i know. but the closed scale itself--especially a closed scale whose upper limits can be reached at chargen--is something about SR4 that's rankled me since i was first introduced to it.

JongWK, they once said the same thing about the 4-minute mile, as referenced above. i'm not saying that there are no limits on what a human body is capable of. i'm saying that we haven't determined those limits; and, given that fact, it seems more realistic to me to make advancement harder and harder and each progressive level than to simply cap it off completely.

So, let me get this straight. Instead of working with the player to solve the issue, or stretching your creativity as a GM to bring the character's flaws into the game, you'd prefer to beat the player over the head?

You're definitely smoking something good. That would give him an unaugmented 8 dice, versus his current 6. That averages to 2.66 successes vs 2, or less than one success difference. There's not much of a mechanical advantage, and certainly not one that offsets 8 additional dice!

The specializations, on average, add .66 successes for 2 points. Buying a new skill point offers you .33 successes per 4 points. As you can see, adding specializations is a very efficient way of improving your character. As for Survival and Navigation, those are mostly useless in an urban environment, which is where most shadowrunning takes place. What's more, you can default to them readily enough; they default to Intuition, which is usually kept high to improve Initiative. In this case, he'd have 3 dice for each of those skills-- not a lot, but he'd be better off than Joe Average.

Oops. I meant Nonconductivity.

With 18 dice in his primary combat skill, he won't be relying on edge that often. And, clever min/maxers always try and maneuver the situation so that their best area comes forth. In this case, he might not be able to negotiate very well; but he can switch tactics to a Fast Talk.

While the book does say that you can refuse to let a character default, it also makes it clear that this isn't the case most of the time. A skill rating of 0 doesn't mean total helplessness in that area, after all; just look at the skill ratings descriptions. Are you planning on not letting this character default, just because you don't like him? Wow.

As for the wallpaper comment-- if you've ever actually "roleplayed" in a game, you'd know that all characters are just numbers on paper. What brings a character to life isn't the stats on the page, it's the way he's played in game. A good player and a good GM can turn even the most bland set of stats into a wonderful character, and a poor GM can ruin it for everyone. I can't help but wonder *why* you haven't seen this happen, especially if you're usually the GM.

You don't find twenty-six dice in one test unbalancing? Good gods! And tell me, do you expect all your PC's to cover each and every possible area of expertise, and spank them when they don't do it? Why on earth don't you allow players to run character concepts that meet *their* goals, instead of yours?

The problem is this: he has a hyperspecialization, and no major weaknesses. His shortcomings aren't anything more than what most other characters would have. All characters have minor shortcomings, but a balanced chargen system should make it so a super-focused character pays for it by being noticeably weak in other areas. This character doesn't have that.

The problem isn't just the realism of the scale, even though it pushes the boundaries of suspension of disbelief to the extreme. The problem here is that you can easily create a character with absolutely no room for growth. Also, this system doesn't allow for any fine granularity at the high end-- when the "best of the best" are competing, they're on effectively equal grounds, even though one should have a distinct advantage over another. For example, Fastjack should have it all over a fresh-out-of-chargen character, even though they're both "the best of the best".

A player whose intent is to try get something for nothing by exploiting the system? They just might get a figurative wack to the head, yes. It certainly doesn't warrant an uppity tone about it given the goal of blatant abuse of the rules that you are showing. It also doesn't need a whole lot of creativity as it is a straightforward application of the rules.

Depending on the situation the player might not even know the status of their damage track without rolling, or having someone else spend at least a Free Action checking it and perhaps a second Free Action to relay some sort of message to the PC. I think back to the Simpsons episode where Homer has heart surgery.
Hibbert:You're going to need open heart surgery.
Homer: Spare me your medical mumbo jumbo.
Hibbert: We're going to cut you open and tinker with your ticker.
Homer: Could you dumb it down a shade?

This does bring up the question of what the next sentence on page 82 means in practice.

Me, I'd likely not be so cruel as to not allow them a Defaulted roll to check what state they were in. Although if their Logic was low it might be kinder to stop them.

If they have Perception 4, Initiative 4, and the Vision Enhancement 3 that is a total of 11 dice for vision based perception, 8 dice for other perception checks. Having the Skill doesn't invalidate the die pool bonus.

