Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Munchkin Edges/Flaws
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
nick012000
I prefer Severe Allergy (peanuts).
toturi
QUOTE (blakkie @ Nov 5 2005, 03:38 PM)
rotfl.gif

If either you or caramel frappuccino were players at a table i was GMing, or even just a playing at, i'd be reaching for the Rules Lawyer foamy bat if you tried that slide that one past.

Which is why I am the GM and I tell my players that I'm going to interpret the rules strictly as printed. If the book recommends that I "consider carefully" certain Flaws, then that is what I will do. Otherwise, no holds barred.

Also the balance in BPs for Edges/Flaws is for Priority Chargen only, for BP chargen, the difference is recommended to be 5.
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (blakkie)
If either you or caramel frappuccino were players at a table i was GMing, or even just a playing at, i'd be reaching for the Rules Lawyer foamy bat if you tried that slide that one past.

Sorry for having decent players who can keep themselves in line, and don't need their GM to enforce every suggested limitation tooth and nail in the name of preserving balance.

Somehow I get the feeling that I wouldn't enjoy playing under you anyway.
SL James
QUOTE (SMDVogrin)
The finest "5-point amnesia" story I could imagine would be "The Bourne Identity". Doesn't know who he is, doesn't know what he can do, all kinds of funky backstory that screws with his life. A GM could be proud to pull that off in game.

I've seen a great example of that before (better than the movie for sure, which may or may not mean anything to you all). I wrote one, but it was different because the character ended up skipping ahead to a new identity (basically, she became like the Bourne the novel character's concept is based upon) but within a SR context.
Redhammer the Old
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
Without the consent of the player, the GM has no more justification for writing the background of an amnesiac than he does for any other character.

rotfl.gif nothing I can say to that - the "the GM can't" has got to be ironic...

1. she/he is the GM, she/he CAN
2. if you think otherwise, think again ....

well all should be in reason of course... - and yes caramel when all play nice (as they should in my mind too, then all is well but sometimes or with some players you have to be firm... )
extinguish.gif intended
caramel frappuccino
*shrug* I don't really find it ironic at all. The way I see it, the GM is just another storyteller in the group with some powers of arbitrage. Others apparently see sitting behind the screen to be the equivalent of being granted a god given right to screw their players as hard as possible, in every way possible. I can't really understand how people find this style of gaming enjoyable, but hey, whatever turns you on.
toturi
QUOTE (Redhammer the Old)
rotfl.gif nothing I can say to that - the "the GM can't" has got to be ironic...

1. she/he is the GM, she/he CAN
2. if you think otherwise, think again ....

well all should be in reason of course... - and yes caramel when all play nice (as they should in my mind too, then all is well but sometimes or with some players you have to be firm... )
extinguish.gif intended

Now that is really ironic. Because sometimes the GM CAN'T. If you think otherwise, think again. When the players all stand united against you or post on here forums and we all tell the players to beat the GM on the head(not an unusual occurance)... you can just go find a new group to GM (if you can find another group in the first place).
SirKodiak
QUOTE (PlatonicPimp)
If you want to play a character with a character flaw, Just do it. Giving out bp for starting characters based on the promise of role-playing is like paying a shadowrunner up front: dangerously trusting. I tell my players: play it. If you do a good job, you get role playing Karma.


This is the way flaws work in the new World of Darkness system from White Wolf, though the flaws are more limited in scope there than in Shadowrun. Things like addictions and insanity get you XP if they negatively affect you durign a session. That way a player can't abuse having a phobia for something that they'll never run into (or force the GM to work albinos into the game, yet again to make the phobia meaningful), and at the same time, it provides some balance for the cases for where a phobia (or addiction or whatever) starts coming up all the time because your Fixer, who everyone else loves, is also the subject of your phobia/splatism/etc.

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino @ Nov 4 2005, 03:06 PM)
With a good roleplayer, that difference should be minimal enough to have zero impact on game balance.

Who said anything about game balance? I'm talking about player experience here.

~J


I basically agree. In amnesia cases I might allow the player to give some input on the general sort of history they'd like to have, but in general, I only want people to take flaws (or edges, really) if they're taking it because they think it would be fun or interesting to play them. And in that case, it's typically more fun to play an amnesiac when, as the player, you really don't know the backstory. That way when you start to find things out you can enjoy the mystery.

QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
*shrug* I don't really find it ironic at all. The way I see it, the GM is just another storyteller in the group with some powers of arbitrage. Others apparently see sitting behind the screen to be the equivalent of being granted a god given right to screw their players as hard as possible, in every way possible. I can't really understand how people find this style of gaming enjoyable, but hey, whatever turns you on.


I think there's a middle ground there. I see being the GM as having the power to arbitrate and the responsibility to tell a good story. One of the keys to doing this well is to see them not as something in conflict, where you're either letting the characters run wild or you're hurting them as hard as possible, but to see them as complimenting each other, where characters run wild or get hurt based upon the needs of the story.
caramel frappuccino
How come you think it's in the domain of the GM to decide what's fun for the players? I'm honestly curious. question.gif
RunnerPaul
It's not so much deciding what's fun for the players, as it is the weight of GM'ing experience in attempting to provide fun for the players and finding out what works really good and what doesn't. Not to mention many GMs are themselves players or have been at one time and know what other GMs have done that ended up being fun for them
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Redhammer the Old)
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
Without the consent of the player, the GM has no more justification for writing the background of an amnesiac than he does for any other character.

rotfl.gif nothing I can say to that - the "the GM can't" has got to be ironic...

1. she/he is the GM, she/he CAN
2. if you think otherwise, think again ....

well all should be in reason of course... - and yes caramel when all play nice (as they should in my mind too, then all is well but sometimes or with some players you have to be firm... )
extinguish.gif intended

There are limits to what even an absolute ruler can do. We know this from history.

There is a line that a GM should never cross. If the players murder the GM and stick his head on a pike in town square for all to gawk at, then he has probably crossed that line.
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (RunnerPaul)
It's not so much deciding what's fun for the players, as it is the weight of GM'ing experience in attempting to provide fun for the players and finding out what works really good and what doesn't. Not to mention many GMs are themselves players or have been at one time and know what other GMs have done that ended up being fun for them

How do you figure that? I don't see how deciding to slap down a ruling forbidding a player with Amnesia from writing a background when the player explicitly expressed his desire to do so has anything to do with "weighing GM experience." There are only two possible reasons for such a scenario: you either have a shitty player who needs to be kept on a leash because he can't roleplay his own limitations or you have a shitty GM who likes fucking with his players just 'cause he can.
Lucifer
A phobia of albinos in Shadowrun is completely reasonable and really quite sensible, considering the fact that every albino in the sixth world is either a brutally powerful magician or an eye-buggingly min-maxed otaku.

A more reasonable fear-response, however, is to shoot them twice in the head.
Siege
Fear manifests in a subjective manner in each individual.

-Siege
lorthazar
QUOTE (Redhammer the Old)
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
Without the consent of the player, the GM has no more justification for writing the background of an amnesiac than he does for any other character.

rotfl.gif nothing I can say to that - the "the GM can't" has got to be ironic...

1. she/he is the GM, she/he CAN
2. if you think otherwise, think again ....

well all should be in reason of course... - and yes caramel when all play nice (as they should in my mind too, then all is well but sometimes or with some players you have to be firm... )
extinguish.gif intended

True a GM CAN do anthing they want.

Shortly there after they can look for new players and friends. The game is a way to have fun, not do one upmanship. Can't accept that fact? Too bad!
SirKodiak
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
How do you figure that? I don't see how deciding to slap down a ruling forbidding a player with Amnesia from writing a background when the player explicitly expressed his desire to do so has anything to do with "weighing GM experience." There are only two possible reasons for such a scenario: you either have a shitty player who needs to be kept on a leash because he can't roleplay his own limitations or you have a shitty GM who likes fucking with his players just 'cause he can.

Or a third option: the GM is only interested in telling a story with an amnesiac in it if part of the experience of that story is trying to figure out the history of that amnesiac. And, as that experience should be the most direct for the person playing the amnesiac, he doesn't want that player to already know the history of the amnesiac.

I don't get your problem with a player not knowing details of a character's history that the character himself doesn't know. Of course a good player could convincingly play his character even if he knew that backstory, but that isn't the only consideration. I've had players who, if I told them in advance that a situation was a trap, would still walk in there because their characters didn't know that, but that doesn't mean that telling them in advance is a good idea.

