given some of the topics here, it lead me to a question. what is YOUR definition of a starting character? ruled legality aside. for example, without a gm to tell me otherwise, i think most of the example characters in the core book dont qualify as 'starting'. given the skill level descriptions, i would say the max skill level for ANYTHING starting sould be 4. yes, that also probably means a point reduction. the idea is, while said individual is competent at what he does (his profession...call it rating 3 or 4) he is neither 'the best at what he does' or 'legendary'. (both descriptions of skill levels 5+ if i remember correctly). through successfull running, he may GET there (skill/stat increase along with reputation). i would say a single starting character should be able to 1 vs. 1 a liutenant of rating 3/4...but it should be dicey. also, this leaves some room for growth without maxing out everything quickly. this also means a change to how mages develop.
much of this is WAY less of an issue with a good gm. but out of the box without a game to put it in context in, this is how i see it.
thoughts?
Full Version: starting characters
It depends what you're used to. Every version of Shadowrun before 4th ed has basically assumed you're an experienced shadowrunner (or equivalent) as a starting character level. You don't play a ganger just venturing in to the shadows unless you are explicitly playing a low power game.
In 4th ed, the starting point has been moved back a bit, so starting characters are more likely to be new to the shadows rather than an experienced pro
In 4th ed, the starting point has been moved back a bit, so starting characters are more likely to be new to the shadows rather than an experienced pro
A starting character is the product of the character generation rules.
Legality issues aside, yes sir. A starting char may have a great variation of skill levels. You may be a professional anything when you enter the shadows. Exactly those professions who develop runner skills are likely to produce runners. Ex-Military is the most common character background (in my experience) for a reason.
Legality issues aside, yes sir. A starting char may have a great variation of skill levels. You may be a professional anything when you enter the shadows. Exactly those professions who develop runner skills are likely to produce runners. Ex-Military is the most common character background (in my experience) for a reason.
| QUOTE (rythymhack) |
| given some of the topics here, it lead me to a question. what is YOUR definition of a starting character? ruled legality aside. for example, without a gm to tell me otherwise, i think most of the example characters in the core book dont qualify as 'starting'. given the skill level descriptions, i would say the max skill level for ANYTHING starting sould be 4. yes, that also probably means a point reduction. the idea is, while said individual is competent at what he does (his profession...call it rating 3 or 4) he is neither 'the best at what he does' or 'legendary'. (both descriptions of skill levels 5+ if i remember correctly). through successfull running, he may GET there (skill/stat increase along with reputation). i would say a single starting character should be able to 1 vs. 1 a liutenant of rating 3/4...but it should be dicey. also, this leaves some room for growth without maxing out everything quickly. this also means a change to how mages develop. much of this is WAY less of an issue with a good gm. but out of the box without a game to put it in context in, this is how i see it. thoughts? |
Your issue is less one with the mathematics involved (and the character sheets, and even the character generation rules), and more one with the completely insane "ratings" they use in the core book. In a game where you can roll 20+ dice at just about anything if you really want to be good at it, honestly, there isn't nearly the difference between a skill of 3 and a skill of 6 they try to tell us there is. You're paying too much attention to the silly descriptions and not enough to the actual numbers crunch those descriptions should be based on.
Someone with a five or a six, quite bluntly, really isn't the best at what he does, nor is he innately all that fucking legendary. Sorry.
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
Your issue is less one with the mathematics involved (and the character sheets, and even the character generation rules), and more one with the completely insane "ratings" they use in the core book. In a game where you can roll 20+ dice at just about anything if you really want to be good at it, honestly, there isn't nearly the difference between a skill of 3 and a skill of 6 they try to tell us there is. You're paying too much attention to the silly descriptions and not enough to the actual numbers crunch those descriptions should be based on. Someone with a five or a six, quite bluntly, really isn't the best at what he does, nor is he innately all that fucking legendary. Sorry. |
I agree with Critias. My biggest disappointment/frustration with the SR4 rules is that skill and attribute rating ultimately only comprise roughly half of the total possible dicepool. The game's a little too equipment-centric.
I am in very firm agreement with the poster about the bloated dice pools available to characters at the start of the game. This is precisely because the aesthetic that my games lean towards is a grittier, less professional atmosphere where the players are far lower on the Layer Cake than is often the case in most games.
Though the ratings system 1-6 and its correlating descriptions are generally rather onerous, I tend to agree with their descriptions for unaugmented ability. Because few, if any, in the high risk world of shadowrunning (on either side of whatever law is being broken) are unaugmented I tend to think in terms of dice pool instead.
For me, as a GM, I tend to look for players that have a dicepool of 10-14 in their chosen area of expertise. Generally I want something on the lower end, closer to 10-12, but there is a munchkin in everyone. The 12 dice pool is an important threshold for me as it allows the buying of 3 hits - a common threshold for a professional rated task - which allows them to bypass "ordinary" challenges. This is their 'job' after all.
Generally this is a combination cyber/foci/perks that results in enough bonuses to cap out a 5 stat + 5 skill combination. For particularly obscure or dramatic skills (blades - katana for the samurai as an example) I can understand a player pushing the limits and getting closer to the 14 range. Generally this is possible through either hyper focusing (implants to give bonus on casting, perks for bonus on casting, tradition that gives bonus dice to the school of casting desired, high stat, high skill) or direct augmentation (agility 8, strength 8 cyber arm for strategic katana'ing purposes). Sometimes this sort of thing makes sense, other times its just trite. It depends on the nature of the game and the player.
In my experience, most players are really very comfortable with being a trite, over the top badass that bleeds platitudes. To each their own.
But, that said, as a GM I feel that a dice pool of ~10-12 allows for significant growth over a period of even just three or five runs. Within a few jobs netting say ¥5,000 to ¥10,000 a piece, they can get a new augmentation and the karma earned can easily increase a skill rank a level of two. Soon they have a 14 to 16 dice pool, are able to buy that 4th hit...
