Probably not a bad idea at all. But I was keeping it RAW in this thread because Cain tends to squeal like a stuck pig even on RAW rulings, much less house rules.

Ah, another insult instead of arguments. At least you've realized the futility of your position. But as Rotbart correctly pointed out, the armor bonus doesn't even factor in until the character's already been hit. So, you'd be using a house rule to attack a perfectly legal character, and only because you don't like the fact that the character has been optimized.

At any event, house rulings are fine and dandy, but it's unfair to spring them on players. If someone brings in a character that was written according to the letter of the rules, the fair thing to do is to say: "Hey, we don't do things that way in my game, but you can take this chance now to fix things." You then suggest to Mr. Lucky's player that he modify his armor as follows, instead of crowing over how you are going to bend over his character for daring to think about an effective character choice. And instead of using it to cover an astounding lack of self-esteem, you acknowledge that your player's viewpoint is valid in the RAW, it's just that you want to run things differently.

It's only the worst sort of GM's who wait in ambush, drooling over the chance to screw a character they can't otherwise challenge. Open communication with your players will vastly improve your GMing style.

We could hope, but given history I'd expect if anything it'll show up in an entry in an FAQ.

You are into snuff films?

Of the tables of regular players I have played at I'm likely the second most capable powergamer, at least in the top 3. Pay no attention to those many contenders not far behind, but who are definately behind, that would rate me lower! Since I tend to use my powers for Good and not Evil, and the guy I judge as number one is a mostly selfnulifying Loonie, I can't say I see this problem a lot myself. I tend to play with people that are child-like as opposed to childish, so there is a heathy dose of good sense and fun floating around to keep things in check. These are people that largely have a common understanding of the type of game being played. Communication is usually pretty good. The #1 Loonie usually floats ideas ahead of time, if for nothing other than the shock value of how twisted and screwed up a situation can be created by particular rule, especially with a particular interpretation of the wording. So that gives the GM fair warning so he can prepare and analyse the situation if it wasn't already noticed.

Certainly none of them are like Cain complaining about being railroaded by the GM implementing a reasonable RAW that does not interfer with the game at large, and in fact tends to lead to a less perverted game world. Not that I haven't met people like that, it is just I don't play with them because it isn't fun to and there generally are lots of players out there that aren't like that to find and hook up with.

The Armor upgrades issue hasn't come up that I've seen so far in neither games I have GMed nor played. However, inspite of what Cain seems to think, this wasn't something I just made up because of Mr. Lucky. I noticed it months ago, and considered the different ways to read the RAW and the one that gave the most sensible, pausible rule to match reality. If it did come up in a character before it was mentioned I wouldn't wait until the game was in play before mentioning it. Instead giving the player fair warning and outlining options, and letting other people know as well. I certainly wouldn't make their character have to deal with selling the armor and buying a replacement IC, and the cash loss that implies.

Several days? Try one good boat chase, 5 of 6 points gone buh-bye.

EDIT Of course I don't consider screwing with overspecialized characters the primary reason for having a broader game, that is just icing on the cake. The primary goal is to have an interesting game. If your game is feeling stale because each runs seems nearly indistiguishable from the the last however many you can remember, and you don't like that, then that's a good place to check. If you and the other players at the table do like the runs being very similar to each other, then by all means keep playing. Otherwise look around and see why you are not branching out. Is it because most if not all the characters are hyper specialized and comfortable there? Then shake it up and challenged them!

what, do you not understand what the word "either" means? because that's what it says: if either of the character's armor ratings is higher than twice his Body, he takes penalties. does "either" refers to more than two options, in your version of english? maybe this'll clear it up: in the previous paragraph, it says that when wearing layers of armor, only the highest value for either Ballistic or Impact applies. why in the name of god would they be talking about just B and I values in one paragraph, but then switch over and start talking about all values in the next (while still using the word "either"!)

i'm not sure what else you'd call a rating that describes the value of an armor modification.

i might be misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but the SR3 BBB explicitly does allow for gear and programs higher than rating 6. the Fairlight has a rating 12 MPCP, and the program size table goes up to rating 14.

Please read further through the thread and you will find some applicable quotes regarding the armor upgrades, and how they add to the armor value.

EDIT Or maybe you did and you didn't grok? Why would they not talk about the upgrades explicitly in encumberance an page 149? Because that is extra stuff about the armor value from elsewhere. SR4 cut out a lot of bulk, so it tends to have less redundant text referencing other somewhat related rules. It does make it tougher to notice/decode/determine specifics about interactions at times, and it does make things less explicit and more indeterminant. But that is the trade-off for getting rid of the extra wordage.

So you broke down and bought the SR4 BBB, or do you have a research peon (James?) feeding you text from their copy?

One thing I'll add, I think a better idea is to just use the total of the ratings of all the different upgrades as one value to compare to the Bodyx2 for encumberance seperate from the Impact and Ballistic rating. The Chemical Seal, having no rating, will use a value of 6 when calculating this. That allows you to have armored clothing, that has no impact value, with upgrade protection. It might look a bit bulkier, but I like allowing that.

Or at least allow upgrades up to the greater of Ballistic or Impact, which I like a bit less.

re-read. they add to armor value against attacks of the specified type, and only against those attacks. your reading, if you weren't reading selectively, would make it so that armor encumbrance is modified according to what attacks, if any, the character is being subjected to--because that is the only time the character's armor value is (base + modification).

And the Internet before that.

So did everyone else.

When you actually do such a thing, I'll be glad to congratulate you. However, in the meanwhile, it's clear that you're using a twisted version of the rules-- that doesn't even exist in the RAW-- and can be better dealt with through open communication, an exchange of ideas, and fair play.

