Full Version: Two is the new Three...
No problem.
Two might be the new three, but the average pedestrian will have a range of 2-4.
IŽd prefer a system were the runners can start higher than above-average (half at 3, half at 4 so far), but can enhance only physical attributes ingame (at some point in your life, intelligence is nearly untrainable. To much retraining required).
IŽd prefer a system were the runners can start higher than above-average (half at 3, half at 4 so far), but can enhance only physical attributes ingame (at some point in your life, intelligence is nearly untrainable. To much retraining required).
| QUOTE (Blade) |
| I don't really get the idea behind this change. |
Point is that it isn't a change. 2 being the average attribute makes more sense when you consider both character generation rules and the real life "attributes" of a population. There's more room above the average than there is below. All I'm talking about is recognising that fact.
@Ryu Intelligence isn't untrainable. I've become steadily more intelligent since I passed twenty, I'm sure of it. Aside from the gradual increase with age (for those who persist in keeping their brains busy), there are numerous techniques you can use to train your brain in many ways. And I am drawing a strong distinction between what I'm talking about and developing skills.
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| @Ryu Intelligence isn't untrainable. |
People know the most at 18. Just ask a high school senior. . . .
| QUOTE (lorechaser) | ||
But why not? This is SR, not DnD. You can are playing a runner with some experience, just getting a rep. You aren't an 18 year old fresh off the farm. For point of reference I'd point to Firefly as the prime example runner team. At the start of the series, they are all fairly competent. Each one has strengths and weaknesses, some obviously min/maxed to max out negative qualities and pump combat abilities to obscene levels with adept powers (River), some are the top of the line in one field, but weak in others (Simon, Wash, Kayleigh), some are pretty well rounded, with one or two strengths (Mal), and a couple are combat focused, but have a few other skills (Jayne, Zoe). They start out fairly able to do things. Over the course of the show, they evolve new abilities, and new skills, but even from day one, they're fairly able to do what they need to do. They don't have to start out rolling drunks for cash and xp - they can jump right in to a train job. |
that's nice. do they start off as the absolute best in the entire universe, such that no one they ever run into will ever be better than them?
i don't care if the runners start off competent. in fact, starting off competent is great. they can be in the top 5% and that wouldn't bother me at all.
what i care about is if they start off as the ultimate grand high emperor of all <insert profession here>. your character should not begin play as the best doctor on the face of the planet (or at least, tied for the best doctor on the face of the planet). it's just silly.
for example, in SR3, if you started off with a logic of 6 and a skill of 6 in various biotech type stuff, you still had a few points of logic ahead of you, and an infinite number of skill points in medical skills. you were still most certainly competent, and indeed adding on to those skills was great, but the GM could still produce someone better than you were in that area without breaking any rules (although certainly once you got to around 8 or so you were probably capable of being world-renowned in that particular area, you still weren't necessarily the best). and these people could be made without making them a lame-o-riffic NPC whose stats are literally "always succeeds, and is unkillable", such that a person who has spent 50 years doing nothing but study and research medicine has better skills than the starting runner (or even when you get later into the game). mainly, i would at least like to see changes made so that you can always grow within your chosen field after chargen has ended.
also, i understand it's gonna cost them a ton of BP. of course, some of that BP is usable elsewhere, but still it's expensive. i just don't care. it's not a question of "is it expensive to do or not", it's a question of "is it possible or not" and the answer is "yes, it is very possible. in fact, it may even potentially be done without screwing the character over much at all.
Unfortunately, you picked a Skill linked to Logic. The best doctor in the world is an Adept with Aptitude, and Exceptional Logic, and more importantly, a Cerebral Booster 3, which is unavailable at chargen. 
Actually, he has Skill Wires Rating 12, which was a compiled by an AI from techniques, and knowledge used by the leading doctors from the last 100 years.
But, yeah. The Adept get's honorable mention.
But, yeah. The Adept get's honorable mention.