What is most amusing to me is that very rarely (in my experience) do people make characters designed to wtfpwnbbq with social skills. Generally my 18 dice pool lametards are drone riggers or gunbunnies or powerbolt whores. Luckily SR4 kind of evens the playing field a touch.
Anyhow, thats me ¥2.
- der menkey
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."
~ Ernest Hemingway
Though the ratings system 1-6 and its correlating descriptions are generally rather onerous, I tend to agree with their descriptions for unaugmented ability. Because few, if any, in the high risk world of shadowrunning (on either side of whatever law is being broken) are unaugmented I tend to think in terms of dice pool instead.
For me, as a GM, I tend to look for players that have a dicepool of 10-14 in their chosen area of expertise. Generally I want something on the lower end, closer to 10-12, but there is a munchkin in everyone. The 12 dice pool is an important threshold for me as it allows the buying of 3 hits - a common threshold for a professional rated task - which allows them to bypass "ordinary" challenges. This is their 'job' after all.
Generally this is a combination cyber/foci/perks that results in enough bonuses to cap out a 5 stat + 5 skill combination. For particularly obscure or dramatic skills (blades - katana for the samurai as an example) I can understand a player pushing the limits and getting closer to the 14 range. Generally this is possible through either hyper focusing (implants to give bonus on casting, perks for bonus on casting, tradition that gives bonus dice to the school of casting desired, high stat, high skill) or direct augmentation (agility 8, strength 8 cyber arm for strategic katana'ing purposes). Sometimes this sort of thing makes sense, other times its just trite. It depends on the nature of the game and the player.
In my experience, most players are really very comfortable with being a trite, over the top badass that bleeds platitudes. To each their own.
But, that said, as a GM I feel that a dice pool of ~10-12 allows for significant growth over a period of even just three or five runs. Within a few jobs netting say ¥5,000 to ¥10,000 a piece, they can get a new augmentation and the karma earned can easily increase a skill rank a level of two. Soon they have a 14 to 16 dice pool, are able to buy that 4th hit...
What is most amusing to me is that very rarely (in my experience) do people make characters designed to wtfpwnbbq with social skills. Generally my 18 dice pool lametards are drone riggers or gunbunnies or powerbolt whores. Luckily SR4 kind of evens the playing field a touch.
Anyhow, thats me ¥2.
- der menkey
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."
~ Ernest Hemingway
I never liked games where you start out as a farm boy fighting rats and spend a year working your way up to defender of the galaxy. Since I like movies about highly intelligent people who are very good at what they do, I like games that reflect that. I would never play a Shadowrun game where the characters have to start out as losers.
But having said that, the other posters are right, there really isn't a huge difference between skill 4 and skill 6 in SR, despite what the fluff says. Those 2 dice can be made up any number of ways. If you want your characters to start out as losers, you have to make cuts across the board, probably by reducing the chargen BP to 200-300.
But having said that, the other posters are right, there really isn't a huge difference between skill 4 and skill 6 in SR, despite what the fluff says. Those 2 dice can be made up any number of ways. If you want your characters to start out as losers, you have to make cuts across the board, probably by reducing the chargen BP to 200-300.
| QUOTE (augurer @ Oct 18 2007, 06:41 AM) |
| I agree with Critias. My biggest disappointment/frustration with the SR4 rules is that skill and attribute rating ultimately only comprise roughly half of the total possible dicepool. The game's a little too equipment-centric. |
Generally I keep a pretty tight lid on what equipment my players are allowed to start with and can get throughout a game. Generally, from the look of forum characters posted, the dice pools in my games are 1/2 to 2/3 of what the munchkins on this board consider "standard".
| QUOTE |
| Since I like movies about highly intelligent people who are very good at what they do, I like games that reflect that. |
Ah, the crux of the issue.
A lot of the "problems" with SR4 are disagreements between players and their GM, the GM and the game, players and the game. If a GM takes a moment to explain to players what they are getting into, the players discuss with the GM what they want out of a game and everyone is at least somewhat on the same page, the issue of For a Few Dice More kind of fades to the background.
But lastly... Cyberpunk is all about the chrome augmenting the meat to levels that are essentially 'superhuman'. I certainly hope that SR4 is gear dependent.
- der menkey
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."
~ Ernest Hemingway
Exactly, it's all about what you AND your players want to play.
| QUOTE (nooneshowmonkey) |
| In my experience, most players are really very comfortable with being a trite, over the top badass that bleeds platitudes. To each their own. |
| QUOTE (nooneshowmonkey) |
| Generally my 18 dice pool lametards are drone riggers or gunbunnies or powerbolt whores. |
| QUOTE (nooneshowmonkey) |
| Generally, from the look of forum characters posted, the dice pools in my games are 1/2 to 2/3 of what the munchkins on this board consider "standard". |
| QUOTE (noonesshowmonkey) |
| For me, as a GM, I tend to look for players that have a dicepool of 10-14 in their chosen area of expertise. Generally I want something on the lower end, closer to 10-12, but there is a munchkin in everyone. The 12 dice pool is an important threshold for me as it allows the buying of 3 hits - a common threshold for a professional rated task - which allows them to bypass "ordinary" challenges. This is their 'job' after all, |
I can say that in the campaign I GM, ~13-14 sessions in (with appropriate nuyen/karma dispension), the weapon specialist just recently got the skills (upping skill groups cost a lot
) + ware + toys to drop 12-13 dice while shooting.
...I am in a new 4th ed campaign where the general level is a DP of 10 - 12. I am playing my "Matrix Specialist" Violet (#37) and we are using the "Skill +Logic capped by Programme rating" rule. Now my character does have a hacking pool slightly above this, but when dealing with IC she usually ends up having to hold dice from her pool to suppress IC that she has defeated.