It is perfectly acceptable to not tell players things their characters don't know. GMs do it all the time: we don't tell them the layout of buildings they haven't seen, we don't tell them that people are concealing weapons if they haven't searched them, and we don't tell them what's inside a safe if they haven't opened it. Controlling the flow of information is simply part of what a GM does, and just because amnesia means concealing information about the character doesn't magically put it into the box of things only a terrible GM does.

Now, if a player came to me and said they wanted to play an amnesiac, but they wanted to know the backstory themselves, I wouldn't shoot it down, I'd ask why. And if they had a good enough reason, I'd let them do it.
nick012000
QUOTE (Lucifer)
A phobia of albinos in Shadowrun is completely reasonable and really quite sensible, considering the fact that every albino in the sixth world is either a brutally powerful magician or an eye-buggingly min-maxed otaku.

A more reasonable fear-response, however, is to shoot them twice in the head.

Or street samurai who want to get that extra attribute point for that little extra bit of edge.
Ed Simons
QUOTE (Sahandrian)
I pretend Common Sense doesn't exist. I have a system of my own for that. The first part is simply letting the players point out each other's stupid ideas. But the second only works in live games.

I've seen a player where this didn't work in live games. Told by the other players and/or the GM that something was a bad idea he always did it anyway. It's only due to luck and a misguided sense of loyalty from the other players that he wasn't making new characters constantly. He was still making new characters more than everyone else combined.
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (SirKodiak)
Or a third option: the GM is only interested in telling a story with an amnesiac in it if part of the experience of that story is trying to figure out the history of that amnesiac. And, as that experience should be the most direct for the person playing the amnesiac, he doesn't want that player to already know the history of the amnesiac.

Yeah, the GM is there to have fun too, but if the only way you can have fun is by putting arbitrary restrictions on character creation that are in no way supported by canon or your players, then you might want to rethink your policy. I could easily say that only people who create blonde lesbian trolls dressed in frilly tutus can play in my game. That doesn't make it reasonable.
QUOTE
I don't get your problem with a player not knowing details of a character's history that the character himself doesn't know.

No no no, you haven't been listening. I don't. What I do find disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to think that they have more license to write a background for an amnesiac than they do for any other character. This is simply not the case, especially if your intent for doing so stems out of some twisted desire to screw the player over.

If a player wants me to come up with a history for him because he likes the mystery and suspense of finding stuff out for himself, I'll be all up for it. If he doesn't 'cause he thinks he'll enjoy writing the background more, then I won't. I'm not going to ruin his good time just because he took a particular flaw during character creation.
Dog
I've found that amnesia, dark secret, and even day job (and some others) can at times help or hinder me as a GM. Sometimes, the character's background, and background related edges and flaws can really screw up your campaign....

Me: "Okay, so this new campaign has you sitting around a booth at your favourite strip club when..."
Player 1: "Argh! I'm having a flashback about my mother!"
Player 2: "I'd never go in there, I can only live in the forest."
Player 3: "I have to be at sea in three hours."
Player 4: "Who are you people! I'm drawing my gun."

However, dark secret, hunted or amnesia is a lifesaver when you didn't have time to write that week.

For us, character creation sessions are also campaign creation sessions. We can hammer out characters that match the upcoming game and vice versa. My players know that if they have a character who's got a dark secret, the campaign will largely be about that flaw. So if I already have a strong idea about how I want the plot to progress, I'll ask them to forego on such traits and they know it'll be to help them enjoy the game.
calm_horizons
Ambidexterity is the one that makes my GM cringe ( no one dares ask him for aptitude).
all the other ones ive seen have their place, but only if RPed properly, so my GM has 3 rules.
1. If it dosen't cause you problems then its not worth points
2. write 1/3-1/2 page on why you have said flaw/edge and justify yourself
3. if you dont RP the flaw ( or at least attempt) then you dont get any karma

If you consitantly ignore your flaws then its open season on you
SirKodiak
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
Yeah, the GM is there to have fun too, but if the only way you can have fun is by putting arbitrary restrictions on character creation that are in no way supported by canon or your players, then you might want to rethink your policy. I could easily say that only people who create blonde lesbian trolls dressed in frilly tutus can play in my game. That doesn't make it reasonable.


First, as I specifically said, if someone had a compelling argument for knowing things about his amnesiac character that the character himself didn't know, I'd let them do it. My point is that I see what makes amnesia primarily interesting as a game concept is the mystery, and as such, I'd hope the player was interested in exploring that. As such, I consider the default to be that the player not know anything their character doesn't know. However, like every other rule, I'd be happy to bend it if it meant the players having more fun.

QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
QUOTE
I don't get your problem with a player not knowing details of a character's history that the character himself doesn't know.

No no no, you haven't been listening. I don't. What I do find disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to think that they have more license to write a background for an amnesiac than they do for any other character. This is simply not the case, especially if your intent for doing so stems out of some twisted desire to screw the player over.


Well, I'd say you have more license because it's more in theme for an amnesiac to now know their backstory than it is for a normal character. However, it doesn't come out of a desire to screw the player over, but out of a desire to provide an interesting mystery and roleplaying experience. I think that experience is heightened by the player himself not knowing the backstory. If the player can argue why, in his case, that's not true, then fine, and we'll go with it.

My point is not that I try to use amnesia to screw a player, but that I think that amnesia, as a storytelling device, is best used if the player doesn't know the character backstory.

In general, I don't have much sympathy for the "a good GM should try to screw his players' characters as hard as possible" school of thought. I know that when many people say it they're just getting at the idea that many of Shadowrun's best moments come when the drek is hitting the centralized air recycling unit, so a good game will often include times when everything is coming down around a Shadowrunner's head. However you have to be careful to distinguish between telling an engaging story involving a run gone wrong, and trying to kill the characters for no other reason than to screw the players.

QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
If a player wants me to come up with a history for him because he likes the mystery and suspense of finding stuff out for himself, I'll be all up for it. If he doesn't 'cause he thinks he'll enjoy writing the background more, then I won't. I'm not going to ruin his good time just because he took a particular flaw during character creation.


I'm pretty sure we agree. I just think we differ on what the default assumption is going to be for who writes the backstory is. I assume I'll be doing it and can be convinced otherwise. You assume they'll be doing it but are willing to do it if they want you to do.
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (SirKodiak)
I'm pretty sure we agree. I just think we differ on what the default assumption is going to be for who writes the backstory is. I assume I'll be doing it and can be convinced otherwise. You assume they'll be doing it but are willing to do it if they want you to do.

I don't agree with a few of your points, but for the most part, you're probably right. smile.gif
Glyph
Personally, I wouldn't immediately veto a player wanting to write his amnesiac character's background, but I would scrutinize it pretty carefully. One of the major reasons that amnesia is a Flaw is that it involves not knowing people who used to know you, and having to deal with surprises, misinformation, and manipulation from those people. I wouldn't have a problem with an amnesiac written by the player, with no dangling plot threads from the past, but I would have a problem if the player expected to get Flaw points from that - it's not really a disadvantage at that point, just background flavor text. If the player wrote a background that included some actual detriment to the character, and some potential for complications arising from the past to arise, then I would be far more likely to allow it.

That's for the 2-point version, though. For the 5-point version, I don't really see it. You don't even start out knowing your own stats for that one, so I think, for that version of the Flaw, you really are turning control of what kind of character you will be playing over to the GM.
Valentinew
For the 2-point amnesia, I think that the player should be involved in developing his background & history. He should work closely with the GM to do so, but I see no reason not to let him be involved if you as GM trust him to not use said information in his play (except when he remembers something).

For the 5-point amnesia, I think the most the player should do is give the GM a rough outline of an idea--say, a Tir paladin with no memory of who he is--and let the GM create the character, the backstory...everything.

The difference? For 2-point, IIRC, it was implied that the character knew what they could do, just not why. For 5-point, you don't even know what you can do. Speaking from a player's perspective, if you know you have 0 skillpoints in pistols, you're going to either tend towards skills you know you have a better shot with, or you're going to end up playing it kinda "cartoon-y" because you'll know that you don't have that skill. It's much harder to play total amnesia well if you know what's coming... Of course, you have to trust your GM.

IMO, anyway.

my 2 nuyen.gif
toturi
QUOTE (calm_horizons)
Ambidexterity is the one that makes my GM cringe ( no one dares ask him for aptitude).
all the other ones ive seen have their place, but only if RPed properly, so my GM has 3 rules.
1. If it dosen't cause you problems then its not worth points
2. write 1/3-1/2 page on why you have said flaw/edge and justify yourself
3. if you dont RP the flaw ( or at least attempt) then you dont get any karma

If you consitantly ignore your flaws then its open season on you

Does that mean that you will not get any karma if you do not roleplay your Edges? Does it mean if an Edge does not give you any advantages in game it is not worth points? Does it mean that if the GM constantly creates situations where you cannot use your Edge it is open season on him?

