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

[FuelDrop]

And I NEVER discuss DnD 4E. It is not an RPG, as far as I am concerned. Nor one that I cared to invest in. smile.gif

When 4th edition came out I tried to like it. I really did. I got about a dozen of the books before giving up.

I ran a 4th edition game for a friend's kids on Monday and it reminded me how godawful that damn system is. Even as a combat game it's a poor system as there's no feeling of threat to the players and the fights regularly break willing suspension of disbelief (Goblin in a loincloth flanked on 2 sides by a fighter and a warlord, the 'tank' and 'leader' classes, took about 4-5 hits to go down because they were getting mediocre damage rolls and he had that many hitpoints). When it came out I figured that the one thing it'd do better than any D&D system before it would be translate into a top-down computer game similar to shadowrun returns. Did anyone else play D&D: Daggerdale? They failed so bad it wasn't funny, and the game was glitched out the ass on release to boot.

[Cain]

Again, initiation at character generation was up to GM discretion so you did not have to allow it in your game. That seems to be your big argument

It's one example, far from the only one. However, in this case, it was specifically brought out to counter the argument that all problems in Shadowrun stem from inear builds.

I'm fairly sure that given even a modicum of effort ANY character generation system can be 'broken' by some definition. Priority, BP, Karma, Character Points, Class and Level... even random rolls (Some supers games, FATAL, ect) end up with some characters massively more powerful than others, the difference being that rather than the system being gamed by the player it's the system itself which is inherently creating different and unbalanced power levels. I'm fairly certain that the 'cure' is to have a well-rounded campaign that encourages people to spread their skills around a bit rather than dump everything not directly related to combat

True enough, but a good system will help everyone build balanced characters. I've discovered that certain systems are much easier to break than others. BP is among the worst, but karmagen is still up there.

On a side note, I find that in almost every system I've ever encountered the most time consuming part is buying mundane gear. After all the flashy stuff is done you still need to sort out rope, tag erasers, bug scanners ect. and since the list tends to change between character roles and concepts that's usually where I spend most time.

I agree. In non-Shadowrun games, I've stopped tracking mundane gear entirely. I just give them whatever mundane gear they can justify. Even in Shadowrun, I don't like to track things like bullets, I find the accounting to be annoying.

I disagree that Choosing the "Wrong" feat will cripple a character. And there are rules to allow one to re-aspect feats if one so chooses to do so after discovering that you don't like it.

Well, "cripple" might be too strong a word. Let's say that choosing one feat might create a serious power imbalance between one character and a similar one.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well, "cripple" might be too strong a word. Let's say that choosing one feat might create a serious power imbalance between one character and a similar one.

See, I do not see that as a power imbalance. It is a choice to pursue a particular path and not all paths lead to power... some lead to versatility, some lead to better socialization, etc.

Not all choices are going to be equal. When you try to make them equal, you end up with crap like DnD 4th Edition. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Cain]

See, I do not see that as a power imbalance. It is a choice to pursue a particular path and not all paths lead to power... some lead to versatility, some lead to better socialization, etc.

Not all choices are going to be equal. When you try to make them equal, you end up with crap like DnD 4th Edition. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It depends a lot on the choices. Still, feats and multiclassing are the main ways of powergaming D&D 3.5. One feat can make the difference between a mediocre character and a min/maxed monstrosity.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It depends a lot on the choices. Still, feats and multiclassing are the main ways of powergaming D&D 3.5. One feat can make the difference between a mediocre character and a min/maxed monstrosity.

Maybe not ONE feat; but yes, the right combination of feats can definitely do that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Glyph]

Shadowrun is such a difficult game to "balance" because of one of the game's main strengths - the ability to create a bewildering variety of characters. You can create anything from a seasoned professional, to a brash upstart, to someone on the downside of a long career. You can run up and down on the power scale - even purely looking at optimized characters, there are so many options. You can be a combat mage, a support mage, a summoner, a tank sammie, a speed sammie, a hacker, a drone rigger, a getaway van driver rigger, a smuggler rigger, a face, a generalist build such as a detective or coverts op specialist - and for all of these options, there are multiple ways you can tweak them. I like Shadowrun's character creation system. It is not balanced in a strictly linear fashion, but it is good in that there are multiple ways that you can powergame - or if you choose not to, you at least have the same starting resources as everyone else, so you'll have points put into something.