I also rarely if ever take a skill or attribute up to 6 (unaugmented) at charagen, and am a big fan of skill groups. That 25 BPs for the 6 in an attribute is basically 6 rating levels in other skills which I believe is a better investment. Heck for a mundane human (which I usually play), what is there really to spend Karma on except attributes & skills (OK maybe buying off that negative quality however I usually don't do that with ones that are very central to the character's concept). Even my Adept The Short One (#37...another two'fer) has an MA of 5 and no skill above 5.
I also feel that the right negative qualities can also temper a character as well. For example Vi has the Obsessive/Compulsive, Delusions (thinks, no believes, the corp she was extracted from is still out to get her) and mild Technomania ("oohh shiny new gizmo", I want...) qualities.
We recently had our first session, and I found it to be a lot of fun. And yes Vi was forced to cut & run from when "rumbled" by matrix security before she completed what she intended to do.
""but wait...I almost have it , [IC beating on "door"] oh come on guys just another second or two...["door" opens] oh hell never mind, I'm outta here"
I also rarely if ever take a skill or attribute up to 6 (unaugmented) at charagen, and am a big fan of skill groups. That 25 BPs for the 6 in an attribute is basically 6 rating levels in other skills which I believe is a better investment. Heck for a mundane human (which I usually play), what is there really to spend Karma on except attributes & skills (OK maybe buying off that negative quality however I usually don't do that with ones that are very central to the character's concept). Even my Adept The Short One (#37...another two'fer) has an MA of 5 and no skill above 5.
I also feel that the right negative qualities can also temper a character as well. For example Vi has the Obsessive/Compulsive, Delusions (thinks, no believes, the corp she was extracted from is still out to get her) and mild Technomania ("oohh shiny new gizmo", I want...) qualities.
We recently had our first session, and I found it to be a lot of fun. And yes Vi was forced to cut & run from when "rumbled" by matrix security before she completed what she intended to do.
""but wait...I almost have it , [IC beating on "door"] oh come on guys just another second or two...["door" opens] oh hell never mind, I'm outta here"
It really depends on the character type and the kind of game that you want to run. But as others have said, dice pool is a far better indication than skill rating (particular for script kiddies 
). Per RAW though I believe you can only have one skill at 6 at character Gen and skill groups can only go to 4 at Gen.
That being said, its not that difficult to trick out a pretty hefty dice pool even at the start. I had a character that took the role of team sniper and at gen he had Long Arms 6 (Sniper +2) + 5 Agi + Muscle Toner/Augmentation (I always confuse them) 2 plus smartlink which gave him a dice pool of 17 without aiming or using edge. He still had enough BP's left over to still be decent at other stuff to.
Other types of characters might be a little more limited in what they can do (Mages, and TM's for instance tend to shy away from 'ware so it limits the amount of augmenting going on). Of course TM's can compensate via threading and sprites so it evens out.
Feel free to raise or lower the BPs at generation as befits your gaming style. Just make sure that you realize that your PC's will be more or less powerful as a result and adjust your sessions accordingly.
). Per RAW though I believe you can only have one skill at 6 at character Gen and skill groups can only go to 4 at Gen.That being said, its not that difficult to trick out a pretty hefty dice pool even at the start. I had a character that took the role of team sniper and at gen he had Long Arms 6 (Sniper +2) + 5 Agi + Muscle Toner/Augmentation (I always confuse them) 2 plus smartlink which gave him a dice pool of 17 without aiming or using edge. He still had enough BP's left over to still be decent at other stuff to.
Other types of characters might be a little more limited in what they can do (Mages, and TM's for instance tend to shy away from 'ware so it limits the amount of augmenting going on). Of course TM's can compensate via threading and sprites so it evens out.
Feel free to raise or lower the BPs at generation as befits your gaming style. Just make sure that you realize that your PC's will be more or less powerful as a result and adjust your sessions accordingly.
| QUOTE (Gargs454 @ Oct 18 2007, 12:06 PM) |
| That being said, its not that difficult to trick out a pretty hefty dice pool even at the start. I had a character that took the role of team sniper and at gen he had Long Arms 6 (Sniper +2) + 5 Agi + Muscle Toner/Augmentation (I always confuse them) 2 plus smartlink which gave him a dice pool of 17 without aiming or using edge. He still had enough BP's left over to still be decent at other stuff to. Other types of characters might be a little more limited in what they can do (Mages, and TM's for instance tend to shy away from 'ware so it limits the amount of augmenting going on). Of course TM's can compensate via threading and sprites so it evens out. |
These kinds of statements are indicative of the character build process that produces empty character sheets - just puddles of numbers. While dice pool is the better method of determining character strength and weaknesses, the skill and stat caps are there for a reason.
A 6 skill or attribute represents significant natural talent or aptitude, massive investments of time in training etc. To have a 6 attribute would be the result of training on an Olympic level at some point in time. A 6 skill would indicate training in an area of expertise past that of a Navy SEAL or even a Cambridge PhD. The augmentations that allow someone to exceed these natural dice pools are simply that - augmentations that allow the human animal to exceed their natural limits. But the natural limits are very real limits.
A starting 6 in Long Arms with specialty in (Sniper) would indicate either an Olympic shooter or someone who was working with a Spec Ops team for a long time and received highly specialized training... This would probably indicate at least a 5 in the Stealth group with knowledge skills based around observation and communications procedures. Somehow I doubt that this was the case for the character mentioned. If I am wrong, then I am pleased.
When I ask players to make characters, it is done in dialogue with the GM (99% of the time me... damn lazy friends). If they say "I want a 5 in [this stat or skill]", I generally ask them why they want it, what they did to get it etc. Someone who starts with a 6 in Long Arms (Sniper) and a host of 'ware in my games generally has a past that will dog them from start to finish. There is no way that I can think of that you can just "walk away" from a life that involves that level of refined applicable skill, investment in hardware and training etc. and come away clean.
So what does a starting character look like?
I start with 3's in all stats and then bump to 4 a few of the stats that the character uses in daily life, those things that their job is dependent upon and where they excel or break from the norm. From there I try and identify if they are particularly exceptional in a given field and if that warrants a 5 or even a 6. Most of the time I stick with one 5, if any.