That's two incorrect assumptions that were covered explicitly in the last post. I gave an example of Navigation and Survival in an urban setting, and just like all other Skills you cannot always Default. As for most shadowrunning taking place in an urban environment, I suppose that is true of many games. However I tend to play in games where variety occurs often enough that having a character and team lacking the skills to function outside that environment is a very bad thing.

That is clearly not the tone I am striking there. But this has become a common theme with you, decrying this percevied percecution of the player. I would hope that the group would be able to handle a variety of missions if the campaign was geared towards professional runners. The people I play with do like to keep their game switching around with variety, and I enjoy that myself. A gang campaign with lower powered characters obviously wouldn't be expected to have the same depth to the PCs.

I wouldn't intentionally "spank" them unless perhaps they were willfully attempting the break or pervert the game. But more likely someone acting like that/you and who continued to act that way would evetually be unwelcome. I'm not talking about my decision either, that sort of thing is a group decision to be made and would happen less formally.

I'm not sure where 26 dice is coming from? A rough count makes it something under 20, about 18 or so dice when you can use the Specialization. That is quite the impressive shooter, but I wouldn't fear such a PC dominating because you can only shoot someone just so dead. They'll one-shot kill a lot of the time, but without burst fire targets with decent Reaction and some cover or other visual modifier help will at least survive the first shot even without using Edge. If even a significant portion of my runs hinged solely on shooting someone at close range dead then this could be an issue. But that isn't the case, and if it was I'd consider this character one of the least of the problems at such a table.

An Incompetence: First Aid is clearly not a major exploit of the rules. That skill should see enough common use to be a major hindrance, without having to slap the player with extra penalties. Incompetences in Magical and/or Resonance skills are abusive, provided the character isn't Awakened/Otaku, but First Aid is another thing entirely-- why are you punishing the players so harshly?

At the cost of eight dice of edge, which is quite the mechanical advantage, even if it's limited. And in addition to the fact that 8 dice is probably more than enough for Perception tests, you're comparing a 300 piece of gear versus a 16 point expenditure. Even if you have to buy another resource point to get it, the gear comes out as a much more efficient purchase.

What's more, the biggest need for Perception-- Surprise Tests-- doesn't directly use Perception at all. It's an Initative test, and he'll get 10 dice regardless of Perception.

Some of the skills, such as Perception, are mostly superfluous if you've got good attributes and gear. This is a weakness in the system that can't be argued away.

First of all, situations where you can't default are few and far between. Everyone who doesn't have an Incompetence should be able to start a fire with a matchbook and use a compass to find North. Because of that, the character isn't lacking anything-- no one can have skills in all areas. Even if the game forces characters out of their home environment, they're not totally helpless and nonfunctional.

Second, even when that happens, a character can always go for a longshot test. Assuming the player is intelligent, he'll save his edge for the big rolls, where it's sorely needed. If the player is really intelligent, he'll have already laid in gear to offset any penalties that might accrue-- for example, he might be packing a mapsoft to aid in Navigation tests. Since you can update a mapsoft to create custom maps, you can easily retrace your steps in a sewer with one.

A "variety of missions" typically means that you give them a number of options, all based on what the characters do best. Deliberately forcing them into doing mostly non-spec missions is just GM cruelty. You aren't just setting a tone-- you're saying outright that if the players don't make characters that meet your expectations, you'll apply additional penalties to them: not letting them default, denying them the same information you'd give other players freely, and so on.

And again with the rollplaying! Since when does a character require extra power to have depth? As a GM, I'd rather see an extensive background than an extensive skill list. Roleplaying is going beyond the numbers. Are you really going to punish a player who's relying on roleplaying instead of stats?

1. The AVS and Sakura are both burst-fire capable semiauto handguns.
2. Even if they survive the first shot, since the character specializes in semi-autos, he'll almost always have a second shot.

