Is still valid. The guy is a Rigger, he does Rigger stuff and he does it well, but he can't do jack else. The same would apply to any other archetype that's so artificially focused. My main issue with such a character who insisted on never leaving his van is that I'd find it implausable that such a socially inept hermit could find work.

Why? You're able to talk to all of us without leaving your house, right?

So in the even MORE wired, artificial, used-to-the-technology world of the 2060's, why COULDN'T you do any number of business transactions without ever leaving your van? In fact, given the paranoia and lust for privacy both Shadowrunners and Johnsons are known for, wouldn't it be preferred by many to never have to look one another in the eye, shake hands, and invite physical violence by meeting other meatbags face to face?

EDIT -- and, yeah. Saying "he's only good at Rigger stuff" is like saying "he's only good at everything that happens in the real world or the Matrix, what a loser." It's not like Riggers are just wheelmen. They can handle long ranged combat, they can handle mid ranged firefights/assaults, they can handle explosives, recon, decking, communication, and, of course, chases/getaways...and all from the safety and security of a ridiculously bulletproof van somewhere off-site to begin with (so even if they screw up and a drone "dies" the Rigger's still kicking).

Wow, they can't go astral. They must suck, these Riggers.

I more or less agree with this.
I mean, sure there will be reasons for more than just the face to be there, like maybe you need someone to help the face get the hell out of there if things go bad.

But in general, expecting an entire team of hardened criminals to gather in one room, without any overwatch, with people whom they do not know and do not trust, that's....that's just silly.
The Johnson might as well tell you to meet him at the docks alone at midnight, and be sure you're all standing on the big red "X" on the ground, under the grand piano suspended by a single frayed rope. Can't miss it. Oh, and there will be punch and pie.

there is an actual definition of a munchkin, which as time progresses everyone tends to throw into the same alotment as other roleplaying styles, similar to table top gamers saying "Broken" or "Cheesy."
Calling someone a munchkin is insulting them because they bring nothing beneficial to the gaming table. you also cannot accurately define someone as munchkin by looking at their character sheet. which everyone does. basically the majority claim any character that is min maxed is munchkin.
"A munchkin is a player who plays a normally cooperative game exclusively for the purposes of "winning", usually at the cost of the other players' enjoyment of in an RPG or a MUD game. The term is also frequently incorrectly used in reference to powergamers and to immature players in general."
similar to your statement munchkins are infamous for various degrees of cheating, willfully misinterpreting rules that work against them while loudly proclaiming ones that work in their favor. As a matter of taste they selectively obey the letter of rules while perverting the spirit blatantly.
however the Power gamer attempts this feat as well with a slight alteration, he does it for the benefit of the group. he doesn't get upset when someone else has a more powerful weapon, or effect, or spell, etc... he is glad someone has it.

since you are making the claim I see a lack of evidence....

well established where? dumpshock is not the end all be all and things that are used improperly here does not make them right.
I do not use the search function on dumpshock to define anything, I use the real world. sorry you don't do the same.

I don't need to the information is readily available. but as we will begin arguing it would be best to drop this line of discussion as it is off topic.

I didn't get mad at Kage, I just asked for more than just "words" since a quick history search did not bring up anything relavent. and the history of the word contradicted what was claimed. dumpshock is not a valid source for defining a word. hence I discounted it as credible. as for proof...just look it up. I don't have to hand you a dictionary for that. the definition i gave was quoted, hence italicized

Give me any authoritative source (you'll have to provide an explanation for why it's authoritative, of course), and I'll consider your position. Any whatsoever. I'm all for not letting incorrect use of words become correct by default, but this isn't a word with a long history or anything here.

~J

it doesn't have a "long" history true and the authoritative source is the method for which terms are defined in english, as I have already stated, dictionary.
I could explain that using google to search for a definition will give you a wiki page with a long and detailed description... but I'm sure it would be refuted as not an authority without even looking to the quoted references of the term. hence I said look it up...dictionary...since it did make it into an alternate definition of the word in the dictionary in the 90's

~J

I just read that whole thing. It was both insanely funny and incredibly disturbing.

I'm missing the point?
if you regularly use the wrong word to describe something you go right ahead.

Kage sorry your dictionary didn't have the full definition, I assumed they would, but considering it only had 3, and they were only a few words long at that, its missing alot of info, unless of course you just looked it up online. I'll get the title of the one I referenced and PM it to you.

I'd propose writing up a rule set for Creepwoodrun, but I think it would be too rules-heavy. You'd have to roll each combat round for spontaneous defecation, and then we'd need rules for what happens if you get two or more spontaneous defecation results in the space of less than 5 hours. Do we transition from solid to liquid to straight up acrid intestinal fluid? When does the character experience fatal dehyrdation as from dysentry?

Also, what is the damage code of projectile vomitting?

Charisma is strength of character, yes it effects how you present yourself, but without the skill you could just come across as an arrogant asshole. Good reputation is just that, it's the fact that you have a reputation for being good, and thus people will take you as a veritable 'authority' and will let things slide if you say or do something stupid because you've made up for that failing somewhat in advance, it doesn't mean you will say the right things.

It is the Etiquette 4 is that actually matters, and I'll give you that, but you still can't cut deals or extract information from hostiles.

As for all the team going to the meet - how is that abnormal? 90% of our first contacts with Mr J are in the back rooms of clubs and bars, where security is dealt with neutrally, and any attempt to spy, and by extention overwatch remotely, is nigh impossible. That's all arranged by the trusted 3rd party, usually the fixer, who brings employee and employer together.

I seriously don't get why you think that character is munchkin.

Charisma 6 is a +1/-1 TN on Interrogation/Intimidation (depending on role as target or aggressor). It is also six dice on defaulting to an attribute.

It means a -2 TN on all social skill tests, which means you are more likely to say the right things. Or at least get the right results, which is the important part.

On Negotiation, that character rolls 6 dice at a TN of +2, which isn't fantastic but is serviceable in a pinch. On Intimidation/Interrogation, the character rolls 6 dice with just a -1 penalty. That's plenty for any situation that shouldn't have been left to someone else.

~J

so everyone who doesn't have negotiation and interrogation for their non-face characters is... doing it wrong?

edit: now that i think about it, actually, legwork rolls use the etiquette skill. so the character can do just as much legwork as any other character.

Searching for that I found one on depleted Uranium Bone Lacing.

So I had to like get on my cell and like call all my friends and say," Duude! There is an accident on 5th and Vine. Its like totally rad man. You aught to go check it out."

Ok, so can we now get back on track with this Friendly discussion. Next time I'll pick my topics a bit more carefully.

Here's one.

The one he "referenced" is what I'm curious about. I doubt his "dictionary" is a Webster's.

dictionary

1526, from M.L. dictionarium "collection of words and phrases," from L. dictionarius "of words," from dictio "word." Probably first Eng. use in title of a book was in Sir Thomas Elyot's "Latin Dictionary" (1538) though L. Dictionarius was so used from c.1225.

One of many here, they disagree about whether a book binding is neccessary.

I was bored.

I would have. Mostly because an excuse to wear lycra and assless chaps just makes me grin like an idiot. Screw professionalism.

As for how they can be munchkin-ized? Not a blessed clue.

...well put

...still my all time fave of all the SR supplements.