By canon, Skillwires are only available up to Rating 5, while ActiveSofts themselves only come in Ratings up to 4. Skill doesn't beat the Adept.
You must have missed the chapter on Skillwires designed by Artificial Intelligence.
For the record, I, too, dislike char-gen that lets a PC hit the hard limit right off the bat - although that's one of the things that Frank Trollman's house rules address.
But to really be the best in the world, you need 30 points of positive qualities (Aptitude and Exceptional Attribute), an Attribute and a skill that are both maxed out at high cost, and a mix of adept abilities and/or 'ware that may or may not be available (at least at the highest levels) at char-gen. You can make a character who slings 20+ dice without too many compromises in other areas, but the game mechanics are set up so that getting the last two or so of the maximum possible dice aren't really worth it.
And it still doesn't address what I see as the most fundamental flaw with the current skill rankings - the actual dice probabilities don't come close to matching the skill descriptions - "Legendary" skill (7) will get you, on average, 1 piddling success more than someone with "Veteran" skill (4). Sure, a high skill will give you an edge against people with lower skills, but they can still get the best of you far more often than they should, if you are really the "best of the best".
But to really be the best in the world, you need 30 points of positive qualities (Aptitude and Exceptional Attribute), an Attribute and a skill that are both maxed out at high cost, and a mix of adept abilities and/or 'ware that may or may not be available (at least at the highest levels) at char-gen. You can make a character who slings 20+ dice without too many compromises in other areas, but the game mechanics are set up so that getting the last two or so of the maximum possible dice aren't really worth it.
And it still doesn't address what I see as the most fundamental flaw with the current skill rankings - the actual dice probabilities don't come close to matching the skill descriptions - "Legendary" skill (7) will get you, on average, 1 piddling success more than someone with "Veteran" skill (4). Sure, a high skill will give you an edge against people with lower skills, but they can still get the best of you far more often than they should, if you are really the "best of the best".
| QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
| You must have missed the chapter on Skillwires designed by Artificial Intelligence. |
Must have. Silly me.
Point in Shadowrun is that the caps mean the best in the world is not the equivalent of a high-level D&D character. He's an extremely skilled person who's still going to go splat when shot by an assault rifle. It's not a problem in game play, so unless someone shares your distaste for the flavour, then they'll never see it as an issue.
I think the problem here is the word average. In some cases and places two would be the average for most attributes.
I usually think in terms of how motivated the character is. If they are unmotivated and not trying to improve themselves or work hard at anything then I give them mostly 2s. If they are go getters and are more likely to try and fight for what they want then I give them 3s.
I agree that I wish there was a better way to deal with attributes in character creation without slowing down the game.
I usually think in terms of how motivated the character is. If they are unmotivated and not trying to improve themselves or work hard at anything then I give them mostly 2s. If they are go getters and are more likely to try and fight for what they want then I give them 3s.
I agree that I wish there was a better way to deal with attributes in character creation without slowing down the game.
@kzt:
The high school senior doesnŽt know what he does not know. IŽll admit that some progress can be made by learning problem solving methods that are applicable to a wide range of problems. Your potential for mental progress depends on what you learned in your youth though. Physical attributes on the other hand can be enhanced easily if the willpower is present.
In game mechanics, IŽd prefer to model mental progression with broader skill increases. One could maybe allow for one later-on increase per attribute, but not more. From a balance perspective, mental stats would have to be more expensive than physical stats.
The high school senior doesnŽt know what he does not know. IŽll admit that some progress can be made by learning problem solving methods that are applicable to a wide range of problems. Your potential for mental progress depends on what you learned in your youth though. Physical attributes on the other hand can be enhanced easily if the willpower is present.
In game mechanics, IŽd prefer to model mental progression with broader skill increases. One could maybe allow for one later-on increase per attribute, but not more. From a balance perspective, mental stats would have to be more expensive than physical stats.
The way the rules are set up, a dichotomy of attributes between physical and mental is horribly ungamebalanced and cannot be sustained.
