The link is here.

I have an idea to make logic an important stat. Players will submit ideas to the GM, and the GM will judge whether or not the character is smart enough to think of what the player's thinking of. That way, they'll actually penalize the people who use it as a dump stat, since it isn't really used to do or resist anything as it is. That way, you'll also reward players who have really high logic.

Also, if the character is smarter than the player, the GM will provide active deduction to the player, kind of like in Nigel D. Findley novels where the characters get limited information but deduce all kinds of things about the conspiracies they're caught in.

I just call that good roleplaying...on all of the social stats, I require my players to stick with how their character would act and react...and if it doesn't fit on a regular basis, we just have a talk during a session to get everything back on track...

This seems like a no-brainer and something most GMs would already be doing...

I think that would be difficult and potentially un-fun, for lack of a better word. Sort of a buzzkill for a player who had a good idea that he didn't get to take credit for, and that the GM had to give someone else as a hint later on. Isn't there an idea roll or something, that you can use if players get stuck? Logic+Intuition? I think that's enough. The rest should be in the realm of roleplaying. Even a player who fails to roleplay stupidity will have their character treated as a dumbass if they have lousy mental stats in my game. That's always been enough.

So you treat logic as a sort of intellectual WAAAAAGGH field?

I'm not sure I follow.

The WAAAAAGGH field was a psychometric field generated by all Warhammer 40k orkz. Its strength is based on who's bigger and stronger, and it gets stronger with each fight an ork wins. Orkz with big WAAAAAGH fields lead hordes of orkz against space marines and eldar.

So basically, a WAAAGGH field is a sort of user rating that automatically increases with the brutality you wreak.

Plus, this gets into that grey area that makes people come to blows.

I am smarter than my Ork adept. But she does this for a living. She has experiences I will never understand. I compensate for this by using my smarts. She also has nothing else to focus on but her life, and has often days to come up with what I have 20 minutes to plan.

It comes down to the GM balancing the players, and the players making an attempt at being realistic. I've had times when I didn't suggest something, because I knew my char couldn't comprehend it. I've had times when I made horrific choices because I knew my character would like it.

I've also posted a 6 page proposal on our group forums about our potential magical group, and the way to tweak it to the gills to benefit us the most. Because that's fun for me.

Sometimes even the stupidest people can come up with a great plan because, as was said above, they do this type of thing for a living (and are still alive to brag about it). I don't see this as a problem.

Does this mean if a character has a high logic stat you'll give them advice at all times? After all, I could be playing a character who has a logic stat much greater than mine. Do you give each player his logic score so he knows what logic his character can play as? After all if I'm logic 4 and come up with a plan so should my logic 4 ork adept.

yeah. on the flip side, i take lots of time planning my characters' actions, because many of them are much smarter than i am. and there are times when i'll hand out free advice because there are things that the character should understand that the player just doesn't consider.

to somewhat back up what emo's saying, if a streetpunk ork ganger came up with an idea involving complex chemical reactions, and his player is a chemist in real life, i'd probably tell the player that his character doesn't know enough about chemistry to pull it off, or even come up with the concept in the first place. now, if the chemist player told the player of the ex-scientist-turned-runner about the idea...

I don't see logic as a dump stat. Admittedly, I've seen a lot of chars with a natural logic of 1 or 2, but those are almost alwas augmented with cerebral boosters. Which is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid choice.

My next char, an infiltrator, will have high logic, just to be able to circumvent security devices (hardware+logic).

Tiny the Stereotypical Troll (LOG 1, INT1): "The monster is really Old Colonel Mustard in the the library with the candlestick."

Several hours later

Snooty, the Elf (Log 7, INT 7): "My god, Tiny was right. He must be some sort of idiot savant"

Tiny:"Stop calling my dirty names! I may be an idiot but I ain't no sav-ant."

Yep, I'm in favor of roleplaying around character limitations in such cases.

logig doesn't really mean you can come up with a good plan or figure out a problem. Intuition actually plays more of a role in figuring out puzzles than logic

Logic is useful for a number of different characters. Is it equally useful for all character types? Nope. Nor should it.

