 Improving character attributes, How do you accomplish it? |
  |
 Aug 30 2003, 07:04 AM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 897 Joined: 26-February 02 From: TIME OUT Member No.: 1,989  |
Don't you watch disney movies? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 07:32 AM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
By your point of view, nobody has that potential. The difference being that it's better, IMHO, for the player to decide thier character's potential. Maybe their character doesn't have the potential to exceed a Strength of 2, if he doesn't then the character makes that decision by never raising it above 2. If you look at my character, his Quickness is 5. I will never ever ever raise it, no matter how much karma it'd save me on Quickness based skills, I've created my character's potential limit. If the player maxxes all his attributes (which would have to be the ONLY thing he ever spends Karma on basically) then he's ackowledged creating a character with alot more potential (attribute-wise) than my character. There shouldn't be limits because the GM shouldn't be the deciding factor on what a player's character is. That's the Player's part of the story, the GM's part is the Plot and the NPC's. Sphynx |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 07:36 AM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
Something else to think about GunnerJ, is real-life. Personally, I know when I was 'studying' athletics, I became stronger. When I was studying Martial Arts, my Quickness attribute definitely improved as did my Reaction. Maybe just using a skill (even if it's on a Run) is enough to improve a linked (or almost linked) attribute. IF not, then at least training a skill (improving it) should be reason enough to spend Karma on linked (or almost linked) attributes. Sphynx |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 02:23 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I'm not saying that the GM should limit, or be the deciding factor on what a player is. I'm saying that the game should. There are already limits built in to the game. Do you disregard every rule in Shadowrun when you GM because you feel that you shouldn't limit your players? The role of the GM is also to be a rules arbitrator, when necessary. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 03:45 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
The game already does, you can see the chart the game limits you to on page 245 of the SR3.
You're not arbitrating when limiting a person's advancement due to your own view of how the world should be, you're House Ruling. If a player has this image in his mind of some 90 pound weakling turned Hercules, and the game allows it, then why should a GM interfere? Because the player isn't advancing the way the GM wants the character to advance? Guess he might as well just spend the Karmas for the player then and decide everything else the character does too, just to make sure things stay in the image the GM has them at, in his own mind. It's not a good idea.... Sphynx |
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2003, 04:24 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 56 Joined: 14-August 03 Member No.: 5,492 |
In the end, a character could always use genetic therapy to increase whatever attribute they want (yes, I would rule even a 1 to a 9 is possible).
Of course it would cost about a million nuyen and take 6 months, Plus karma. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2003, 06:33 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I have repeatedly stated that I do not use this rule. I also stated that I think there should be a canon rule that in some way limits Attribute advancement. If such a rule existed in canon, then it would not be a house rule. |
||
|
|
|
||
 Aug 30 2003, 07:24 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 106 Joined: 27-July 03 From: Mainz, Germany Member No.: 5,072 |
If you're limiting, e.g., a person's advancement due to your own view of how the world should be, then yes, indeed, you're House Ruling. If your view as GM of how the world should work, and that of the player, don't overlap, then you have a problem that is as old as the hobby we're all sharing: different points of view. If gamer X tells me he wants his Strength 2 wimp develop into a Hercules of Strength 9 using Karma only, I'll have to tell him that I house ruled attribute advancement the way I see it (s.a.). Then I am going to give him a few options of how to get close to that point without using extensive cyber- and/or bioware...possible examples could include medical treatments that stimulate his muscle growth beyond what his inborn physiology would allow him. If you use the game as it is presented, allowing players to work it their PCs up within the frame the game rules offer, that's wonderful and peachy and whatnot. But please don't assume that just because someone has a slightly different view on parts of what the game presents as rules for that game, said someone is leading his players by the nose to make them dance his way completely. I assume nearly everybody of us here uses the odd houserule without playing the characters for their players...and in the end, it's a matter of players and GM finding a consensus on how the world works. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 07:33 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,464 |
So, just curious... but why is it perfectly okay for a two-left-handed klutz to turn himself into a masterful pistoleer? Why is it just fine for someone who starts a campaing unable to find the power switch to evolve into a master hacker? Why can Tommy "Stomps A Lot" The Troll grown into someone with a 9/12 stealth/sneaking specialization?