Now, does it have its flaws? Absolutely. It can be hard for a GM to keep track of all of the game's resolution systems, and sometimes this results in some skills being ignored or glossed over, while others get disproportionate spotlight time. The example earlier in the thread about the face who felt he wasted his points on his social skills is one example.

I think the game needs some suboptimal options for verisimilitude (laser sights vs. smartlinks, etc.), and I feel the cheap, tempting boosts from magic and augmentation are a design feature, not a flaw. But suboptimal options are bad when there are two nearly identical things, and one of them is clearly superior.

Take Exceptional Attribute and Metagenetic Improvement (Attribute). The SURGE version is clearly superior - you only use 10 points of your allocation of positive qualities (at the expense of 10 points in negative metagenetic qualities), leaving you more for other things, and it gives you a bonus Attribute point rather than only raising your limit.

The base metatypes are balanced in that apples and oranges way I alluded to earlier, but the metavariants are similar enough to the base metatype that the differences between them are more glaring. For example, Xapiri Thepe have to take two allergies and spend 10 more build points for the dubious advantage of photometabolism. The 10% lifestyle cost reduction is nice, but ogres get it without spending any more than the base cost for an ork, without any offsetting flaws or even a distinctive appearance.

There are also a few things that are disproportionately good compared to similar things (the Ares Alpha and its integral recoil compensation, etc.), and there are some "trap" options, such as the Uncouth quality.

The biggest potential problem is that this is a game that really rewards system mastery. Personally, I think this doesn't have to be a problem. The newbies should accept that they won't be able to come in and be quite as good as the experienced players, and the experienced players should make an effort not to bully the newer PCs or hog too much of the GM's attention.

I think all of these comparatively minor flaws are worth it for the pure flexibility of the character generation system, though.

[Cain]

The biggest potential problem is that this is a game that really rewards system mastery. Personally, I think this doesn't have to be a problem. The newbies should accept that they won't be able to come in and be quite as good as the experienced players, and the experienced players should make an effort not to bully the newer PCs or hog too much of the GM's attention.

I think all of these comparatively minor flaws are worth it for the pure flexibility of the character generation system, though.

See, I disagree.

What it boils down to is, high system mastery games have essentially two subgames. The first is character creation, where you game the system to create an effective character. The second part is the tactical main game, where your performance depends hugely on how you did in the first game.

Among the problems this causes is that newer players won't be good at either game, which screws them two different ways. That also means the learning curve is even steeper, as there's two games that need to be learned. The net result is that many new players get turned off. I don't consider that to be a minor flaw.

Additionally, there are many highly-flexible systems out there. GURPS and HERO allow really fine levels of customization. In comparison, SR4.5's systems (both karmagen and BP) look like straightjackets. Savage Worlds isn't as finely detailed, but it is a universal system, which means it has many more options. Additionally, there's still lots of customizations possible, and it's many times faster and easier than SR4.5.

If you want a highly flexible system, there are many options out there that are better than SR4.5 If you want a balanced system, there are also many superior choices. If you want all of the above, there's *still* better choices. I don't think the character generation systems of 4.5 have any real advantages at all.

[Shortstraw]

Or they could just add a link here at the start of new karmagen rules and newbies can get all the cheese they could possibly want.

[FuelDrop]

Back to the thread: the best bang for buck is buckshot. The clue is in the title.