A ganger with a Logic of 2 (low-average) should function just fine as your mundane ganger. Subtle B&E is not his forte, nor is the Matrix. His line of work simply does not require it.

A Hacker with a Logic of 2 sucks. Lets face it, he can't make his own programs in a useful or timely manner. He has to buy the stuff and that lead to so many problems its not funny (if the GM is paying attention anyway). The normal usefulness of the hacker for B&E is lost due to the low Logic as well. About half of his knowledge skills (at least) will be affected and Knowledge skills should be useful at least once a Run if not a session.

Its not near as directly useful as Agility or Intuition, but it all comes down to the gameplay. If you have an action heavy style, Logic WILL fall to the way side. If you have a more problem solving style of play, Logic will be be more sought after.

Some stats don't bring the same return as others, its true. Honestly, I think Strength is the most underpowered stat in the game for Shadowrunning. But thats just me.

It all comes down the the character, the player, and the gamemaster.

Not if you use MY rules, which kick so much ass.

I do not limit players to their characters logic.

Now if very badly meta-gaming, I will point out to the player that do they really thing Mr. Drool could think of that...


Now as to 'limit' them its all about how you describe things.

Low Logic / Intutiion character:

You turn into the dark alley and several meta-humans come charging out, screaming with weapons waving.


Mid-range.

You turn into the dark alley and several meta-human are running towards the main street. They have weapons in their hands but they are just waving about as they pump their arms to run.


High-Logic:

You turn into the dark alley and several meta-humans are fleeing from something. They appear reasonably well armed, with weapons in their hands, but it is clear they are just rtying to get away from the area as fast as possible.



'Perception' roll would have been equal on all three. They bothed 'noticed' the same thing. However, as logic/intiution goes up, the character can make a beter 'guess' as to what the clues mean.


The two ways to filter attributess.

1) Remind your players if you feel they are always meta-gaming. IF they are logic-1, Intitution- 1, but then are always they 'instant plan' guy for they team you might want to point that out. Or even require them to spend their karma to raising those stats. (Now if they have the 'skills' and they are the slow methodical type. No problem witha logic 1, Intiution -1 making the plans (with the right skills), just they won't make one in an instant.

2) As the GM YOU direct the action / Draw the scene / Set the mood. Have your narration reflect whom you are talking to. While 'grouped' you have to average it out, (way to slow for most things to explain to each individualy), but especially when the group is split and/or some are suprised make sure you explain the scene as the character would see it.

Bogus assumption. Both Logic and Intuition are important Attributes in Shadowrun. At least in games where the Knowledge rolls are common and succeeding at them represents a tangible benefit....which damn well should be your game because it is one of the real strengths of Shadowrun. High Logic, and Intuition, are very desirable there because even with the -1 die penalty a Logic of 5+ gives you at decent shot at a Threshold 2 Academic or Professional item of interest. And that is before the other Logic/Intuition based Skills.

As for your later suggestion I think it is a patently bad idea to do that only you judge the character as "smarter" than the player, if for no other reason than trying to hang on the abstract Attributes, in all their fuzzy glory, someone's real world abilities. BTW notice the Memory (LOG + WIL) test on page 130. You just roll it when the player isn't getting it. It is an aid to the player, not an always or a conditional replacement.

Also note the Analytics Adept Power, page 174-175 of Street Magic, which gives a +1 die to rolls involving logical problems and such. That provides even more evidence that the rules already assume you are doing this sort of dice rolling for characters. I personally do it a fair amount when the players are dead-ending and aren't picking up what i'm laying down about the clues in play. More than a little bit because verbal description of things the characters are seeing can be a very flawed communication medium.

So I'll periodically give a Logic roll for putting together clues. Sometimes Logic+Intuition or Intuition, depending on the information at hand. That's somewhat non-canon, but not entirely because it is sort of an untrained Knowledge check in a way (but withouth the -1 die).


P.S. Blocking a plan just because the character failed a roll? Now THAT is, IMO, is pulling one of the worst kinds of GM cock-blocks.

Yeah. Knowledge skills should be a big deal. Logic comes into play in other areas, as well. And the GM should curb really bad metagaming.