If it's perfectly reasonable for you to limit a character's attribute advancements, why stop there? I mean, heck. Skills should only ever go up by one point, too, right? |
|
|
|
 Aug 30 2003, 07:49 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 106 Joined: 27-July 03 From: Mainz, Germany Member No.: 5,072 |
Hmmm, don't know if that one was for me, or just in general...but I might as well post an answer to it. For one, it is already kinda limited. That "2-left-handed klutz" (assume Quickness 2?) would already pay 13 points in Karma to get his Pistols skill from 4 to 5, and 15 points to get it to 6 afterwards. In short, he's burning a good 3 or 4 runs worth of Karma to get his skill up by 2. Second, while most of your natural attributes are limited by what kind Mother Nature chose to mix into your gene cocktail, it's 90% training that determines what your skills make of what you got. A klutz may still be a klutz in all other aspects, but let him train for a few years with his guns, and he'll be a crackshot none the less (that's what the high Karma cost and optionally the learning times are there for..if you're not using the simple "roll for advancement" method from the BBB). That same klutz may be the worst sneaker or dancer in the world...because he burned all his Karma and training time on his one skill..pistols. By the way...in case that was read wrong...I don't use the "only go up by 1 once" rule from 1st Edition, for the simple reason that it never stated clearly if that was once between runs, or once in the whole runner career. I limit "natural" advancement to 1/2 the natural starting attribute, meaning if you start out with a Strength 4, you can increase it to a max of 6 using Karma before you have to start using more invasive methods. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 08:08 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
So how do you handle someone who uses the more invasive methods first? Getting the muscle aug up to 6, and then trying to train. Is he limited to 8 or 9? By this rule, everyone in your game should put all the points they can in attributes because anything else can be gotten in game. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 30 2003, 08:12 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
The question is "Why?".
What does it matter to you how a player advances, if he goes from Strength of 2 to 9. It's obviously how HE sees the character, why does your viewpoint have to over-ride his viewpoint? Your job is plot and NPCs, his job is his character. Players build characters with a pre-destined idea of how they want to advance. Players don't just advance an attribute from 2 to 9 unless it's their view of the character and how they want to advance from before they even start playing. So, the question is "Why?" would you ruin one of the fun aspects of being a player? So you can impose your viewpoint on them? I think the creators of the game did well to only limit via Racial maximums. Any additional limitations is too excessive and imposing. Sphynx |
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2003, 10:30 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
The thing to remember is, Shadowrunners are not Joe Average. Joe average may not have the potential to develop his basic attributes that high, but Shadowrunners are all exceptional human beings. Whos' to say they *don't* have the potential to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2003, 11:13 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 132 Joined: 4-May 03 Member No.: 4,535 |
I dont' even know where to start. Obviously a lot of you guys have n idea what you are talking about. First off Fortune, i think you are right. It is just a game and i think it is up to the GM (as almost every issue in this forum should be) exactly how much you can improve based on the background of your character, etc. I still ask my players to invest time to raise their attributes.