I think a big problem here is legacy from D&D, where you had your "attributes" that essentially didn't change and represented potential, and "level" which represented how much you had accomplished as a person. In Shadowrun, that's not what they mean.
Your attributes are a measurement, not of potential, but of how good you are at a broad range of activities. Strength is how good you are at running, swimming, climbing, lifting, and punching. Logic is how good you are at mechanics, medicine, hacking, and the sciences. Exercise and good eating habits will improve the former, getting a good general education will improve the latter.
Conceptually, attributes are weird, because they don't represent your "potential" at all. They represent how generally accomplished you are in a field.
---
Now, from a game balance perspective, being generally accomplished in a field (attribute) is much beter than being equally accomplished in a sub-field (skill group) or specific task (individual skill) - so the fact that skill groups don't cost a lot less than attributes is a travesty.
An attribute is just a "Skill Group Group" - the cost savings over purchasing skill groups should be similar to the cost savings of getting a skill group over a collection of skills - discounts of 16.7% are fine, but right now Attrbutes are giving a discount of like 60%, and that's game breaking.
-Frank
I think a big problem here is legacy from D&D, where you had your "attributes" that essentially didn't change and represented potential, and "level" which represented how much you had accomplished as a person. In Shadowrun, that's not what they mean.
Your attributes are a measurement, not of potential, but of how good you are at a broad range of activities. Strength is how good you are at running, swimming, climbing, lifting, and punching. Logic is how good you are at mechanics, medicine, hacking, and the sciences. Exercise and good eating habits will improve the former, getting a good general education will improve the latter.
Conceptually, attributes are weird, because they don't represent your "potential" at all. They represent how generally accomplished you are in a field.
---
Now, from a game balance perspective, being generally accomplished in a field (attribute) is much beter than being equally accomplished in a sub-field (skill group) or specific task (individual skill) - so the fact that skill groups don't cost a lot less than attributes is a travesty.
An attribute is just a "Skill Group Group" - the cost savings over purchasing skill groups should be similar to the cost savings of getting a skill group over a collection of skills - discounts of 16.7% are fine, but right now Attrbutes are giving a discount of like 60%, and that's game breaking.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| The way the rules are set up, a dichotomy of attributes between physical and mental is horribly ungamebalanced and cannot be sustained. I think a big problem here is legacy from D&D, where you had your "attributes" that essentially didn't change and represented potential, and "level" which represented how much you had accomplished as a person. In Shadowrun, that's not what they mean. Your attributes are a measurement, not of potential, but of how good you are at a broad range of activities. Strength is how good you are at running, swimming, climbing, lifting, and punching. Logic is how good you are at mechanics, medicine, hacking, and the sciences. Exercise and good eating habits will improve the former, getting a good general education will improve the latter. Conceptually, attributes are weird, because they don't represent your "potential" at all. They represent how generally accomplished you are in a field. --- Now, from a game balance perspective, being generally accomplished in a field (attribute) is much beter than being equally accomplished in a sub-field (skill group) or specific task (individual skill) - so the fact that skill groups don't cost a lot less than attributes is a travesty. An attribute is just a "Skill Group Group" - the cost savings over purchasing skill groups should be similar to the cost savings of getting a skill group over a collection of skills - discounts of 16.7% are fine, but right now Attrbutes are giving a discount of like 60%, and that's game breaking. -Frank |
Danger, danger, thread convergence detected.
*flails arms about* Here we go again.....
I tend to use 3 as the average mental stat and 2 as the average physical stats.
Because let's face it, the average North American is out of shape!
Because let's face it, the average North American is out of shape!
| QUOTE (Charon) |
| I tend to use 3 as the average mental stat and 2 as the average physical stats. Because let's face it, the average North American is out of shape! |
Lemme wip ethe Cheeto dust off of my fingers, then I'll get you a response.
| QUOTE (Wakshaani) | ||
Lemme wip ethe Cheeto dust off of my fingers, then I'll get you a response. |
Zing!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.