As for the character dominating, that would occur because of the biggest flaw in the SR4 mechanics... well, not just SR4, but any system that has penalties that remove dice. Namely, the fact that once enough penalties have been applied, skill ceases to matter. Both nWoD and SR4 suffer the same flaw, although they handle it differently. In both cases, they try to make is so a player can still try and make a lucky hit, regardless of the odds. This makes for some fun and heroic roleplaying at times. However, the fact that the penalties can only go so far is a fundamental part of the system, and it can't be fixed without altering the core die mechanic.

In nWoD, once your skill has been reduced to zero, you still get one die to roll. However, it only succeeds on a 10, instead of the usual 8. Because you'll botch if you roll a 1, your odds of succeeding or failing miserably are identical. So, skilled and unskilled characters have the exact same chance to pull off a difficult stunt. However, you can still pile on the modifiers, since no matter what happens, you still have that one die.

In some ways, SR4 is worse at this. It solves some of the problem by simply not letting players even try, unless they want to get lucky. However, the lucky characters then have an advantage over the skilled ones.

Here's an example: Matt "Marksman" Markovich is one of the best in the world with assault rifles (Quickness 7, Automatics 7). However, he's not very lucky (Edge 1). And now, the run is hosed, and his team is in trouble. They're trying to escape, but they've got a Steel Lynx chasing them.

Marksman is using an AK-97 he picked up off a dead guard. It's not smartlinked, but it does have a laser sight (+1, total 15 dice). Unfortunately, he's in a moving vehicle (-3), the light is poor (-2), and it's raining heavily (-4, with an additional -1 because the laser sight no longer works). To make matters worse, the GM has ruled that since the Steel Lynx is dodging behind traffic, it effectively has good cover against him (-4); also, it's 60 meters away, which is Medium range for him (-1) but well within Short range of it's LMG. Total modifiers: -15, leaving him with zero dice. Even if he spends his one point of edge on a longshot test, he can't possibly get enough successes to hurt the thing, since the rule of six doesn't apply to longshot tests. He could theoretically Take Aim, but even then, it wouldn't be mugh help.

"Drek!" Marksman growls, and looks over at his teammate, Mr Lucky. He throws the gun over to him. "Here, you make the shot!" Mr. Lucky has no Automatics skill at all (-1), but he does know where the selector switch is, so he switches over to burst-fire (-2). He's also Moderately wounded (3 boxes, -1 penalty). He then calls a shot to bypass the Lynx's armor (-9) and lines up to fire. He doesn't bother to Take Aim, since it's not going to make a difference-- he could even blindfold himself, if he wanted. Total modifier: -28. Mr. Lucky now spends a point of Edge. He's got eight dice to make the test with, which averages to 2.66 successes, rounded up to 3. (He could also buy 2 successes outright, but most GM's won't allow characters to buy successes in combat.) The Lynx dodges with it's Pilot of 3, which results in 1 success-- a hit! It now has to face a 6P +2 (burst fire) +2 (net successes) = 10P attack, with absolutely no armor to help. Since it has a Body of 4, it averages 1.33 successes, which rounds down to 1. It takes 9 boxes of damage. What's more, even if we figure generously and round up, it still takes 8 boxes of damage, which is more than it's Body, and forces an immediate Crash Test. Since a drone doesn't have a Reaction score, it only gets it's Pilot of 3 to make a Threshold 3 test, and has -3 in wound modifiers. It fails. Mr. Lucky lets out a war whoop, and his teammates all slap him on the back for a good shot-- all except for Marksman, who grouses about how he could have done the same thing.

So, the problem is this: in the pinch, in the big dramatic final moments, the lucky character will be the one who pulls it off. Not the specialists, and defintely not the generalists; the lucky character with a lot of wisely-spent edge will get the limelight at the critical moments. That's a form of game-domination in the worst way-- all characters should be able to shine in their specialty, instead of being outdone by sheer luck.

Bull. SR3 had dice caps by default*, but the way the TN system worked you could remove them and still challenge everyone without too much trouble. That was the great part about the mostly-exponential increase in difficulty the TN system offered: difficulties scaled extremely well and made the game playable over a large variety of power levels. The +8 Blind Fire penalty for example meant something to *everyone*, no matter how twinked out you were, but still allowed for the occasional lucky shot even by the most cross-eyed noncombatant.