But come on. these people saying that they believe that people can get up to all 9s in their attribute equivalent in real life are so full of it. For one, who can honestly say that they have known an adult person who became even nearly 50% more intelligent throughout their adult life? if so you are a liar. Knowledge is what people gain with time, intelligence has a definate natural limit, while i can agree that people may 'discover' new ways to think, unlock your aptitude etc., but you cannot raise your natural talent. Now physical attributes of course change, (they also decrease, if you want realism) but they are difficult to raise without things like steroids, too difficult to raise to say a 24 yr old 2str. guy to go to a str. 6 guy by age 30 w/o drugs to aid him. Body i guess you can eat until you are like the fat guy in meaning of life, thatll give you like 9 body, after all they say body is a measure of your mass (or rather body strength difference, swimming rules, right?). But even then some people can only get so big. I lift weights, i have for a long time, i visit the weightlifting sites all the time with all their uber methods yadda yadda. One important thing they stress (as do the books) is that you can only get as strong/quick as your genes allow, which for most is below 6 let alone 9 and prolly 5. For the guy who went from 90lbs to 140 on his bench in 2 mos. congrats, you went from 1 to 2 str (4 karma), but prolly just cause your muscles had never been tried before, 140 is probably around what they were really at. Everyone knows you can be benching 375 one day, get injured and be off weights for awhile then come back a little weaker and be back to 375 in no time, a week or two. You took 2 mos. cause you took 16yrs off or whatever. p.s. And willpower is best raised by pain/fasting/doing difficult things, IMHO. Of course if you dont have the willpoer to fast how can you raise it? its a paradox, your drive/willpower is what will make you raise any attribute anyway. But given the fact that our lives are predetermined by the history of universal events and our genes, being that all variables are set before any action occurs, there is no free choice in life and given enough computing power and knowledge of these variables we can predict all 'decisions' and outcomes from the moment of creation til infinitium, its all moot. |
|
|
|
 Aug 30 2003, 11:41 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 106 Joined: 27-July 03 From: Mainz, Germany Member No.: 5,072 |
Hmmm, what's so hard to understand? The limit for Karma advancement is 1/2 your natural starting attribute. If you start at 4, you get 2 more points you can increase your attribute by using Karma. If you start at Strength 4 and slap on Muscle Augmentation, you still get 2 points you can raise your Strength using Karma only. And yes, that way people think about where they want the most potential for increase to be from the beginning. If they want someone who was gifted with great potential, they pay some more points for that. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 30 2003, 11:47 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 348 Joined: 20-June 03 Member No.: 4,782 |
All players souldn't have an attribute or skill more then level 1, and be confined to wheelchairs.
|
|
|
|
 Aug 31 2003, 12:02 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 106 Joined: 27-July 03 From: Mainz, Germany Member No.: 5,072 |
My job, as GM, is weaving a world around the player characters. That includes being a referee on what does and does not work in that world. In the world I'm setting my games in, a character has a certain natural potential where his attributes are considered. That potential is given by his starting values. This is to mirror the fact that not everybody can attain perfect attributes from any starting point by natural development, much less in every attribute. Especially in a game that is a [i]bit[/] more realistic than the standard fantasy RPGs, where indeed you DO have the perfect heroes, this doesn't sound excessive or imposing to me, but only makes the players ponder a little more on how they want their characters to develop from the start. If I can reach a 9 anytime, no matter when or where I start, I don't need to think about my character's development, because there's nothing hindering me from getting there in the first place. Suffice to say that I'm not forcing anybody into my games...no press gang going 'round to make people bow to my will as GM. If somebody doesn't like the way I handle the rules, he's free to look for another game. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 31 2003, 12:06 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
Rather than make it impossible with stat caps and whatnot, why not just drastically increase training times? That way a character who increases from 2 to 9 is truly exceptional, having spent 20 years strapped to the Wheel of Pain or whatever.
That kind of phenomenal increase should be possible for highly determined individuals. I feel that it makes for good drama. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2003, 04:18 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 8-September 03 From: California Free State Member No.: 5,599 |
All I ask of my players, in regards to increasing skills or attributes is that they present a reasonable course of action to accomplish their goals. If they wish to gain a point of strength, I simply ask them how they're going to go about doing so. If the solution they put forth seems at all realistic or likely to succeed, i tend to be ok with it. All I'm looking for here is that the player shows some ability to think creatively about his character, and apply these methods to acomplishing what he wishes done.
