximizing your advantages. These are two different, but related concepts in the linear/exponential model, but once you jump into a karma character creation system, the two theories get divorced from each other because maximizing your stats is, in itself, a weakness under karma creation.

No, to properly maximize your advantages in karma creation, you get as many different modifiers that apply as possible because it's cheaper to buy more, different individual things at a lower overall level than investing in one thing at a higher level. Human Cyber-Mystic Adepts become Karma creation's Melee Trolls because they have so many different ways to spend that karma at a low exponential level. Further, to minimize weaknesses specifically goes against having any sort of dump stat and since eliminating dumpstats is cheap, it's very easy to minimize weaknesses. You put a little karma into attributes, skills, adept power points, spells to boost the rolls, cyber to augment them, and the proper gear to give an additional boost, and suddenly you're probably as effective as the specialist in his field who paid through the nose to "max" his attribute and skills, while having the versatility to dominate in every other area that the specialist "minimized" in.

Just because karma creation combats a specific type of optimization in the linear/exponential model, does not translate into the fact that karma creation cannot be "minmax"ed.

Karmagen makes it easier to min (dump stats are easier to raise to a functional level), and harder, but not impossible, to max (by having exponential, rather than flat, costs for skills and Attributes). But while having your primary Attribute(s) and skills soft-maxed may be more expensive, you still have enough points to do it.

Using spells, adept powers and augmentations is a no brainer when it comes to optimization, whether playing a specialist or a generalist. They not only have flat costs, but are comparatively cheap - by design (this is a game with strong transhumanist themes, after all).

[Cain]

Karmagen makes it easier to min (dump stats are easier to raise to a functional level), and harder, but not impossible, to max (by having exponential, rather than flat, costs for skills and Attributes). But while having your primary Attribute(s) and skills soft-maxed may be more expensive, you still have enough points to do it.

Using spells, adept powers and augmentations is a no brainer when it comes to optimization, whether playing a specialist or a generalist. They not only have flat costs, but are comparatively cheap - by design (this is a game with strong transhumanist themes, after all).

Exactly. Now, granted that 4.5 karmagen favored certain builds over others-- mages and adepts, for the most part-- but both systems could be easily abused. The biggest problem was that both only really focused on limiting attributes and skills, when those often end up being only a minor part of the overall dice pool. For example, the pornomancer has skill 7; but since he's slinging up to 52 dice, that's really not a significant component anymore.

I never played 4e, so I can't speak to the karma /bp generation system in it. I played 1e through 3e alot, and once it came out, we used Becks Karma Gen system.

I experimented with BeCKS a bit, back in the day. Even using McMackie's, I found it to be really complicated to work with, and the benefits just didn't seem worthwhile. I still could make broken characters, it was just that you had to be more clever about it. I generally don't mind more complex character generation, provided I'm getting something more out of it, like exact customization and better balance. I never found that to be true with BeCKS.

I did more experimentation with 3e's point buy. I found it much easier to min/max than the standard Priority system. When combined with the added complexity, I decided that it wasn't for me. It was too easy to break, and even though it was only a little more complex, I wasn't getting any benefit out of it.

Conversation between GM and player stops min-maxing, character generation systems do not.

Very much so. Clearly communicating the game expectations will make life easier for both GM and players.

[tjn]

Using spells, adept powers and augmentations is a no brainer when it comes to optimization, whether playing a specialist or a generalist. They not only have flat costs, but are comparatively cheap - by design (this is a game with strong transhumanist themes, after all).

Yes, but when I can get a generalist who is in the same ballpark as the specialist in the specialist's own field of expertise, but at the same time is also quite adept at the specialist's weaknesses due to exploiting those cheap, flat costs, I seriously question the reasoning that Karma gen is intrinsically better than a linear system because of the rational that karma gen stops minmaxing. Because Karma gen doesn't stop minmaxing, it just changes how the minmaxing is accomplished.

[tjn]

YMMV, but my experience is that the more points you give, the more min/maxers try to squeeze the life out of them.

I've been thinking... my experience is in fact the opposite. The more points I hand out, the less concerned my players get with optimizing every point. Further, when I throw out point limitations altogether, and ask "what kind of character do you want to play?" and arbitrarily assign extra karma or build points to specifically meet the requirements of that character, they're much happier overall.