Skills are handled in a similar fashion. The area of expertise starts at 3 and gets bumped to 4 if it is the main skill - firearms for a line shooter like a SWAT team member, professional mercenary or security officer etc. Secondary skills are added at rating 1 or 2 depending on their relevance to the field of choice. Continuing the example of a line shooter, that may include first aid or infiltration or any other skills that they would receive training in. Once I have an idea of what sort of skills their profession and background would "train" them in, I pick tertiary skills that fit the character's background and interests, generally ranking 1-3.
Any points that are left over once I buy gear I generally spend on contacts before going back to skills to "smooth it out" so to speak.
Generally this leaves me with characters of 4 or 5 stat and 4 or 5 skill. Throw in +2 for specializations (I often leave this step for once the character has been "inhabited" for a while), +2 for cyber augs and you get between a 10 and 14 dice pool. It can sometimes be as low as 8ish and as high as 14ish... But its usually around 10.
This is the method to my madness that makes me say that a 12 dice pool buying 3 hits to achieve a (3) threshold test makes for a "professional" standard of SR4. This is also what I consider a "Starting" character - a character that has an established background that is expressed in their skills and cyberware with all appropriate drawbacks, flaws and exceptions.
Very few gunbunny types show up in my games because the player does not have a good answer for "where did you get all that cyber from, anyways?".
Starting BP is not exactly the Holy Grail for character creation balance. GM/Player interaction (which comprises basically the whole game) is probably a better starting place.
- der menkey
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."
~ Ernest Hemingway
If the game mechanics don't reflect the fluff that isn't the players problem.
It's the designers problem. Blaming your players for the fact that the game designers don't understand statistics isn't exactly rational.
It's the designers problem. Blaming your players for the fact that the game designers don't understand statistics isn't exactly rational.
That's my thought as well. The fluff and the RAW are at odds on this issue. I like fluff, but since this is fluff that doesn't add much to the game nor even reflects the system being played very well, my group has chosen to disregard that particular bit and just play. It's a lot easier to adjust fluff to fit the realities of the rule system than vice versa, and I see no reason not to do so if that fluff isn't particularly interesting to begin with.
That said, I doubt I'd have any problem adjusting to nooneshowmonkey's chargen system, since it sounds like it'd make things much, much easier on the GM in terms of tailoring things for a particular group, which is never a bad thing.
That said, I doubt I'd have any problem adjusting to nooneshowmonkey's chargen system, since it sounds like it'd make things much, much easier on the GM in terms of tailoring things for a particular group, which is never a bad thing.
..I pretty much like use the fluff as a guideline to develop a character (unless it is one where the GM is pretty much a "killer")
For example on Violet:
For example on Violet:
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE |
| A starting 6 in Long Arms with specialty in (Sniper) would indicate either an Olympic shooter or someone who was working with a Spec Ops team for a long time and received highly specialized training... This would probably indicate at least a 5 in the Stealth group with knowledge skills based around observation and communications procedures. Somehow I doubt that this was the case for the character mentioned. If I am wrong, then I am pleased. |
Actually, the character in question was not that far off from what you suggest. The background was that he had been an operative with the Tir government where he learned his skills and got his 'ware. He was part of a team with each member having a fairly defined role within the group. On the team's last mission, the team got sold out (whether by the Tir gov't specifically or someone inside the Tir government was never discovered -- at least at char gen time ;p). The only members of the team to make it out were my PC and his favorite contact -- the Hacker.
My character had a 4 in the stealth group (max allowed for groups at Gen). He also had high perception and could throw in Disguise, Lockpicking and a little bit of Explosives. I'll confess that with the Knowledge skills I did not do as good a job of keeping the character's story tight and the knowledge skills tended to vary a little, but there was (Tir Politics at least thrown in there). I still have a difficult time coming up with knowledge skills (probably because of the fact that there are no real limits as to what one can choose from -- other than picking something too broad.
I do agree with you that creating a character (role) is as important as creating a roller. Personally, for me the best part is coming up with a character concept and it is much more fun for me to play a "weak" character with an interesting persona and backstory than a "powerful" character who is nothing more than a collection of numbers.
For my new character I'm working on a TM and am still developing his backstory while figuring out what kind of a build will go well with it. I'll confess that I do try to make my characters "effective" but I also like to keep the character concept tight. The GM has said that the campaign will be centered around a lot of the events in Emergence (which I have not read) so I'm leaning toward making a something along the lines of a corporate hack who gets into trouble when his newfound powers start manifesting. Of course, this means that my character will be a liability in any kind of a shootout. The biggest problem I'm having at the moment though is I've never played a Matrix-type before, so I'm struggling with where to put BPs while keeping the character story and stats tight.
im kinda with shadowmonkey on this. (as far as stats and ratings go). 2 things that affect my view here are 1. i have only had 4th edition for a week, and 2. i dont have a game to play in. (working on that via a local game store's forum...but im waiting for posting privileges). also, the idea of starting a character with a 6 skill seems...stupid from an advancement level. unless im reading it wrong, he cant get any better. (strictly from skill advancement. still getting the feel for the added dice from gear). what i REALLY want to play is a troll adept. but im having a hard time with it for several reasons. 1 it costs alot of bp. i tend to run out before i get to buy gear. OR he's WAY to focused on combat. (or both). i guess i need to start with the backstory, not end with it. for those of you who have read 'dead air' im kinda thinking something along the lines of the main character's bodyguard. (forget his name, and the book was lost in a move).
and i guess that is part of my problem. i've read all the novels prior to 3rd edition and with every one i find someone that makes me say 'i want to play that!'.
and i guess that is part of my problem. i've read all the novels prior to 3rd edition and with every one i find someone that makes me say 'i want to play that!'.