But handing out solutions or blocking player ideas by GM fiat is really bad. Just like abusing the social skill rules, it is something that takes away player control of their own characters.


Besides, what the hell is wrong with having a dump stat? People always complain about this (it was Charisma for sammies in SR3), and I don't get it. You only have so many points to use, and you're going to put most of them in the areas you're trying to be effective at. There's nothing wrong with a shaman with Strength and Logic of 2. There will still be times when those low stats will be a hindrance - but the GM shouldn't go out of his way to vindictively "punish" the character for it.

Oh, I agree. A GM needs to challenge the players in a variety of ways. Nothing wrong with a player's weaknesses coming into play. And every specialist will wind up out of his/her comfort zone at some point.

But what I was talking about is some of the B.S. that gets bandied about the board - anytime someone brought up a sammie with a low mental stat, people would froth at the mouth and come up with ludicrous tactics for the GM to use against the character. One example:

Ahh then I totally agree also..

Your example are complete BS.

I will never stop a player from doing anything they want....

Now suceeding at what they want is an entirely different thing.

CHA-1 character can THINK they are Fred Astair rolled into Helen of Troy.

Now I might warn them if I think they player would know it is unlikely.

But cha-1 (and no negotiation skill) character:

Player: I set the price for the run at 100,000.
GM: You know this guy looks pretty slick and high-dollar. You think he would be comfortable rubbing shoulders with politico and sim-stars. He looks like the type that was haggling with his mother for his bottle of milk and hasnt slowed down since.

Player: I set the price for the run at ¥100,000
(please make your negotiation roll).

GM: The Johnson listens to your speech and then pauses for a second. Suddenly a smile breaks his face. "You might make that much as a comedian on the vids, but chummer I havent heard anything, nor do I see anything that makes you worth more then X (dropping the planned fee by 5%).
---------------------------
IF they low charisma, no negotiation (or low) continues to try to haggle the tone of the Johnson goes down fast along with the price.



Never stop players from attempting something (save perhaps out-right pure 100% unadulterated meta-gaming), but just because the 'attempt' something doesnt mean they can do it.


Figure in one game I read a friend was playing a 'scholar' mage. Now the friend happens to in real life have quite abit of small units and covert action training.

Once he joined the group he started 'planning' all the ops for the team. NOw the cloest thing to combat expierence the character had was like dodge-2 (From accidents in the lab) and Powerbolt and flamethrower (IIRC).

Well I have always allowed plans to count for advantagous ground, etc and give bonuses. Though generally I will not say the bonuses (atleast until it becomes very evident) but factor it in myself.

Initally while 'militarily sound' almost all of the plans they mage-general made resulted in penalties.

It wasnt until another player raised the question why did all of their planning seem to go bad, that the 'flaws' in the plan were raised. (figure as luck would have it the one that raised the question had Knowledge Small Unit tactics-5 and Knowledge: gurella warfare: 4 (former merc).

From then on out. The mage-general's 'player' would suggest plans, but the former mer character would actually 'make' the plans.

Player A: still felt immersed since he was using 'real life' knowledge to make the fights seem 'realer' to him.

Player B: however suddenly found himself having a much more important roll and suddenly feeling very useful, since he was 'gear'/attribute' wise a little sub-par compare to the sammy and phys-ad, but once he took the LTs job and laid the plans down. The team ran 100% smoother.


Players should contribute so everyone has fun.

Characters can do what ever players want them to. (save gross meta-gaming).

Characters do not always suceed at what they try [b[especially[/b] when attempting things that require skills/stats that they character is very poor in.

While the GM should be allowed to judge if something a character did is appropiate considering his stats, there should not be a hard rule about this.

"Dump stats" vary depending on the area of speciality, and only agility and intuition seem to be spared. Strength on the other hand is too expensive, as was already said.

If you want to avoid dump stats, lower the cost of attributes on character generation ( you know who you are ). Else a certain amount of specialisation is required for anyone, and lower-than-could-be values are an unavoidable consequence of having strong points. Even my samurai would have strength one if I could have stomached the thought. That 20 points did nothing for him, as melee is won via agility.