That kind of thing doesn't exist in SR4. It can't, by nature of the linearity of its dice system. This is how you end up with all those weird cases with Blind Fire destroying some characters and not affecting others in the slightest. The Long Shot rules are kind of silly as well, as Cain demonstrated. Perhaps a fix would be to add one-half the difference between your original dice pool and the penalties to the Threshold? *shrug*

*-By the way, you may want to keep this in mind, everyone going on about how hard dice caps on skills/attributes suck. SR3 had 'em too; they were just higher than the normal chargen ones. SR4's big change was how you could *get* to those hard limits at chargen, which I'm really not convinced is a good idea.

No, the give up because his reading comprehension is TeH sUXx maneuver. Nobody wins.

EDIT Really, how seriously can you take someone that with apparently a straight face says burst-fire capable semiauto handguns? What kind of conversation can you expect?

Yes, there are limits. Of course, I would not consider Mr. Lucky "done." He's a gutter punk with a smart mouth, a bit of sneaky and some 'ware focused on his pistol. He can't even fix his own gun. Heck, he can't even toss a grenade without defaulting. He's a prodigy, admittedly, but little more. His Edge means he's lucky but any concerted effort will outrun his Edge.

BTW: I'd let you have that many Incompetence flaws but only if they were suitable for the campaign. In this case you could choose Mechanic(Firearms), Mechanic(Ground Vehicles), Pilot(Ground Vehicle), Hardware (I know people who can build PCs without using them), Computer (I might let a player choose Software but only if you also took Computer).

Except that the Street Sam can likely beat Mr. Lucky in hand-to-hand, by chucking a couple grenades (Athletics), can punch Lucky's ticket from down the block or simply spray the whole building with his LMG.

Mr. Lucky is good for two things: short range combat and talking his way into jobs.

so, when someone calls you on a simple error in your post, it's being petty, but when you call them on an even lesser error, it's grounds for dismissing their entire argument? double standards ftw!

besides which, in this case, you are the one who is the dumb. "burst-fire capable semiauto handgun" is a perfectly sensible phrase. it is a handgun with selective fire: semiauto, and burst-fire.

One error, no problem. A few errors sure, hey crap happens. But he has left a wide, sticky trail of them. This isn't an issolated thing. The income tax stuff is a microcosm of it. On top of it he actually had the nerve to lambaste me not once but twice for not reading or researching.

So an M-16 is a semi-automatic weapon? Just give it up.

He certainly didn't know what he was arguing about.

Sorry if it that isn't clear to you because you don't understand the topic. ;P

I guess I should just stop replying to mfb as well too.

Okay, I agree with what you are saying, but...

Why shouldn't a fresh PC with the same background be almost identical?

The other problem with the system is that the truly awesome are as good as the the best of the best because it is almost impossible for them to fail.

Ah, yes. When faced with logic, resort to direct insults. Dude, just because I pointed out troubling areas in your character creation logic, your self-reported GM Hammer usage, and rollplay vs roleplay styles, doesn't mean I don't want to understand. It's entirely possible that I do understand, and disagree, and maybe I even have very strong and logical reasons for doing so.

By that standard, no character is ever "done", in any system at all. No character should be expert, or even proficient, in all things. Again, the problem with min/maxing isn't that the resulting characters have flaws; the question is how severe are those flaws in play? In this case, and many others, you can have a hyperspecialist without serious weaknesses. This really devalues any "well rounded" character concept.

*checks page 101*
Actually, in HTH, they have an identical amount of dice. For grenades, it's based on your Throwing Weapon skill, not Athletics; since neither of them have it, they end up exactly the same. The street sam does have a variety of full-auto weapons he can use with ease, but recoil pushes those modifiers down significantly. So, in a straight-out fight, the BBB street sam ranges from "totally outclassed" to "very close" in power levels and effectiveness. The difference will often come down to luck, which Mr. Lucky can afford to rely on a lot more often.

At any event, this example was to show that Mr. Lucky isn't significantly worse than a "well-balanced" character in many areas, and has a huge advantage in one. This means there's no real advantage in creating a "balanced" character, so you might as well create a super-specialized monster and be done with it.