I don't do this to take control of their characters, or to interfere with their plan for they're character. Indeed, it serves to prove to my satisfaction that they do, indeed have a plan for the character. In my experience, handling it in this way tends to make players think about their characters in realisitc terms. Anything that I as a GM can do to help a player make a character seem more realistic and alive, and less like a sheet of paper with a collection of numbers, i tend to do. When you allow a player to simply spend his karma freely on attributes or skills as they desire, with no thought into how or why this is happening, your losing a great opportunity for roleplaying and character development. I do, of course observe the racial maximums for attributes, but these aren't, nor is anything else necessarily set in stone, for players who find creative (non-munchkin) ways around them. Of course, if a roleplaying intensive game is not for you, then the above argument doesn't matter. It isn't my intent to convert anyone to how i do things, or to insinuate that my style is the only way to go. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2003, 09:25 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 24-May 03 Member No.: 4,632 |
Yes, Fortune, you are entitled to your opinion. You are, however, wrong. In a case of Game balance/fun vs Realism, Game balance/fun ALWAYS wins. This is a game. Second, are you seriously suggesting to me that attributes should be limited in such a way that ONLY LIMITS GROWTH FOR MUNDANE PC'S? Wonderful idea, lets create more imbalance between awakened and mundane pc's in terms of growth; this time one so huge i'm sure even Sphynx will agree with me on it. :rotfl: right. Curugul |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 12 2003, 10:47 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
Hey now...... :P
I do agree though. Mundanes are weak enough without more impossitions and a stat-cap would effect them ALOT more than it would a mage-type. Sphynx |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2003, 04:52 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
So how many people have actually managed to canon-max out one attribute in-game? Two? (And how many karma per game does your GM regularly give out?)
For me: I'm still working on my first canon maximums - CH, WL, QU. The highest I've yet gotten (not counting temporary spell enhancement in an anchoring focus) is CH and QU 9 (elf) ... and that took two years of game time. Only three of my skills have slipped above 6 (barely). I do intend eventually to take this as high as I can - but I'm not going to sacrifice everything else in order to do it: which probably means that I'm not going to reach that maximum unless the campaign game-time starts being counted in decades. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2003, 07:05 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 138 Joined: 5-August 03 Member No.: 5,252 |
okay, think of it this way: WHY the crap would you not play another awakened fraggin' boring cheap karmaeater using extreme caps to stats and skills?
Geez, you people are almost worse than my d&d friend (he thinks that anything with less INT than 16 is a moron, and anything with less CHA than 16 is a asshole that can't communicate)! And THAT'S bad! what i'm trying to say is: BALANCE! With extreme limits to Stats and Skills everyone will be a adept/shaman/"arcanist" and go to hell and back with initiating....... And what's the fun in that? It's a game, realism is not needed in a game where you can blow a tank to smithereens with 2 shots from a light pistol! And where there are dragons and ghosts and bugs the size of horses and so on..... got my point? Sorry if i seem annoyed but it's late, i'm angry at my fraggin sister and then i see some people suggesting even MORE limitations and "Mundanes always suck, period" to the otherwise lovely game of SR? Sorry! |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2003, 12:07 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 11-September 03 From: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 5,610 |
Getcha on the D&D thing... Got out of it 'cuz no one wanted to play with "Roll one set of rolls with three dice, assign to what stat you want, no re-rerolls"; they were so used to playin' with abilities over 12, that they were terrified of bein' average... Take me for example... Elven (and damn good looking to boot I might add!), with a hopped-up car, and a shit load of gear... No, I am NOT a rigger... I'm a WHEEL MAN... ('member those? Look under the heading "Getaway Drivers" in the data-stacks)... ...most of the goodies I have is, well... "just in case..." Got into a big "hey, yer gonna get slaughtered in a fight" with a co-player (who happens to be my roomie), and he convinced me I needed cyber/bio-ware... ...when all was done and said, I couldn't afford the car I'd designed for the character in the FIRST place! I got rid of all the crome, and now I like the character again... I'll take my chances (I believe I'm a damn good role-player, I'm jus' a little outta practice...) Oh, P.S.- if yer lookin' for anything specific, or you might be able to find somethin' I might be interested, call me on my business line 1-800-GOT-THAT (smirk)... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 13 2003, 03:04 AM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
You, of course, are also entitled to your opinion, however erroneous it may be. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 3rd January 2025 - 07:54 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.