The dump stats have changed over time. CHA before was almost the Universal Dump Stat™, unless you conjured or were a face-type.(hell, even the conjurer could get aw ay with an average cha.) The other stats were too 'valuable' to dump, Willpower saved you from magic and boosted combat pool, Intelligence boosted initative and combat pool, as did Quickness, INT used to be the Perception roll....INTx5 gave knowledge skills...Quickness helped Firearms...


Now with Intuition and Agility, they seem to be the two new stats..however I notice that LOG has replaced CHA for the dumpstat under this new system.

And yeah, I do tend to think AGL is a bit overused for skills...but im sure there are a few threads discussing that

As for Logic, also remember it does affect Knowledge skills, which can be used in lots of numerous ways to benefit the character. Dumping Logic means you'll miss out on these, which the skills are bought at a 1 for 1 basis with these FREE points. And a clever GM will utilize these knowledge skills. Negotation 6 is nice, but Neg 6 with Knowledge: Underworld Politics 4 and Fine Italian Wines: 3 might just help you in the negotation with that mob boss...and Rifles: 5 are fired much more effectively from ambush while utilizing your Hiding skill and a little ''Improv Camoflage Techniques: 4''.

Hell, if getting lots of free points for upping a stat wont change the players, i don't know what will.

heck, in SR i've never considered char a dump stat, really. sure, it may not have been the stat of choice, but it was never dumpable (it had to be at least average or you faced potential screwage, imo).

but i guess that's just me...

now strength, on the other hand, is probably the only stat i would consider dumping if i was gonna thoroughly min/max a character. of course, if i was going to totally min/max a character, then it would probably be an ork (SR4) or dwarf (SR3), just because they're so efficient... so even then the character wouldn't have strength 1 =P

but anyways, yeah... unless it's a very specific build, who cares about strength?

Well, under SR3 you could dump those attributes you did not use for damage resistance if you considered the number of linked skills you where interested in. It was often "better" to pay higher skill costs and have the attribute point elsewhere. Due to the higher amount of attribute points you got, the difference was just less noticeable. We just have to get used to seeing "below-average attributes" as something very common, what with being much closer to the average than before.

Min/Maxing can hit many attributes. Hard. Speed and strength and reaction and logic can be increased for cheap, at least ingame. Take logic! to the max because it gets you knowledge skills, buy muscle- and reaction enhancers, wired reflexes and start saving for that hyperthyroid gland.

Ahh, i guess on my end ive seen the Logic-dump more.

But a system with Strength-dump...who wouldathunkit? Or Reaction? With Speed Junkies out there? Keep in mind ive only played under 4 a few times

See, in the times ive had GMing, and ive had handfuls of twinks in the past like everyone else, speed max was the first thing they did. Sammies didn't dump Strength, let along ANY Speed stat, from the ones ive seen come out of the factory in the past.

But, then again, with cyber as cheap as it is now....i suppose i see the point. Strength doesnt help enough skills, and it can be bought up the same as Reaction i guess.

BUT, now that you mention it, I do see a lot of what i nicknamed the 'Ork-Troll Mage' characters. Basically, Ork and Troll mages who have their base stats in the Physical area.

Orks make good mages. High payoff for little or no cost, depending on tradition (Intuition is your friend anyway).

Apart from strength willpower will be a candidate for dumping. Mundane spell defense is too weak anyway, so why invest? It´s rather easy to bring it up to acceptable levels after chargen, so why not start at 1?

In practical application, my slightly tweaked samurai got willpower 2 and charisma 2, but bravery on top of that for composure tests.

I think for twinking within the given attribute limit, you need also consider the target dicepools for certain activities. Having the base skills grants +1, and there is no need to break the dicepool system by getting to the insane numbers. And "no need" applies to all players. Those who want the system to work as intended (a requirement to be in my group), and those who crave power but get no return-on-investment if they increase the dicepool beyond the needed mark.

(Sorry if I´m hard to read. I was doing my engineering project till 5 in the morning and four hours of sleep ain´t exactly much)