'cause i hate starting of as something that just crawled out of some gangs boot-camp most of my characters tend to start of with one thing that is nearly maxed out that totally defines the character-concept . . and then i'd probably just use the rest of the ressources to make sure the character is not lacking too much in most other areas . . and it's much easier to build up level 1 to 3 skills and attributes than it is to build up level 5 to 6 and 7 skills and attributes too . .
| QUOTE (rythymhack) |
| and i guess that is part of my problem. i've read all the novels prior to 3rd edition and with every one i find someone that makes me say 'i want to play that!'. |
Vs my "I want to throw this against a wall?"
(shrug) I have a very broad metric for starting character: a person who has motivation to start shadowrunning with the existing PC group, and is at loose ends to do so. That could be ex-mil and on the run, or ex-mil and discharged due to an injury or internal politics or whatever, or a former Urban Brawler who got cybered by their team, or even a veteran shadowrunner who recently moved to Seattle and has a back-story somewhere else.
I've written a 400 BP mage who could cast illusions at force 5, reasonably often get 5 hits, and soak the Drain... and who also had a decent backstory. Any munchkin can do the former; it's the latter that might motivate a GM to allow the character.
I've written a 400 BP mage who could cast illusions at force 5, reasonably often get 5 hits, and soak the Drain... and who also had a decent backstory. Any munchkin can do the former; it's the latter that might motivate a GM to allow the character.
A crappy character concept is a crappy character concept regardless of the sheet it's attached to. If you can't roleplay your way out of an encounter with a gas station attendant then odds are having a sheet with 80 bps spent in knowledge skills instead of gun bunnery isn't going affect things much one way or the other. I've noticed that tinkering with bps and chargen requirements is most effective when it's used to shake players out of any comfortable ruts they find themselves in (I'm sure we've all ran into guys who play all their PCs as essentially the same gun bunny/shaman/physad/whatever) rather than just arbitrarily lowering dicepools.
I build characters according to backstory, but I largely ignore what it says in the books on skill levels because my GM does too. Also, my players ignore it as well, because I am definitely what you would call a killer GM. I plan well and thoroughly, and I don't slack off. If you can't cut it... well, have fun making a new character or burning edge, as the situation warrants. Burnt edge isn't a freebie in my game either, you are usually left severely injured and in enemy territory. I expect my characters to design characters that are within their limits to play, so we study tactics and we really think things through and try and respond as the characters would. I try not to give them anything their characters couldn't handle if played at about 80 or 90% efficiency. I am not a nice person when I am GMing. Also, we nicknamed ourselves the Jackals because when one of us shows weakness(mental or emotional usually, we tend away from physical violence MOST of the time) the rest of us team up and rip that one to shreds. It just makes them stronger, and amuses the hell out of us. Takes a special person to withstand our table.
Chris
Chris
Too many GMs neglect to talk with the players before introducing sweeping changes to a game, and they end up with disgruntled or apathetic players as a result. I've played in everything from a 40-BP game to an all-cyberzombie game, but I knew what kind of game I was getting into beforehand, each time.
The default rules and setting for char-gen are geared towards making tough, professional-level characters. Sammies and adepts are supposed to leave normal, unaugmented humanity in the dust. Mages are supposed to wield strange and frightening powers. Hackers are supposed to be masters of augmented reality. Runners are supposed to be able to survive things that would kill most people many times over. The normal character creation rules give big dice pools. GMs who don't like them need to realize that they want to run a variant campaign, rather than whining that the rules are wrong. Just be sure that your players want to play in your variant campaign.
The default rules and setting for char-gen are geared towards making tough, professional-level characters. Sammies and adepts are supposed to leave normal, unaugmented humanity in the dust. Mages are supposed to wield strange and frightening powers. Hackers are supposed to be masters of augmented reality. Runners are supposed to be able to survive things that would kill most people many times over. The normal character creation rules give big dice pools. GMs who don't like them need to realize that they want to run a variant campaign, rather than whining that the rules are wrong. Just be sure that your players want to play in your variant campaign.
I was going to post my opinion, but what Glyph wrote will do just fine.
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
Vs my "I want to throw this against a wall?" |
there have been one or two like that. im partial to the nigel findley ones myself. the character is usually not super cyber-man and is in WAY over his head.
Although between games at the moment, considering that the average Dicepool in the Sixth World ranges between 4-8 before equipment modifiers I personally stress to my players that their characters should more-or-less follow the same guidelines, sure I agree that your average Shadowrunner is probably going to be a better shot then your average sec guard, but I disagree that the non-equipment difference should be nearly as much as some people suggest.
Besides, in my opinion, playing in a lower Dicepool Game forces the players to actually think and play their characters as smart, compentant professionals as opposed to simply letting the dice do their thinking for them.
Besides, in my opinion, playing in a lower Dicepool Game forces the players to actually think and play their characters as smart, compentant professionals as opposed to simply letting the dice do their thinking for them.
The problem I have with the dice pools isn't their high size but (as many have pointed out the disparity between skill and equipment), so In my game I've allowed skills to go above 6 but only after char gen and at tripple cost.
With this Ive allowed the quality which allows you to raise a skill to 7 to instead allow you to buy that skill only at double cost instead opf tripple.
This helps the skill based characters actually get better whilst not over balancign the game too much.
With this Ive allowed the quality which allows you to raise a skill to 7 to instead allow you to buy that skill only at double cost instead opf tripple.
This helps the skill based characters actually get better whilst not over balancign the game too much.
Well, speaking in the terms of ''starting character being when they started to run the shadows'', ive seen characters with a few high skills, some with many average, and some with average/low mix. It really, IMO, depends on the game. I can't make a blanket statement. And hell, even someone who was on the streets might have some high skills.