For example, there's no such thing as a "less perverted" game world. There's only worlds as adjusted to individual playing styles. What you might consider to be perverted powergaming might just be business-as-usual for another group; as long as they're having fun, you've got nothing to brag about. And just because I'd find your emphasis on rollplay over roleplay to be boring, bland, and unimaginative; your habit of making up rules to suit your fancy to be the worst sort of GM favoritism and lack of control, and your repeated bragging about bringing out the Large GM Dildo on players who dare try something you don't like, that doesn't mean that you're not having fun with it in your own limited way. You're free to continue with it, if you like; we're not going to hold a gun to your head. Most inexperienced and novice GM's start off that way; eventually they tend to come around. Some might take longer than others, but it usually happens.

Hasn't come up? Perhaps because it's not a real issue?

Look, you can give it up now. You tried and failed to find major weaknesses in Mr. Lucky's primary stats. You're now focusing on minor details to try and show how the whole character is flawed. You're making logical error after logical error in the process, and trying to cover up your fallacies by throwing insults instead of better arguments. Just back off, and admit you're wrong-- no one on Dumpshock can think any less of you for it.

In other words, screwing with overspecialized characters gives you personal enjoyment as a GM. Yup, we see a picture of absolute GM fairness and creativity now...

Enough of the shadowtalk across the books suggests that he's mundane. Certainly, his exceptional skills predate the Awakening. He's also definitely not an otaku, since he was the one who helped them reveal themselves to Shadowland (in the Denver boxed set).

Yeah, that's the whole point. There's no way that a starting character should even remotely be able to match a decker with that kind of experience. However, you can easily start the game with an identical Hacking skill; and if you're a technomancer, you can even use Threading and Sprites to give yourself more dice that Fastjack could have without GM handwaving.

But there is a point to playing non minmaxed characters. And the point is that you think that these types of characters are bad. I agree, playing uber-badass, super twinked out characters is not my idea of a good time. I prefer to make a character that is pretty good at his thing, and can develop from there. However, I don't think it is the desingers job to keep you from making the super-amazing, ninja monster with no weaknesses. Frankly, if that is the kind of game you like, then that's what you should play! Pass out Panther Cannons at Stuffer Shack if that is the game that let's you and your friends have a good time.

That being said, I do agree that some of the caps in character creation are silly. If someone wants to have sixes in 8 skills or 350 BPs worth of attributes I am not going to stop them. I suppose some sort of thing like that is necessary to allow tournament play and such, but my group just merrily ignores them and we make whatever kinds of characters that we all agree are reasonable for the campaign we are playing in. (Currently a fairly gritty "street" campaign, although we have started to graduate into "real" shadowrunners.)

on the contrary, it very much is their job, if they're marketing their game as being gritty and more street-level.

Getting back to why this thread ended up on this topic, Fastjack is probably not the greatest example of that. Although that could have been made a lot clearer if the core book had been more explicit that a node's Rating is not limited to 6.

I do kind of wonder though why they didn't just say no chargen Skill over 4. Removing 5's and 6's entirely from the picture really helps clear away a big part of the perception of a problem, even the portions of it that are real.

But they don't really compete with the big dogs. Some specialized characters definately can get a bit lucky and put a serious nick in, or even wack a big dog (EDIT: Even non-specialized characters can get lucky, they just need a bit more luck or somewhat more favourable circumstances). Not unlike they could get wacked by a gutter punk that gets a bit lucky.

That is sort of the way of things, if you get into a bad situation bad things can happen to you. In 1981 the US President, surrounded by body guards, was seriously injured and his Press Secretary was given a back-alley labotomy. Was it some elite super-spy? No, it was a certifiable nutjob shmuck that failed to cause a fatality in no small part because he bought and was using a weapon that didn't make a big enough hole.

What happens when you treat NPCs as merely human? They become mortal.

except that being able to make a badass who can keep up with the big boys by default is hardly street-level. moreover, the idea that some random punk ganger is of equal point value with a guy who can keep up with those big boys is ridiculous.

SR4 isn't really any more or less lethal than SR3. like i said--i've seen a 5,000-karma character fight desperately for his life, in SR3.

I would agree, however I'm not aware of anything outlining that as the default.

If anything, the example characters would seem to illustrate the expected build performance levels.

What was he fighting to be desperate with a three digit karma pool?

I always thought this should've been included in earlier editions, anyway. Yeah, if you wanna be the best damned samurai there ever was, go for it. You're gonna get tragically and irrevocably pwned by something outside your expertise. Potentially, something a well-rounded character of the same archetype or focus would survive.

I'd find that delicious.

A single Skill, or sort of two isn't what I'd call a field in most cases. Sometimes the starting character is even further away if there are Positive Qualities involved that in total exceed 35BP. Semantics? Sort of, but calling a Skill a field does envoke extra baggage that I don't think is particularly appropriate. You are certainly aren't going to create the best of an archetype, and aren't going to create one with much of a chance of besting a best of an archetype character in the long run senario.

it realy does depend, what did he spend his points on?

being street isnt equal to being dumb or undertrained. it could allso be that he have specialized in navigating the ins and out of street gangs and they way of life.

part face, part fixer, part brute, all street

Dominate? A field?

That is topping out in a single Skill, not a field, assuming that only one Attribute tops you out there. To do it you mostly blow your load right there, and if there are Positive Qualities beyond you are likely SOL because you used at least 30BP already.

Unless of course your GM is gulible enough to fall for rules lawyering like Incompetence:Exotic Melee Weapon(Large Dildo).

When you then go to build the actual 400BP character is where this myth really comes apart. Now a 500BP character, or even somewhat at 450BP, is a somewhat different matter. It is more the single Skill and Qualities limit coming into effect. But that's a different game.

Dead people aren't so scary.

One dimensional runners aren't particularly scary to GMs either unless they are running a one dimensional game.