[Irion]

@Glyph

Shadowrun is such a difficult game to "balance" because of one of the game's main strengths - the ability to create a bewildering variety of characters. You can create anything from a seasoned professional, to a brash upstart, to someone on the downside of a long career. You can run up and down on the power scale - even purely looking at optimized characters, there are so many options. You can be a combat mage, a support mage, a summoner, a tank sammie, a speed sammie, a hacker, a drone rigger, a getaway van driver rigger, a smuggler rigger, a face, a generalist build such as a detective or coverts op specialist - and for all of these options, there are multiple ways you can tweak them. I like Shadowrun's character creation system. It is not balanced in a strictly linear fashion, but it is good in that there are multiple ways that you can powergame - or if you choose not to, you at least have the same starting resources as everyone else, so you'll have points put into something.

If this is a reason, why does your text sound like an excuse?
No, the shadowrun-system does not really have a lot of complexity a priori. It has onle a few skills, which are nearly completly independent of each other.
What creates the imbalance are loopholes, of which a lot are not really necessary. They are liked by a lot of players with again the excuse, that knowing the system enables you to get a better character. (Aka knowing the loophole)
This is true exactly as long as their ain't a player at their table who is better at that. Then people start to cry and demand the GM bans the character.
(Of course their is also the other extrem, if players just break the rules and GMs demand that characters and actions should be done accordingly to the rules. There is also a lot of whining about that.)

@Cain

I dispute that. For example, a big broken part of 4.5 karmagen was allowing Awakened characters to initiate. That wasn't on a linear scale, but it still broke the game. Buying up attributes is another one: it's cheaper and easier to buy augmentations than it is to raise them with either BP or karma, so scaling costs won't help.

Why would that be broken? (Never mind that it takes 3 initiations for the non linear part to be bigger than the liniear one, but thats just a side note)
I did not say linear costs automatically make things bad. If you get lesser returns, it works just fine. I was arguing about the ratio of returns/costs.
Magic is one of those attribtues which just gives a lot of "returns" as are initiations.

Well, augmentations are limited by essence. But again, it is in principle a way to get more than liniear advantages for linear (Essence and money) costs. (So yes, it is no wonder, that the system might be broken there)

[toturi]

@Glyph

If this is a reason, why does your text sound like an excuse?
No, the shadowrun-system does not really have a lot of complexity a priori. It has onle a few skills, which are nearly completly independent of each other.
What creates the imbalance are loopholes, of which a lot are not really necessary. They are liked by a lot of players with again the excuse, that knowing the system enables you to get a better character. (Aka knowing the loophole)
This is true exactly as long as their ain't a player at their table who is better at that. Then people start to cry and demand the GM bans the character.
(Of course their is also the other extrem, if players just break the rules and GMs demand that characters and actions should be done accordingly to the rules. There is also a lot of whining about that.)

I do not understand why it sounds like an excuse to you. It does not to me. Knowing the system better should enable you to get a better character, that's a reward for knowing the system better. I run my games strictly accordingly to the rules, so knowing the rules are well rewarded. To me, imbalance is a function of willingness to use and knowledge of the rules.

[Cain]

Why would that be broken? (Never mind that it takes 3 initiations for the non linear part to be bigger than the liniear one, but thats just a side note)
I did not say linear costs automatically make things bad. If you get lesser returns, it works just fine. I was arguing about the ratio of returns/costs.
Magic is one of those attribtues which just gives a lot of "returns" as are initiations.

Well, the first munchkin trick I saw was group initiations, followed by raising the starting Magic. I shot that down pretty quickly, although it's technically legal.

The biggest abuse I saw was a Possession mage. By the starting rules, they're not too terrible; but if they initiate and get Chanelling and Invoking, they leap way ahead of everybody else. Without karmagen, they could do this eventually; but this also allows them to min/max right to it, straight out of the gate, which can quickly render most other characters obsolete.

I'm not supposed to go into the second abuse I saw, but it wasn't exclusive. You could combine it with a human possession mage, and end up with something extremely abusive.