So if someone has say... Friends in High Places: Hestaby, he will not get any karma if he doesn't call Hestaby during the adventure? If the GM runs a social/non-violent campaign, does it mean someone with Aptitude: Pistols does not get any karma if he doesn't shoot anyone (because it would have been bad roleplay if he did)?
Tanka
Anything can be munchkinized. All it takes is a creative mind to do so.

Read; no Flaws are munchkin. The use of them in certain instances, however, can be.
calm_horizons
QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 7 2005, 08:56 AM)
QUOTE (calm_horizons @ Nov 7 2005, 03:36 AM)
Ambidexterity is the one that makes my GM cringe ( no one dares ask him for aptitude).
all the other ones ive seen have their place, but only if RPed properly, so my GM has 3 rules.
1. If it dosen't cause you problems then its not worth points
2. write 1/3-1/2 page on why you have said flaw/edge and justify yourself
3. if you dont RP the flaw ( or at least attempt) then you dont get any karma

If you consitantly ignore your flaws then its open season on you

Does that mean that you will not get any karma if you do not roleplay your Edges? Does it mean if an Edge does not give you any advantages in game it is not worth points? Does it mean that if the GM constantly creates situations where you cannot use your Edge it is open season on him?

So if someone has say... Friends in High Places: Hestaby, he will not get any karma if he doesn't call Hestaby during the adventure? If the GM runs a social/non-violent campaign, does it mean someone with Aptitude: Pistols does not get any karma if he doesn't shoot anyone (because it would have been bad roleplay if he did)?

the no/reduced karma bit only really aplies to flaws, and is only really used if you refuse to even attempt to play them.

generally our karma awards are more on our ability to do what the character would do, than on other factors.

in my view, gm's and other players in our group, all the edges give you an advantage and are worth the points. we view these as more optional in the roleplaying, to be used as the character would.

so having aptitude in pistols does not mean he has to shoot everything, how ever if in his background it says that he gets irritable if he dosent get to shoot someone then he will have to RP that. Or with the Hestaby instance he dosent have to call her on every mission or even ever ( it is possible for characters to forget they have friends) unless thats what his character would do.

but this can also apply to flaws in the flexibility with which you RP them ie Vindictive yes; stupid, no. so the character will seethe and try to get vengence in a manor of minimal risk, rather than just charging the subject down.

on the flaws not being worth points, some flaws are not applicable to the game we're going to run and as our games are generaly only 8-10 sessions it would be almost giving awayfree points for issues that are unlikely to come up. of course if you come up with a very good justification for your character having a particular flaw than the GM may allow you to have it, be it for reduce points perhaps.

and in my group its is almost open season on the GM, he tries to screw us, we try to screw him, we just do it as our characters would do it and with in the rules we've agreed, Its part of the fun and it works for us.
nezumi
I kinda like the idea of karma for playing out flaws. I started playing the Serenity RPG where you have to have flaws in part because a good portion of your XP comes from running into them. So if you have a fear of albinos, if you don't react to albinos nothing bad happens (especially if you don't actually encounter any), but if you do run into some and react appropriately, that's XP in your pocket.

You already DO get XP for having edges. That's called getting the run finished. If you don't happen to find yourself in a situation where you can use your edge, it's just like if you don't happen to find a place where your flaws come into place: null gain either way.

As for the amnesia thing...

In a STANDARD game, I would say let the GM write the character history. If the PC feels it would be more fun to put in a few major details (a Tir Paladin, etc.), that's fine and good. But if he wants to write out his entire character sheet and backstory and just play that he doesn't remember it, in my standard game I would disallow it for several reasons:

1) As has been said, there's the story aspect. As a GM, my life is a lot easier and the game more exciting if discovering yourself is a challenge. The player not knowing is what makes the difference between watching a rerun where you already know how it ends, and watching a live car chase on TV.

2) That's a hefty chunk of points for that flaw. Hence, it should be a FLAW and some of that is the player not knowing if he should try a rifle or a handgun, or if maybe he should visit the library instead. No clue at all, is my point.

3) It's more fun for me, as the GM. I love to stick surprising things about the character in his sheet, to make the player say 'hey, that's cool!' I need the ammunition to do this. Letting the player peek at his background steals my fun.