Let's say we have, erm, two gangers, roughly in their earlier 20s(we'll say 23 each), named Smashy and Blasty. Smashy and Blasty are humans. Smashy has been a deliquent most of his life, his ''piece of choice'' being a baseball bat. Hell, he even played little league when he was a kid before he got kicked off the team. His parents were killed in a freak gardening accident and he was on the streets since. At the point he was orphaned(16), having utilized a bat since he was, say, 10, i'd say he could have a 3 in it at least. He's also lifted weights since he was a teenager. He's also been an intimidating chap most of his life. Now, he's 23, used a bat for 13 years, lifted weights for 10, and been scaring people for about that long, so if the player wanted to give him a clubs(bat)5(+2), intimidation(physical)5(+2), and a 5 Strength, with two levels of muscle replacement(recieved as ill gotten gains since he's done a bunch of...fixing sort of work for underground mobs), i'd say that's perfectly ok. And this is in a street campaign. It's possible to have a couple skills that high. I don't see how it's dangerous.
Blasty, on the other hand, got into gangbanging after his parents just up and left him for whatever reason. Blasty has always loved pistols and has done target practice and hunting(with longarms), again, since he was young and went with an uncle who he actually liked but moved to Lapland to herd reindeer. Blasty kept sharp with his guns, and i don't see why, after(say he started at 10, its possible) 13 years he can be a hell of a shot with Pistols and Longarms.
I guess ive always been a little confused why so many GMs are allergic to a character that can throw a high dice pool for ONE or MAYBE two skills. It doesn't make them better, i mean, if character A can throw 22 dice in pistols and character B can throw 13 dice in ALL the firearms, isn't B the one to worry about more? Take away A's pistol and he's just not as effective anymore. B, on the other hand, is alot harder to bring down, in a way..IMO. You have to take away his pistol, and his shotgun, and his rifle, and the pistol he has hidden under his pant leg, and the squirt pistol on the small of his back, AND the assault rifle in his trunk...but since he also balanced it out being able to throw 10 dice unarmed it's not even as bad as A, who didn't even bother since all his resources went to the pistols.
That being said, ive played the wide gamut of characters. Interestingly enough, the highest dice pools ive had was with a bouncer-adept, but those pools happened to be Intimidation and Perception.
When i play with my old friends, we don't even bother using availability. We know how each other plays and don't see a point of limiting that, as it rarely goes out of line, and even if it does we laugh about it since we're just honest with each other. That and we tend to figure out what kind of game we are going to play first and go from there(more professional, street level, mixed)...However, i'd use availability if i didn't know the people. I'd keep the limits as is though(one stat at 6, either 1 6 skill and others at 4 or less, or 2 5s, rest at 4 or less.)
It's not high dice pools that alarm me, it's either A. MANY really high dice pools with no explanation(if you have a good explanation, though, then ill listen of course and see from there) or B. the little, hidden stuff that sort of ''pops out''. Granted, if someone has a particularly young character, i would want a good explanation for a high skill..but i wouldn't rule it out. Ive known younger folks who were really, really good at things. If it can happen in real life, it can certainly happen in a game where devil rats crawl around the streets, dragons own corporations and your neighbor happens to be 4 feet tall, 110 years old and still running daily laps.
Anyhow, yeah, a starting character to me is one that a player makes for a game that's starting. Be it a professional who left, or a totally wet behind the ears 18 year old who was abandoned, or someone in between.
I also wanted to say that im not supporting ''munchkinism'' here....i just don't see a big problem with folks who throw a nice handful of dice for their specialized skills. Ive learned the more specialized, the more they pay in other areas.
Let's say we have, erm, two gangers, roughly in their earlier 20s(we'll say 23 each), named Smashy and Blasty. Smashy and Blasty are humans. Smashy has been a deliquent most of his life, his ''piece of choice'' being a baseball bat. Hell, he even played little league when he was a kid before he got kicked off the team. His parents were killed in a freak gardening accident and he was on the streets since. At the point he was orphaned(16), having utilized a bat since he was, say, 10, i'd say he could have a 3 in it at least. He's also lifted weights since he was a teenager. He's also been an intimidating chap most of his life. Now, he's 23, used a bat for 13 years, lifted weights for 10, and been scaring people for about that long, so if the player wanted to give him a clubs(bat)5(+2), intimidation(physical)5(+2), and a 5 Strength, with two levels of muscle replacement(recieved as ill gotten gains since he's done a bunch of...fixing sort of work for underground mobs), i'd say that's perfectly ok. And this is in a street campaign. It's possible to have a couple skills that high. I don't see how it's dangerous.
Blasty, on the other hand, got into gangbanging after his parents just up and left him for whatever reason. Blasty has always loved pistols and has done target practice and hunting(with longarms), again, since he was young and went with an uncle who he actually liked but moved to Lapland to herd reindeer. Blasty kept sharp with his guns, and i don't see why, after(say he started at 10, its possible) 13 years he can be a hell of a shot with Pistols and Longarms.
I guess ive always been a little confused why so many GMs are allergic to a character that can throw a high dice pool for ONE or MAYBE two skills. It doesn't make them better, i mean, if character A can throw 22 dice in pistols and character B can throw 13 dice in ALL the firearms, isn't B the one to worry about more? Take away A's pistol and he's just not as effective anymore. B, on the other hand, is alot harder to bring down, in a way..IMO. You have to take away his pistol, and his shotgun, and his rifle, and the pistol he has hidden under his pant leg, and the squirt pistol on the small of his back, AND the assault rifle in his trunk...but since he also balanced it out being able to throw 10 dice unarmed it's not even as bad as A, who didn't even bother since all his resources went to the pistols.
That being said, ive played the wide gamut of characters. Interestingly enough, the highest dice pools ive had was with a bouncer-adept, but those pools happened to be Intimidation and Perception.
When i play with my old friends, we don't even bother using availability. We know how each other plays and don't see a point of limiting that, as it rarely goes out of line, and even if it does we laugh about it since we're just honest with each other. That and we tend to figure out what kind of game we are going to play first and go from there(more professional, street level, mixed)...However, i'd use availability if i didn't know the people. I'd keep the limits as is though(one stat at 6, either 1 6 skill and others at 4 or less, or 2 5s, rest at 4 or less.)