[Irion]

@Cain
Well, thats mainly because of the possession mechanics. Which allows you to add the spirit force to your attributes (again more than linear benefit!) and some interpretation allowed it to surpass the augmented maximum. Thats exactly what I said: Liniear+ benefits + no hard limits -> broken. (It does not mean, that you can't break the system otherwise. Even with less than linear progression you can get overpowered stuff by using enough sources. One fine example is the crafting system of Skyrim. Right now I am using enhance alchemie+smithing +40% gear on an all leagal character. (Only mods are faster horses and a better inventar system and realistic needs (food, sleep, washing, water (and no boni to enchanting this way). But again, this is no comparism to using the restoration bug. (If I would use left hand rings or some stuff like that, well.... The point is, the stronger the raising costs for benefits better the system works. If enchanting 180 would only give you one additional percent point opposed to enchanting 150 (140 to 150 also 1% and 130 to 140 2% but on the other hand 60 to 70 10%), I would not get those results... (Or if the power of the enchantment would be limited be the soul alone and higher enchanting skills would only allow you to work with greater souls... (hard limit) )

@toturi
Because it is (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Ok, now seriously.
The point is the "narrative power spectrum" is wide in any game if you aim for it. Mostly achieved by altering the challange in the game or by reading different stuff in the descriptions of the skills (attributes). Thats not really a mechanical point. I can give a stripper gone shadowrunner the same stats as an commando without much blinking of an eye.

Knowing the system better should enable you to get a better character, that's a reward for knowing the system better.

Why? Should knowing the tax code better allow you to pay less taxes?
The point is in an ideal system this is not the case. Now, no system is ideal, because we are all humans. The real question is, how close to the ideal can we get. And as far as I am concerned it is quite easy to get pritty darn close. Or to be more precise: Close enough that you won't realize the difference ingame! (Unless both characters were build by very experienced players. One to be good and the other to be bad)

[FuelDrop]

Why? Should knowing the tax code better allow you to pay less taxes?

No, but unfortunately it appears to do so anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[toturi]

Why? Should knowing the tax code better allow you to pay less taxes?
The point is in an ideal system this is not the case. Now, no system is ideal, because we are all humans. The real question is, how close to the ideal can we get. And as far as I am concerned it is quite easy to get pritty darn close. Or to be more precise: Close enough that you won't realize the difference ingame! (Unless both characters were build by very experienced players. One to be good and the other to be bad)

Yes, it does. If you know where the tax breaks are, if you know what you can claim tax relief for, if you know... My point is while the system is not ideal, the people who know are more knowledgeable can make the system work for them better and I think that this is something I can accept and support. To be more precise, if player A is more experience than player B and both are building characters to be as superior as they can using the same yardstick, player A should build a better character and that difference should show in game. This is my ideal - more knowledgeable players building better characters.

[Cain]

@Cain
Well, thats mainly because of the possession mechanics. Which allows you to add the spirit force to your attributes (again more than linear benefit!) and some interpretation allowed it to surpass the augmented maximum. Thats exactly what I said: Liniear+ benefits + no hard limits -> broken.

Well, it's one example. Basically, I dispute the idea that linear mechanics are responsible for every broken rule in SR4.5. Initiations aren't linear, and they break the game rather quickly, as demonstrated.

The first example is a little better at disproving your point. Remember, I ended up houseruling this one away, but technically there isn't a hard cap on Magic to start. Assuming full Essence, the limit is 6+Initiation Grade. If you initiate multiple times in chargen, your limit increases, and you can buy up your Magic score as high as you want. In practice, this meant a starting Magic of 8 or 9: very expensive, but really powerful and broken. I never allowed those monstrosities into my game, but it was overpowering, even under a quadratic system.

I do not understand why it sounds like an excuse to you. It does not to me. Knowing the system better should enable you to get a better character, that's a reward for knowing the system better. I run my games strictly accordingly to the rules, so knowing the rules are well rewarded. To me, imbalance is a function of willingness to use and knowledge of the rules.