We have a saying: "This is where character creation ends, and point whoring begins!" Because often a player will have an idea of who the character is, and then they'll start assigning character creation resources to accomplish this vision... only to run up against some sort of limitation, which is ostensibly placed for "balance" reasons but then forces the player to start optimizing character creation to fulfill their vision of their character. Instead, as a GM I try to remove those limitations, and balance post hoc. This has tended to end up with happier players overall who don't have to fight a system to play the character they want to play, and I don't have as much to worry about players having differing levels of systems mastery, which in turn produces differing levels of character power level even though they had the same resources to begin with.

Of course, my group is formed out of long time friends who talk to each other, and no one's attempting to get everything they can, just because they can. I have played with those types of players... and the only resolution to that type of conflict is to talk, compromise, or if irreconcilable, agree to still be friends, but not to game together.

[Cain]

I've been thinking... my experience is in fact the opposite. The more points I hand out, the less concerned my players get with optimizing every point. Further, when I throw out point limitations altogether, and ask "what kind of character do you want to play?" and arbitrarily assign extra karma or build points to specifically meet the requirements of that character, they're much happier overall.

To your first point: It's been my experience that the more variables I hand out, the more people try to maximize them. 800 variables is a lot to maximize. Also, it's not just points, it's resources. For example, a supers character in GURPS might be built on 400 points. But since those points are worth more, they're less likely to maximize them. 800 karma is a lot, but individually they don't mean as much, so I tend to see more players trying to break it.

But to your second point? Absolutely. I find that players are much more willing to accept limitations when I help their characters be awesome in many ways. As long as they feel like they're playing the character they want, they tend to not care about things like point levels and build efficiency.

[toturi]

To your first point: It's been my experience that the more variables I hand out, the more people try to maximize them. 800 variables is a lot to maximize. Also, it's not just points, it's resources. For example, a supers character in GURPS might be built on 400 points. But since those points are worth more, they're less likely to maximize them. 800 karma is a lot, but individually they don't mean as much, so I tend to see more players trying to break it.

But to your second point? Absolutely. I find that players are much more willing to accept limitations when I help their characters be awesome in many ways. As long as they feel like they're playing the character they want, they tend to not care about things like point levels and build efficiency.

My initial response was the same as tjn's. That is I usually do not min-max as hard when given more resources. But I would say all it takes is for me to feel that one guy is min-maxing harder than me and the character optimisation gets on.

I have a different experience with limitations. The more awesome my character, the less limits I want placed on him. I keep thinking of ways to improve my character, how I can make him better, as close to perfection as I can visualise him, the more concerned I am about points and efficiency.

[FuelDrop]

My GM has been complaining about overspecializing in our group, which seems to attract an inordinate number of melee specialists with minimal to no ranged combat ability or outside combat utility. I can't blame him. I blame the other game, which many players are migrating from.

[Irion]

My experience is, the fiddlier a system is, the more prone to abuse it becomes. SR4.5 BP had 400 moving parts to abuse, which made it easily breakable. Karmagen has 800 points to mess with, making it even fiddlier.

You know what moving parts are?
This makes no sense at all!

Really, to quote Montgomery Scott, "The more complicated the plumbin', the easier it is to stop up the drain." I've discovered to simpler, easier systems are less prone to breakage.

And why would a system which employs the same rules for character creation as it does for character development be more complicated?
Sorry, if I sound a little angry about that, thats because you hear that kind of argumentation everywhere and it is just so wrong.
You can't talk about complexity and then not look at the whole system. Sure, if I break some thing up in 1000 parts, every part is less complex than the system itself, but to compare one system to another I have to compare all the parts, not just some. It is like arguing a book gets thinner, if add an additional chapter as the first chapter and make it really short, because now the first chapter of the book is really short.
Second of all the complexity argument is not entirly valid. Everything needs some level of complexity to function. You can't just delete halve the stuff for example of an autopilot and it works better, thats a silly idea. (But in this sense still promoted by a lot of people in many occasions, as it seems...)

Actually there are two things which are proven to make systems more stable/predictible/easier to control and oversee: Hard Limits and deminishing returns(dampening).