It's not high dice pools that alarm me, it's either A. MANY really high dice pools with no explanation(if you have a good explanation, though, then ill listen of course and see from there) or B. the little, hidden stuff that sort of ''pops out''. Granted, if someone has a particularly young character, i would want a good explanation for a high skill..but i wouldn't rule it out. Ive known younger folks who were really, really good at things. If it can happen in real life, it can certainly happen in a game where devil rats crawl around the streets, dragons own corporations and your neighbor happens to be 4 feet tall, 110 years old and still running daily laps.
Anyhow, yeah, a starting character to me is one that a player makes for a game that's starting. Be it a professional who left, or a totally wet behind the ears 18 year old who was abandoned, or someone in between.
I also wanted to say that im not supporting ''munchkinism'' here....i just don't see a big problem with folks who throw a nice handful of dice for their specialized skills. Ive learned the more specialized, the more they pay in other areas.
You see, in my games I'd much rather have a player who has ( Dicepool 13 ) with any gun he can pick up then one with ( Dicepool 22 ) with only pistols. For me at least it isn't about having the ability to take away a player's toy and showing everyone how useless and one-sided the character really is, I'm not out to "win" against the players.
What my problem with the hyper specialist is that I simply don't think they make a realistic protrayal of what a Shadowrunner would have to be in order to thrive in the Sixth World as I see it, as a Mr. Johnson I want to know that the crack team of scrum I just hired will still be able to pull off the job if one or more of the team catches a stray bullet, not that I have a team consisting of the best of the best, provided that the team is able to remain intact.
Besides, in the world of lower dicepools that is Fourth Edition, I don't happen to agree that "I was in Special Forces" is an excuse to buy outrageous combat skills, especially considering that most of the time things which I'd consider just as important such survival, contacts, ect tends to be forgotten or only thrown in as a token.
What my problem with the hyper specialist is that I simply don't think they make a realistic protrayal of what a Shadowrunner would have to be in order to thrive in the Sixth World as I see it, as a Mr. Johnson I want to know that the crack team of scrum I just hired will still be able to pull off the job if one or more of the team catches a stray bullet, not that I have a team consisting of the best of the best, provided that the team is able to remain intact.
Besides, in the world of lower dicepools that is Fourth Edition, I don't happen to agree that "I was in Special Forces" is an excuse to buy outrageous combat skills, especially considering that most of the time things which I'd consider just as important such survival, contacts, ect tends to be forgotten or only thrown in as a token.
I can understand that; i mean, i don't play against the characters myself, im hoping i didn't come across as that, if i did i didn't mean to. Honestly, the ''balanced generalist'' character i really like. I think what i was trying to say, that alot of folks that see a large dice pool and find it ''imbalanced'', don't realize that they paid a big price for said dicepool. Also, the player should know the drawbacks of this; im not going to TRY to screw them, but ill play it as it runs, and when you can only do one thing, the chances of you being sidelined are higher naturally.
But if someone really wants to play an uber-specialist, for whatever reason, if they have a really cool idea they want to run with, by doing too much pool-capping, they don't even get that chance. Their ''uber-specialist'' is stuck at 12 dice, which is something that a decent corp guard(not Mr. Elite but not the guy at the door) can reach(figuring 4 agility with some light corporate wiring of +1 for 5), a 4 pistols and 2 for a smartlink. Ok, so thats 11 dice, or 10 w/o the wiring, but it's far from being a ''super-specialist''.
And yeah, I notice that special forces type characters do tend to have some other things forgotten. I mean, there are so many points to go around. But i mean, if someone asked me ''i have firearms group 4, should i take close combat up to 4 from 3, or take Survival(Wilderness) 2(+2)? Of course, i'd suggest the latter.
I guess in the end im saying im not against a super-specialist, OR a generalist, as long as the player has a good idea and is really into the character.
EDIT: I can also see your concern with a super-specialist not being able to fit in the shadows. One instance, perhaps the character just isn't a shadowrunner; but was a trick shooter. One of those really excellent pistol shooters that does stunt shows. this character probably never killed anyone in his life. Let's say that he is also wired up a bit, he decided to go under the knife to create flashier stunts for the crowd. Well, maybe he ran into some money trouble after this(or, he could be an adept who ran into money trouble), borrowed from the wrong people, bad stuff happened, and he had to lay low. It's a springboard for a life in the shadows, and nothing is saying a starting character has to be a runner-type right off the bat, for this guy, it would make sense that his skillset was really high in Pistols, and peraps some athletics and etiquette to please the crowd, but his runner-type skills will develop later. He could still be of some use to a team, however...anyone that much of a crack shot can come in handy.
It doesn't sound realistic for, say, an ex Special Forces to have NO Athletics, Stealth or Survival skills and contacts, but it's not so hard to believe the only things the ganger knows how to do is hit people with a bat, scare them, or scare them while hitting them with a bat.
Also, if someone wants the super-specialist, character creation as a group works well for this; everyone can figure out what they want to do and maybe the super-specialist will not be too out of place. If you get three folks saying ''Ive got the face'' ''Ive got the rigger/hacker/techie!'' ''Ive got the combat mage whose handy with a sword'', then having that pistol specialist might not be too bad for the group.
An entire group of specialists, two of which are gun, one sword and another with nothing but B/R might indeed reach a problem.
But if someone really wants to play an uber-specialist, for whatever reason, if they have a really cool idea they want to run with, by doing too much pool-capping, they don't even get that chance. Their ''uber-specialist'' is stuck at 12 dice, which is something that a decent corp guard(not Mr. Elite but not the guy at the door) can reach(figuring 4 agility with some light corporate wiring of +1 for 5), a 4 pistols and 2 for a smartlink. Ok, so thats 11 dice, or 10 w/o the wiring, but it's far from being a ''super-specialist''.
And yeah, I notice that special forces type characters do tend to have some other things forgotten. I mean, there are so many points to go around. But i mean, if someone asked me ''i have firearms group 4, should i take close combat up to 4 from 3, or take Survival(Wilderness) 2(+2)? Of course, i'd suggest the latter.