Well, the "best of the best" covers a wide array of ground. For example, Olympic athletes might be our standard for the "best of the best"; however, there's a lot of variation between them. After all, not everyone goes home with a gold medal. Even within the "best of the best" category, we have to allow for some variation due to natural abilities and skills. If it were just luck, Apolo Ohno would have an equal chance of winning against Jon Eley; Apolo took home the gold, and Eley came in last place. Both would completely dominate over a lesser athlete, but one was still better than the best.

[Edit 1]Another example in the BBB is Edison and Tesla. Both are listed as Legendary in technical skills, which is perfectly warranted. However, Edison is most famous for the incandescent lightbulb and the grammophone, inventions that are fading from common usage: flourescent and halogen bulbs are replacing filaments, and CD/DVD/MP3 audio have almost completely erased LP records from use. Tesla's three most famous inventions are the Tesla Coil (still used in special effects studios), the transformer (necessary for any electrical device that uses AC current) and the radio (a core part of the SR4 technology assumptions). Both have had a huge effect on the progress of technology, and have earned their place as legends. However, it's obvious that they're not equal.

[Edit 2] I realized that I didn't exactly answer your question. I've been told by many people that the default assumption for a starting SR4 character is that you're a relative newcomer to the shadows. You're not a total newbie, but you're not a major mover and shaker, either. There's a major disconnect between that concept, and the ability to have a totally maxed-out character right out the gate. No fresh-to-the-shadows character should be the equal of Fastjack or Dr. Raven.

I've heard similar, that it is supposed to be grittier and back to the streets, etc.. However the rules do not back it up when you can max out a character in one area to be almost as automatically successful as the legend. At least in SR3, you could figure the legend had a higher skill. In SR4, it should be impossible, unless NPCs get to cheat and break the caps.

Nope. They just don't have the limitations chargen characters have (and yeah I know you were being flippant).

That's a false assumption. No starting character is as good as Fastjack. You're basing your judgement on performance in one skill.

As far as I'm concerned Fastjack - which means if he ever comes under my editing pen - has maxed-out his Cracking and Electronics Skill Groups (maybe to the legendary level) and no starting character can compete with that. Dr. Raven has maxed the entire Influence Skill Group and probably high Conjuring and Sorcery Skill Groups too. I won't even mention how much Edge those two characters could have piled on by now or their contact lists either.

Definitely no starting character is on par with those two.

That's exactly the point. There seems to be a major disconnect between the stated goals of the game, and what you can actually get in practice. This doesn't mean SR4 sucks rocks, but it does mean that it doesn't meet it's own expectations. No matter what, a fresh PC should not be as good as Fastjack, since a fresh PC is just starting his career.

Also, as Mr. Lucky shows, not only can you have a character who's that good right out of chargen, he won't have any major weaknesses over an ordinary "balanced" character. This demonstrates that the game encourages hyperspecialization. Theoretically, the caps and point limits are in place to prevent this sort of thing, but apparently they're not working. If the goal is to have more balanced characters, the character creation system needs an overhaul.

You can't do that, though. Not only can you not bring an entire skill group to the Legendary level, you can't get more than *one* skill that high. That means that Fastjack is capped to one skill at 7, with the rest at 6. A starting character can have the same starting skill at 7, and the rest a 4, with specializations making up some of that difference. The differences are miniscule, and might even be equalized by creative character tweaking. They can definitely "compete", right off the bat.

You are correct, I didn't mean to imply the whole group but one skill in the group after maxing out all the others.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the differences are not miniscule. If you believe that a two point difference in 6+ skills (that see extensive and unavoidable use in the character's chosen field of specialization) is insignificant to game balance, comparing characters and application in game play then there's really no reason to continue discussions.

Any creative character tweaking applied to a PC can be applied to Fastjack as well so I fail to see your point. Furthermore, when in doubt accumulated Edge will win out every time and Fastjack has had 45+ years on the scene.

Finally, if a player choses to pick up a skill at legendary level he is consciously chosing a certain character build, one where the character is so naturally gifted and talented in one field that he is as good as the top 11,1% of the specialists already active. In SR4 this comes at a cost but it reflects only one possible build choice and one that you can take if you want (knowing what it implies). If you don't want to be a legend in that particular (and limited) field, then don't take the skill at 6-7 and leave the possibility of improvement in. It is the players choice. Obviously this isn't the min-max or optimal build approach, but then SR4 tries to level the field somewhat (with the linear progression) and yet leave room for both design options.