[Cain]

And why would a system which employs the same rules for character creation as it does for character development be more complicated?
Sorry, if I sound a little angry about that, thats because you hear that kind of argumentation everywhere and it is just so wrong.
You can't talk about complexity and then not look at the whole system. Sure, if I break some thing up in 1000 parts, every part is less complex than the system itself, but to compare one system to another I have to compare all the parts, not just some. It is like arguing a book gets thinner, if add an additional chapter as the first chapter and make it really short, because now the first chapter of the book is really short.
Second of all the complexity argument is not entirly valid. Everything needs some level of complexity to function. You can't just delete halve the stuff for example of an autopilot and it works better, thats a silly idea. (But in this sense still promoted by a lot of people in many occasions, as it seems...)

I'm not intending to sound aggressive, so if I come across that way, I apologize.

That said, Karmagen is basically a "quadratic system". It's always going to be more complex than a linear one. Now, as you pointed out, complexity is not necessarily a bad thing. It does bring up the question of gain, though: If I accept the cost of added complexity, what do I get for that added price? Since my experience is that you don't get any real increase in game balance, I don't think the cost is worth it. Basically, I don't feel like I'm getting anything for the added complexity.

What's more, my experience is that simpler, easier systems are more resistant to breakage. For example, in SR3, the Priority tables were pretty resistant to breakage. Not impossible, not by a long shot, but it did deliver consistent results. SR3's BP system, on the other hand, was more complicated and coincidentally, much easier to break. Granted, this is just my experience, I realize that this may be a YMMV thing. But, my experience is backed up by over thirty years of role playing, including playing Shadowrun from the time it came out. Time and time again, I've discovered that not only are simpler systems easier to work with, they provide more balanced results.

[Samoth]

To your first point: It's been my experience that the more variables I hand out, the more people try to maximize them. 800 variables is a lot to maximize. Also, it's not just points, it's resources. For example, a supers character in GURPS might be built on 400 points. But since those points are worth more, they're less likely to maximize them. 800 karma is a lot, but individually they don't mean as much, so I tend to see more players trying to break it.

But to your second point? Absolutely. I find that players are much more willing to accept limitations when I help their characters be awesome in many ways. As long as they feel like they're playing the character they want, they tend to not care about things like point levels and build efficiency.

Do you find handing out karma during play to be just another variable for your players to screw you with? It seems like you're against this because your players have abused it in the past, probably by allowing Initiation during chargen with karma. Get rid of that and you'll see a bunch of characters with 3s and 4s in their attributes and skills in the 1-4 range, which makes for generalists but can't even begin to touch the hyper-specialized all-maxed BP builds because of the differences in point costs.

[Cain]

Do you find handing out karma during play to be just another variable for your players to screw you with? It seems like you're against this because your players have abused it in the past, probably by allowing Initiation during chargen with karma. Get rid of that and you'll see a bunch of characters with 3s and 4s in their attributes and skills in the 1-4 range, which makes for generalists but can't even begin to touch the hyper-specialized all-maxed BP builds because of the differences in point costs.

Actually, I'm against it because I ran some tests with karmagen. I handed it to a couple of munchkins and asked them to see what they could do. Not only did they break the system, they broke it harder than what I normally saw under BP. Initiation was one abuse, but it certainly wasn't the only one. When combined with the added complexity, I rapidly decided that it wasn't for my games.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Look, karmagen is much more abuseable than BP, especially if you're playing an Awakened character. The ability to mass-Initiate can create an insane build. That's just a concrete fact. Do you have any concrete evidence as to how Karmagen is less abuseable? Don't say "because it encourages X", because what it encourages and what it produces are two separate things. And don't say "Because you shouldn't", because that's a red herring.

I will hit this one...

Why do you assume that Mass Initiations are allowed in Karma Gen? That notion would not even get off the ground at our table. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I agree with a lot of your points here, but please don't associate mohawk with min/max monstrosities. Min-maxing has nothing to do with the style of game you play. If anything I'd expect more in trench coat games as the more serious take makes the games more challenging and might require more to get by. So you might bet players who don't normally min/max to do so.

Apologies - You are right on that. However, I do tend to equate Min-Max with extreme Mohawks. Most of my most broken characters (and yes, I do make them from time to time, mostly to work out a Character Concept Itch) tend to have some pretty extreme mohawks, especially in Shadowrun)... Probably a failing on my part. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Your point is taken. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)