The problem is, they're really two separate games. If you're good at the character creation subgame, you'll do better in the main game, even if you don't know those rules as well. For example, I haven't even finished reading all of SR5, but I've dominated every combat my character has gotten into, because I built him well. Players who focus on the main game should be rewarded, yes; but the character creation subgame only happens once. Why should that be so highly rewarded?

[Samoth]

Cain, you keep coming back to hating karmagen and your only example is initiaition...and now you're talking about group initiations??? DON'T ALLOW THEM. Problem solved. If you play in a group that lets it happen either ask the GM to put a limit to it or ban it, or otherwise plan your character accordingly to keep up with the magicians.

I just can't wrap my head around how Priority is this awesome and totally fair system even though it literally punishes you for making certain choices, whereas karmagen never can.

[Cain]

Cain, you keep coming back to hating karmagen and your only example is initiaition...and now you're talking about group initiations??? DON'T ALLOW THEM. Problem solved. If you play in a group that lets it happen either ask the GM to put a limit to it or ban it, or otherwise plan your character accordingly to keep up with the magicians.

I just can't wrap my head around how Priority is this awesome and totally fair system even though it literally punishes you for making certain choices, whereas karmagen never can.

First of all, I actually have a topic ban on the #1 abuse. I cannot go into it.

However, even removing initiations, karmagen was severely problematic, especially since it heavily favored Awakened characters. The clearest abuses were initiation, and thanks to the topic ban, I can't discuss some of the others. But in general, I can say I saw even more min/maxing under karmagen than I saw under BP... and I despised BP.

Second, where have I said Priority is "awesome and totally fair"? The 4.5 Priority system was a piece of crap.

Third, where are you getting the idea that karmagen doesn't punish you for making certain choices? Just about every system does that. Karmagen does it differently than BP, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't punishing certain choices.

[Irion]

@Cain
But magic 8 is not really that high, now is it? It is two points up from the normal maximum.
Now do the same thing with a linear system. So one initiation would cost about 7 to 10 BP.
You can bet your ass, that you would see magic 10 and 8 initiations at the very beginning.

Basically, I dispute the idea that linear mechanics are responsible for every broken rule in SR4.5.

Maybe I wrote it wrong. Not every linear machanic is bad. But every linear mechanic will be breaking if no hard limits are enforced.
To be safe, every mechanic would need to be less than linear. So deminishing returns in every way.
If it ain't like that the system does not break "every time" but the potential is there. And giving the right circumstances it will break.

[Cain]

But magic 8 is not really that high, now is it? It is two points up from the normal maximum.
Now do the same thing with a linear system. So one initiation would cost about 7 to 10 BP.
You can bet your ass, that you would see magic 10 and 8 initiations at the very beginning.

A Magic of 8 is pretty bad, especially in the hands of a Possession mage. But even without that, or any metamagics, it still means you can summon up to Force 16 spirits and throw Force 16 spells. If you're clever about the rest of the build, and which spells you're throwing, you don't risk much Drain, even if it's physical. Spirit drain is a lot more random, but there are ways to minimize the risk. That really does overpower the game, especially since most combats only lasted until the mage threw a combat spell.

Adepts were another problem. Because you could buy PP for 20 karma, they could easily end up with a huge array of abilities. Sure, none of them could go over 6 if I disallowed initiations, but that's still a lot of powers.

Maybe I wrote it wrong. Not every linear machanic is bad. But every linear mechanic will be breaking if no hard limits are enforced.
To be safe, every mechanic would need to be less than linear. So deminishing returns in every way.
If it ain't like that the system does not break "every time" but the potential is there. And giving the right circumstances it will break.

Personally, I prefer hard limits to diminishing returns. As I got to know SR4/4.5, I started using the Missions rule of capping pools at 20. (Actually, I believe I came up with it first, and Bull borrowed the idea from my posts here.) It was simple, elegant, and difficult to break. The problem I have with diminishing returns is that someone will come up with the optimum ratios, and squeeze even more advantage out of the system.