I noted the difference in skill levels, but the same could be said for Atts figuring in another 1 or 2 dice from there. But ultimately that's beside the point.

As I mentioned previously whether or not you feel the skill differential translates to an adequately "realistic" difference in results in your games is highly subjective. It boils down to a question of whether you think the differential between levels is sufficient or not for your particular vision of the game world. The developers think it is and so that's the reference framework the new system uses. Some people will like it, others won't. But if you're going to be using SR4 rules its important to make the mental shift to this new framework and accept its implications. Playing the system with SR3 differentials or results as a reference just doesn't work.

I see a lot of people making the same mistake regarding Edge. Yes, what you're saying is correct... to a point.

As you've noted "freakish burst of ability" are limited in end results by the base skill level and the linear system.

More importantly it assumes your GM regenerates Edge in a certain way. But I've said this before Edge is only as unbalancing as the GM wants it to be - it has a built in "control" which is completely adjustable (ie. the GM ultimately decides when you regenerate Edge). Make it a slow refresh and the use of Edge becomes much more strategic and you won't see players using it for that watercolor painting roll. Make it fast and you get a lot more cinematic action and life and death saves. It is entirely scaleable and its up to each GM to find a balance.

My experience from my year of playing with SR4 rules is that my preferred measure is to regenerate Edge only at the end of multi-session adventures (3-4 sessions on average) or story arcs in campaigns. This took a little trial and error but I picked up that given the "threat level" of my campaign my players tend to use 1 or 2 points up in any regular session. If I do it any faster they'll be making more use of Edge than I want in my game. Making Edge a rarer commodity means it is used to affect only crucial rolls, so I chose to make it slightly more common than SR3 style Pool use (and quite similar to the way we used Willpower in Trinity 1.0).

By default, SR4 assumes a relatively slow refresh rate (but faster than mine) for a grittier game, which is intended to make Edge use more common than SR3 Karma Pool, but nowhere near as intensive as SR3 Pools. Since this is entirely adjustable, Edge's impact on a game (in a way SR3 Karma Pool wasn't) is also completely subjective - except to say that in critical situations characters with higher Edge always have a ... well ... edge.

Well, he's been at the top of his game for 30+ years and more importantly he has has the raw talent, the intelligence and the wits to stay alive in a fast attrition field such as shadowrunning. Yeah, maybe there are newcomers hackers out there that are his equals (I'd be amazed if there weren't, there's only so much a 60 year old can do to keep up) in specific skill areas, but few match his ability to use those skills and fewer still will keep up with him if he uses all his abilities.

Note- Fastjack in particular is a bad example because he could have hardware and prog ratings that are far beyond a chargen character's... and that's a big advantage in the Matrix.

I like to think it's sorta like the RL balance between an experienced SEAL or SpecOps, and a green "operative" with only a couple of ops under his belt. Skill and training-wise they're both so intensively trained as to be on par or at least so close that in practice the difference in results is irrelevant - in fact the new guy might have the edge for being younger. But the veteran has experience and field practice to back him up that a newcomer could only dream and ask any military instructor and they'll tell you that 9 times out of 10 experience makes all the difference.

Note this isn't to say that some time down the line there won't be rules to distinguish "superior", "superhuman" or "legendary" characters from regular mortals, as there have been in all editions of Shadowrun. The point is it still makes sense even without them.

Care to clarify what you mean by "excused"?

Stat-wise Alexander Karelin would probably have 6s in Bod, Str and Agility probably one of the latter as an exceptional attribute at 7 (having seen him in action I'd also give him a reaction of 5-6 but that's just me), Unarmed Combat as an Aptitude and Subdual Combat/Wrestling as a specialization (9 dice), and an Edge of 5-6 (which, given his focus in life, he pretty much only used to supplement every roll he made on the mat). This means he has a dice pool of 15-16 dice possibly boosted to 22 with Edge (plus any exploding dice) - seems pretty world class to me. His Body and Str factor into how he resists Stun and the damage he does too.