Of course, if the player and the group say they'd have more fun doing it the other way, that's fine. If the group says they'd all like to play 1,000 BP characters and to get $60M at chargen, that's fine too. That is THEIR decision. If it sounds interesting to me, I'll try it. But I've found most of those games are very boring and die very quickly, hence, I like a little more challenge.
Prosper
One of my favorite flaws is Severe Allergy: Capsaicin. Spicy foods are very common, and the GM could easily kill my character with a well placed pepper ball.
Fortune
QUOTE (toturi)
Also the balance in BPs for Edges/Flaws is for Priority Chargen only, for BP chargen, the difference is recommended to be 5.

Technically, the recommended limit is 5 Edges and 5 Flaws, with a net gain or loss of 6 BP. wink.gif
toturi
QUOTE (nezumi)
You already DO get XP for having edges. That's called getting the run finished. If you don't happen to find yourself in a situation where you can use your edge, it's just like if you don't happen to find a place where your flaws come into place: null gain either way.

As I understand it, if someone's Flaw does not get play time, then the PC does not get karma. So if the PC does not find himself where his Flaw come into play and does not get karma as a result, why can't he get karma for his Edge not coming into play? It is not a null gain. It is damned if I have a Flaw(because I get no karma if it doesn't bite me in the ass) and damned if I have an Edge(because it will be just a BP sink).
Glyph
I didn't read it that way, myself. I don't think the GM has problems if a Flaw doesn't come up, so much as when it could come up, and the player ignores it. In other words, not every run will include an encounter in an upscale restaurant where the Uncouth troll can do something vulgar or shocking. Heck, the meet with the Johnson could take place in a Redmond dive where eating with your hands and then belching loudly is considered normal behavior. But if the game does have meets at any upscale locations, and the troll's player just has the troll stand there like a statue, then he is refusing to roleplay a Flaw, and should be penalized, Karma-wise, or at least earn less roleplaying Karma.
nezumi
QUOTE (toturi)
As I understand it, if someone's Flaw does not get play time, then the PC does not get karma.

I wouldn't say that he doesn't get karma. He jsut doesn't get EXTRA karma.

For instance, you play a run. yoru character gets 5 karma. Now presume you finished your run at at one point your character runs screaming from an albino he encounters randomly. He gets 1 karma for that for a total of 6. He might lose karma for not running scared, but he certainly gains it for behaving appropriately (to his detriment, generally). He still gets karma (5, to be precise) if the albino is never encountered.

Hence, a flaw that is never encountered is neither a loss nor a gain, discounting the BPs you originally got at chargen. A flaw encountered is a potential for either loss or gain, depending on how the player handles it. You're not damned if you get a flaw that you never encounter. It's just wasted graphite on your character sheet.

You ARE damned if you waste points on an edge you don't use. Edges are an opportunity for YOU as the player to get tools to more easily beat challenges. Similarly, if you blow your points on sorcery, conjuring and basket-weaving even though you're a mundane you're 'damned' (more appropriately, however, you're a 'dumbass'). I don't feel bad for a player who poorly allocates his points.

toturi
Then why make such a rule when it is simply the roleplaying karma you are denying(or awarding)?
QUOTE (SR3 p244)
Good roleplaying: Award 1 Karma Point to players who mostly stayed in character. Excellent roleplay is worth 2 Karma Points.

So unless your rule awards RP karma above that of good roleplay karma (ie roleplay karma + "flaw" karma), I do not really see the point in it.
Eggs
IMHO, GM approval is they key when it comes to edges, flaws, and munchkinism. Aptitude is a good example. I played in a few games where I was allowed to do things I definitely shouldn't have done, i.e, take aptitude fireams and have it stack with smartlink systems. At that time of my roleplaying career, it sounded like a great idea, and, of course, it worked amazingly well as far as doing the most possible damage per attack. But its stupid. Why the hell would you want to be able to take out a red samurai in a few shots? Why powergame at all?
As a general rule, I don't make characters based on concepts anymore. It's too easy to have a concept like 'Weapons Expert Sammy' or 'Combat Mage.' Roleplaying is a lot more fun when your character sucks slimy balls in general, has more prominent flaws than edges, or is in general just out of his element. That's when you start playing the role and stop worrying about the average successes you'll get with your firearms skill when you shoot multiple rounds with both hands while headbutting someone.
So, long story short, all the edges and flaws are equally munchkin if all you use them for is die bonuses.
brohopcp
QUOTE (Eggs)
That's when you start playing the role and stop worrying about the average successes you'll get with your firearms skill when you shoot multiple rounds with both hands while headbutting someone.