I supposed I should explain my history with karmagen. I was the primary GM, and the campaign was designed to test the system. So, everyone's characters (built under BP) were meant to be very Over-The-Top in power level. I wanted an action movie, Feng Shui vibe. There was a little character rotation, too, since we occasionally swapped GM duties. We got a hold of karmagen, and a couple of us (the best min/maxers in the group) decided to test it out.

Some time later, we had six characters built under karmagen submitted for approval. Between me and the other GM's, we allowed *two* of them into the game. That's right, in a game designed to be ridiculously over the top, two-thirds of the characters were rejected for being too powerful in relation to the existing characters. I don't recall the builds on the ones that were rejected, but of the two that were let in: one was a sorcerous mage with no initiations, and the other was a mundane shooter. The shooter's player was booted from the group not long after, but he pretty much put all the other shooters to shame. And the mage didn't do much spirit cheese, but she did throw huge spells with absolute impunity. Again, combats generally ended when her turn came up, because she'd throw a Stunball or Ball Lightning and everything would fall over.

[Irion]

@Cain
As I said, that has a lot to do with the fact, that you get a lot out of every additional point of magic (to the point, where drain becomes the more critical issue)
The whole spirit thing is, that spirits scale even stronger than linear a force 4 spirit is not even a quater as good as a force 8 spirit.

Adepts were another problem. Because you could buy PP for 20 karma, they could easily end up with a huge array of abilities. Sure, none of them could go over 6 if I disallowed initiations, but that's still a lot of powers.

But again. Buying one point for a set amount of Karma is linear advancement (again only kept into place because of the existing limits to the single abilities).

Personally, I prefer hard limits to diminishing returns. As I got to know SR4/4.5, I started using the Missions rule of capping pools at 20.

Yes, that works, too. As long as you enforce them in every aspect.

The problem I have with diminishing returns is that someone will come up with the optimum ratios, and squeeze even more advantage out of the system.

You got the same if not a bigger problem with hard limits. Getting the exact number of dice for the least cutbacks...
The main differance would be, that for a system with deminishing returns, you search for things, which are not effected or can just be added linearly. Situational boni etc. those are a waste of space in an system going for a fixed number of dice, of course. You will optimise differently, but you will still be optimizing.

With Karmagen, there was the big issue of attributes for 3*Karma, which was horribly cheap. But that was a flaw from the system in any case. If you used BP and could expect some karma, it was a very good investment to leave some attributes at 1 (because, well you could just pump them up with the first karma you got, dirt cheap).

[Cain]

But again. Buying one point for a set amount of Karma is linear advancement (again only kept into place because of the existing limits to the single abilities).

That was actually directed at Samoth, who wanted a non-initiation abuse of karmagen. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

You got the same if not a bigger problem with hard limits. Getting the exact number of dice for the least cutbacks...
The main differance would be, that for a system with deminishing returns, you search for things, which are not effected or can just be added linearly. Situational boni etc. those are a waste of space in an system going for a fixed number of dice, of course. You will optimise differently, but you will still be optimizing.

Optimization isn't the problem. It's gaming the system that's the issue.

Basically, players who game the system can easily start an arms race between the player and the GM. In order to challenge the superior character, the GM has to game the system as well, to build superior opposition. In response, the player tries to squeeze even more advantage out of the system to counter the GM. The GM is forced to escalate back, and a dangerous spiral begins. If the GM is playing fair, the one who wins is the one who can game the system the best. Unfortunately, that's not always the GM.

By itself, this is bad enough. However, there's another serious issue: the other players. If they haven't min/maxed to the same level, they're going to get stomped by opposition designed to challenge the overpowered PC. That means they likely aren't having fun, and that is the death knell for any game.

When you put in place a set of diminishing returns, you're opening the gates to potentially gaming the system. It can end up with a battle over who can manipulate the numbers the best. That's one of the reasons I dislike a complex system, because I can get out-mathed. Hard limits are much easier to see and enforce, they work very well in theory and practice, and there's fewer opportunities to game the system.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

See, I disagree.