But more importantly than all of the above in my mind is that he had not only the raw talent but the skill and intelligence to put it to the best use possible.

I think most starting characters would have a ways to go to reach those levels so I definitely disagree with the whole "easily achieved absolute maximum attribute/skill" argument that people keep bringing up in the first place.

And for the record in the case of an unaugmented athlete such as Karelin, SR3/BBB skill and Att breakup was just as bad, if not worse, when it comes to differentiating him from any other high level human wrestler. So realism has has as much to do with it in SR4 as it did in SR3.

But that's besides the point, in all its incarnations the SR system was meant to be one of abstract representations with a variable measure of realism thrown in. The framework has changed so significantly that giving Karelin an Unarmed skill of 9 (10) in SR3 has pretty much the same end results as giving him an Unarmed skill of 7 (9) in SR4.

Take someone who's 30 years old, who's main focus in life for the past 20 years has been a particular sport, and who has completely dedicated himself to that sport for 8 years, 4-6 hours a day, 6 days a week. Let's assume this person doesn't mind skimping on anything that doesn't directly help him in his chosen sport -- he's not the brightest person, bad at school, pretty useless in any social situation, etc.

If you were to stat out such a character, the average Olympic finalist, for SR4, do you think it would make sense for him not to have a capped out skill with aptitude and with the relevant specialization and a capped out relevant physical attribute with aptitude, as well as very high levels of the other physical attributes?

Or let's say you created a player character according to the canon rules, trying to recreate a person like above, a character who will spend everything he can on the relevant abilities first and the leftovers mostly on things that might indirectly help. How much karma, such as he might gain from continuously competing against the best in the world in various games, would he have to spend to be at STR 7/BOD 6/Wrestling 9/Edge 4?

Does Not Compute. In SR3 you could, for example, simply give him Unarmed Combat/Wrestling 9/17 when his competitors had 8/15s and 8/16s. Because of the immense amounts of Karma it takes to get a Strength of 11, let alone a STR 11/BOD 9/AGI 9 statline, most Olympic finalists won't have those in SR3.

That's a valid perspective. I'm fine with people playing SR without giving any concern to realism, even. But if that's how you feel, I don't get why you'd take part in an argument about real world logic in SR in the first place -- that should be no concern of yours, right?

Why not Edge 8 and Agility 7?

Being ok with the abstraction of realism is not the same as tossing out realism the door. If the abstract model end up with roughly the same end results overall as what the physical world, even you look at the individual bits and they don't obviously map to literal real world bits, it would indeed still have a strong element of realism.

Unarmed (Subdual Combat) - skill and specialization respectively - is indeed Agility-linked. However, without a high Body and Strength in SR combat a agile wrestler is going to have a hard time winning any bouts.
And yes, both skill Aptitudes and Exceptional Attributes are limited.

As a placeholder for a lengthier reply, and noting that I'm away from my books, to get from starting character to a STR 7/BOD 6/Wrestling 9/Edge 4 character you need no karma (iirc you can start with that). Though a more typical build would take a 5 in Bod (and using the 20 BPs elsewhere) and spend 18 karma to raise it in play. A more rounded build for a wrestler is AGI 7/BOD 6/STR 6 which would be pretty costly at creation (though possible).

You've missed my point: I'm taking part in an argument about real world logic in SR in all its incarnations. Meaning I'm talking about how SR3 and SR4 game mechanics address real world logic and how those two compare in the way they do it. What I am not doing is taking part in an argument which compares abstract game mechanics directly with real life.

DSF meet Azralon. Azralon meet DSF, the anal retentives that stole Christmas.

Indeed.

Still, it is much better to add 8 dice 8 times than to add 4 dice 4 times.

Right, so my original point (that people competing at the highest level would have these stats, and numerical differences between them would be insignificant) stands. Whereas in SR3, because there are no strict maximum skill levels, Olympic Finalist X can still have a serious statistical advantage over Olympic Finalist Y. If I was really mean, I'd also bring up that smaller differences in dice amounts might be more important in SR3 than in SR4 because of the lower base TN and thus less variation in roll results -- but that's probably not relevant.