Don't forget the cyber skull implanted pressure sensitive 12 recoil mini-shotgun that fires as you headbutt them.
toturi
QUOTE (Eggs)
I played in a few games where I was allowed to do things I definitely shouldn't have done, i.e, take aptitude fireams and have it stack with smartlink systems. At that time of my roleplaying career, it sounded like a great idea, and, of course, it worked amazingly well as far as doing the most possible damage per attack. But its stupid. Why the hell would you want to be able to take out a red samurai in a few shots? Why powergame at all?

Aptitude: [Firearm type] does stack with smartlink systems. Or at least there isn't any rule in the books that I'm aware of.

As to why you want to be able to take out a Red Sam with a few shots? Simple, because you would wish to continue playing that PC.

Why powergame? Because you want to enjoy roleplay and roleplaying a PC that dies 2 every sessions does not make for an enjoyable experience (unless you enjoy that sort of thing).
Drace
QUOTE (toturi)
As to why you want to be able to take out a Red Sam with a few shots? Simple, because you would wish to continue playing that PC.

Why powergame? Because you want to enjoy roleplay and roleplaying a PC that dies 2 every sessions does not make for an enjoyable experience (unless you enjoy that sort of thing).

And playing a PC that kills everything in sight with a few shots, taking out Tir Ghosts, elite ops agents and dragons with ease is enjoyable?

I personally hate when power gaming is done, mostly because its impossible for the GM to keep the game interesting when his players can take out everything dished at them. And while yes, having a pc die every few games isnt enjoyable, that just means they are up agaisnt too powerfull of opponents and the games need to be a tad easier. Shadowrunners should always make it by the skin on their teeth.
Critias
QUOTE (Eggs)
Roleplaying is a lot more fun when your character sucks slimy balls in general, has more prominent flaws than edges, or is in general just out of his element. That's when you start playing the role and stop worrying about the average successes you'll get with your firearms skill when you shoot multiple rounds with both hands while headbutting someone.

Yeah. It's also when your character sucks so bad he can't really cut it as a professional criminal, and gets himself and everyone around him killed for being a choadhuffer.

Personality's all well and good, kids. Roleplaying instead of rollplaying, blah blah blah, fine. But you've still got to be able to fucking cut it, if you want to be a Shadowrunner. Making everyone else pick up your slack in firefights, magical battles, and Matrix runs (because you're too busy having fun role playing someone who"sucks slimy balls", and they're all playing competent runners) is a good way to get knifed, instead of getting a cut of the pay, realistically.
Drace
hence why roleplayng isnt used for combat, matrix action and spell casting, accept to maybe to gain or lose dice because of the situation. Roleplaying is generally for social interactions (meating with contacts, buying/selling gear, meating johnsons)
Eggs
QUOTE
Aptitude: [Firearm type] does stack with smartlink systems. Or at least there isn't any rule in the books that I'm aware of.

Yeah, but having a bonus that huge is just stupid.

QUOTE
As to why you want to be able to take out a Red Sam with a few shots? Simple, because you would wish to continue playing that PC.

There's an easy remedy to Red Sammies. Don't fuck with them.

QUOTE
Why powergame? Because you want to enjoy roleplay and roleplaying a PC that dies 2 every sessions does not make for an enjoyable experience (unless you enjoy that sort of thing).

There are campaigns that don't revolve around power raping your character. There, in fact, campaigns where people pretend to be someone else, joke around a lot, and generally have a good time.
Then again, there are also campaigns where runners hunt critters because you can get really cool looking cod pieces fashioned from their remains.
Personally, I enjoy roleplaying, which, personally, is much more enjoyable when the game is focused on the characters and their personalities, not their 10 points of flaws/min-maxed skills and stats/force 15 great form fire elemental/19 magic stat.
Because, personally, all that shit is fucking ridiculous.
But if you have fun with that, have fun with that biggrin.gif

[Edit] And for the record, I wasn't saying that everyone should go out and make shitty characters. Yeah, if your character is worthless, you probably won't have fun. But you don't need to power game to have a worthwhile character.[/Edit]
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (Eggs)
Personally, I enjoy roleplaying, which, personally, is much more enjoyable when the game is focused on the characters and their personalities, not their 10 points of flaws/min-maxed skills and stats/force 15 great form fire elemental/19 magic stat.