Additionally, there are many highly-flexible systems out there. GURPS and HERO allow really fine levels of customization. In comparison, SR4.5's systems (both karmagen and BP) look like straightjackets. Savage Worlds isn't as finely detailed, but it is a universal system, which means it has many more options. Additionally, there's still lots of customizations possible, and it's many times faster and easier than SR4.5.

Problem with GURPS and HERO (as an example) is that they have the same problem you are describing. System Mastery is KING in Hero System, for example. The More flexible the system, the more System Mastery will reward those who take the time to gain it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well, it's one example. Basically, I dispute the idea that linear mechanics are responsible for every broken rule in SR4.5. Initiations aren't linear, and they break the game rather quickly, as demonstrated.

The first example is a little better at disproving your point. Remember, I ended up houseruling this one away, but technically there isn't a hard cap on Magic to start. Assuming full Essence, the limit is 6+Initiation Grade. If you initiate multiple times in chargen, your limit increases, and you can buy up your Magic score as high as you want. In practice, this meant a starting Magic of 8 or 9: very expensive, but really powerful and broken. I never allowed those monstrosities into my game, but it was overpowering, even under a quadratic system.

Except that Initiation is not allowed by default in Chargen. As has been stated many times. You, as the GM, HAVE TO ALLOW IT before it can be exploited. If you don't allow it, it will NEVER be a problem.

[Samoth]

First of all, I actually have a topic ban on the #1 abuse. I cannot go into it.

However, even removing initiations, karmagen was severely problematic, especially since it heavily favored Awakened characters. The clearest abuses were initiation, and thanks to the topic ban, I can't discuss some of the others. But in general, I can say I saw even more min/maxing under karmagen than I saw under BP... and I despised BP.

Second, where have I said Priority is "awesome and totally fair"? The 4.5 Priority system was a piece of crap.

Third, where are you getting the idea that karmagen doesn't punish you for making certain choices? Just about every system does that. Karmagen does it differently than BP, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't punishing certain choices.

I don't know what you mean by topic ban. I was talking about SR5 priority which is our only choice and you seem to favor over any other brand of generation for unknown reasons.

Karma gen uses the same system as in-game advancement, so by logic there are no wrong choices. I suppose you could say buying nuyen is a bad choice since that isn't directly transferrable in-game, but other than that any other decision is a direct 1:1. You may not like certain aspects (costs of metas, quality costs, getting high attributes) but if that's the case BP is a functional system alternative.

Some time later, we had six characters built under karmagen submitted for approval. Between me and the other GM's, we allowed *two* of them into the game. That's right, in a game designed to be ridiculously over the top, two-thirds of the characters were rejected for being too powerful in relation to the existing characters. I don't recall the builds on the ones that were rejected, but of the two that were let in: one was a sorcerous mage with no initiations, and the other was a mundane shooter. The shooter's player was booted from the group not long after, but he pretty much put all the other shooters to shame. And the mage didn't do much spirit cheese, but she did throw huge spells with absolute impunity. Again, combats generally ended when her turn came up, because she'd throw a Stunball or Ball Lightning and everything would fall over.

This makes no sense. The sorcerer was created by the rules with no initiation, so how did they throw "huge spells with absolute impunity"? Any magician in SR4 could do that no matter what system they were created under.

You're entitled to your opinion but just because you saw a couple people submit broken builds (by your own words, something you were TRYING to do) doesn't mean the system itself is broken.

Basically, players who game the system can easily start an arms race between the player and the GM. In order to challenge the superior character, the GM has to game the system as well, to build superior opposition. In response, the player tries to squeeze even more advantage out of the system to counter the GM. The GM is forced to escalate back, and a dangerous spiral begins. If the GM is playing fair, the one who wins is the one who can game the system the best. Unfortunately, that's not always the GM.

The GM never has to game the system to challenge the players. Even if your PCs are mega-star prime runners they can still be easily challenged by security drones, larger groups of mobs, spirits, etc. etc.