Kindly refrain from assuming that your inability or unwillingness to juggle both aspects of gaming at the same time reflects in any way upon the capabilities of others. wink.gif
Cain
Come on, guys, let's take a breather here....

Something you all are forgetting is that when a good GM sets up a game, he or she will let the players know roughly what kind of game to expect. High-powered, lots of flying lead, super-action campaign? Cool in my book. Super-subtle political intrigues? That's fine too. Dark mysteries into lost magical secrets? Rooby-Rooby-Roo. grinbig.gif

If a player creates a character that is not fit for the game the GM is going to run, then the GM can and should ban it. A mismatched character will inevitably drag down the fun factor for the entire group. I *will* ban the Uncouth flaw, for example, if I'm running the super-political intrigue game-- roleplaying a tromping clod can be fun under the right circumstances, but these ain't it. Also, the GM has the right to ban certain edges/flaws if he doesn't think he can handle them properly in game; for example, I have banned Day Job, until I can figure out if it's really an Edge or a Flaw... I've been considering it on and off since the 2nd Ed Companion came out, and I still don't have an answer.

Now, some of us like super-amped characters. Which is perfectly fine, so long as your GM is running a campaign with super-amped opposition. Some people like the "street level", ganger-type games; those are fun as well, so long as I'm not running into the opposition from the super-amped game.

The bottom line is, the GM does have the final word about what will go on in the game. However, a good GM will make sure that the players *already know* what to expect. Based on that, the players will get a sense for what edges/flaws are going to be good, and which are going to be bad, for the overall fun factor of the game. Once the information is disseminated, players who buck the power curve are likely irresponsible and/or munchkinous, and GM's probably *will* need to ride herd on them.

As far as the roleplay goes, Toturi-- note that the book says +1 karma for "excellent" roleplaying. What each GM considers to be excellent will vary, but I'd say that roleplaying against your Flaws isn't "excellent roleplay". Really roleplaying *with* them, however, is definitely a step in the right direction, in my book at least. It's not the only method, but it's certainly one of them.
Eggs
QUOTE
Kindly refrain from assuming that your inability or unwillingness to juggle both aspects of gaming at the same time reflects in any way upon the capabilities of others.

::shrug:: I thought the edit on my last post kinda said you have to balance it out. I guess I just don't find power gaming very balancing.
tisoz
I usually ask how the player expects the flaw to come into play. This lets them see how much it should be worth or how debilitating it may become.

Infirm at up to 3 points should be about worthless, especially when following the guidelines about attributes above the racially modified limit being rare. Infirm at 4 points is just starting to be an impediment, and not much of one for magicians, deckers, or riggers.

A phobia I saw once was severe to stewed tomatos. Seemed the school cafeteria served them when his best friend goblinized, and when his dad got lost/blown up at Los Alamos. His grandparents served them right about the time his mom died during a bout of VITAS, etc. Every time it seemed like major crap dumped on him, stewed tomatos were somewhere near. The GM could have dropped major hints something bad was coming just by mentioning an NPC dining on them, or induce a bit of paranoi because you forget all the times you encountered stewed tomatos and nothing bad happened. wink.gif

Oh, yeah, phobias (and allergies) seem to get abused, too.
Eggs
Yech. I don't need any horrible coincidences to be terrified by stewed tomatoes grinbig.gif
toturi
QUOTE (Drace @ Nov 15 2005, 03:02 PM)
hence why roleplayng isnt used for combat, matrix action and spell casting, accept to maybe to gain or lose dice because of the situation.  Roleplaying is generally for social interactions (meating with contacts, buying/selling gear, meating johnsons)

If you are meating your contacts and johnsons, you have a big problem right there. And I do not understand why roleplaying in social interactions is any different from other situations when there are Etiquette, Intimidation and other Social Skills.
DocMortand
QUOTE (toturi)
If you are meating your contacts and johnsons, you have a big right there. And I do not understand why roleplaying in social interactions is any different when there are Etiquette, Intimidation and other Social Skills.

rut roh raggy! rit rat re runreranreral!

(translation: Yoiks! It can't be understandable!)

..............
Never mind. Back to thread.
toturi
Hey, I was in a hurry....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012