I guess in the end im saying im not against a super-specialist, OR a generalist, as long as the player has a good idea and is really into the character.
EDIT: I can also see your concern with a super-specialist not being able to fit in the shadows. One instance, perhaps the character just isn't a shadowrunner; but was a trick shooter. One of those really excellent pistol shooters that does stunt shows. this character probably never killed anyone in his life. Let's say that he is also wired up a bit, he decided to go under the knife to create flashier stunts for the crowd. Well, maybe he ran into some money trouble after this(or, he could be an adept who ran into money trouble), borrowed from the wrong people, bad stuff happened, and he had to lay low. It's a springboard for a life in the shadows, and nothing is saying a starting character has to be a runner-type right off the bat, for this guy, it would make sense that his skillset was really high in Pistols, and peraps some athletics and etiquette to please the crowd, but his runner-type skills will develop later. He could still be of some use to a team, however...anyone that much of a crack shot can come in handy.
It doesn't sound realistic for, say, an ex Special Forces to have NO Athletics, Stealth or Survival skills and contacts, but it's not so hard to believe the only things the ganger knows how to do is hit people with a bat, scare them, or scare them while hitting them with a bat.
Also, if someone wants the super-specialist, character creation as a group works well for this; everyone can figure out what they want to do and maybe the super-specialist will not be too out of place. If you get three folks saying ''Ive got the face'' ''Ive got the rigger/hacker/techie!'' ''Ive got the combat mage whose handy with a sword'', then having that pistol specialist might not be too bad for the group.
An entire group of specialists, two of which are gun, one sword and another with nothing but B/R might indeed reach a problem.
Aye, good points, the only thing is personally I'm not entirely sure that I'd consider the trick shooter to necessarily have a massive dicepool, although I could easily be mistaken it is my understanding that trick shooters tend to have their praticed routines.
But still, I fully admit that I'm bias towards the generalist and lower natural dicepool games, however just to be clear, I don't actually impose a hard and fast cap on dicepools, even though I also don't allow characters that I don't consider fairly well rounded to play in my campaigns either. (But then again I usually do the actual number-crunching char-gen for my players anyways based off their imput.)
But still, I fully admit that I'm bias towards the generalist and lower natural dicepool games, however just to be clear, I don't actually impose a hard and fast cap on dicepools, even though I also don't allow characters that I don't consider fairly well rounded to play in my campaigns either. (But then again I usually do the actual number-crunching char-gen for my players anyways based off their imput.)
You can't really play an ex-special forces type in SR4. You could make a semi-decent approximation of one in SR3, but in SR4, you can't really play the "skill guy" like you could in SR3, where you could get 50 points in skills, yet still be halfway decent in other areas. It's a shame, because it's one of the things I miss about SR3.
As far as super-specialists fitting in the shadows, they will be about where a starting generalist is, at the mid-to-low end of the shadowrunning talent pool. Low if the super-specialist is too specialized, or the generalist is too spread out. Mid-level if the specialist has enough core essential skills that he can function outside of a team if he absolutely has to, or if the generalist has one or two skills that he or she is not merely competent, but damn good in. Specialists will also have differing success depending on what they are specialized in. A specialist in hacking, spellcasting, or medical care will be in high demand, while someone specializing in guns or fists will be in demand, but will be considered mere muscle for the most part.
But there is nothing magical about generalists, or lower dice pools, that produces superior characters or better roleplaying.
As far as super-specialists fitting in the shadows, they will be about where a starting generalist is, at the mid-to-low end of the shadowrunning talent pool. Low if the super-specialist is too specialized, or the generalist is too spread out. Mid-level if the specialist has enough core essential skills that he can function outside of a team if he absolutely has to, or if the generalist has one or two skills that he or she is not merely competent, but damn good in. Specialists will also have differing success depending on what they are specialized in. A specialist in hacking, spellcasting, or medical care will be in high demand, while someone specializing in guns or fists will be in demand, but will be considered mere muscle for the most part.
But there is nothing magical about generalists, or lower dice pools, that produces superior characters or better roleplaying.
| QUOTE (Glyph @ Oct 18 2007, 08:28 PM) |
| The default rules and setting for char-gen are geared towards making tough, professional-level characters. Sammies and adepts are supposed to leave normal, unaugmented humanity in the dust. Mages are supposed to wield strange and frightening powers. Hackers are supposed to be masters of augmented reality. Runners are supposed to be able to survive things that would kill most people many times over. The normal character creation rules give big dice pools. GMs who don't like them need to realize that they want to run a variant campaign, rather than whining that the rules are wrong. Just be sure that your players want to play in your variant campaign. |
Amen to that one. If you don't want to see certain things in your campaign you need to be proactive about it and play the game you want to play. Der Menkey's preferred starting level of power sounds diametrically opposed to that seen within my former group; using the standard total of bps we routinely pulled off runs that would reduce "normal" people to small bloody piles in short order. Frankly, I'm glad Der Menkey altered the way he handles character creation; I know how powerful a 400 bp character can be and I'm sure that his runs could have risked seeming rather silly and disingenuous if he tried to portray a bunch of unrestricted, carefully tuned 400 bp characters as greenhorns instead of prime runners in the making. I just wish more GMs would grab the bull by the horns rather than shake their fists in dismay when a generic guideline doesn't fit their needs.
I'm running a new 4th edition campaign and I wanted to do more street. We are all new to 4th and it has been 5 years since I ended my nine year long SR campaign.
I didn't want to take too many points away because we were all new to the game. So I ended up limited the money the PCs had.
That keeps the cyberware, foci, binding materials, and equipment down. I also asked the adept to only take Increased Reflexes I rather than II since the Street Samurai only had wired I.
So far so good.
I don't know about having a five or six in a skill, but one thing to remember is that with skill wires, Know Chips, virtual learning programs, simulations, "danger rooms", and outright games and the like people can learn almost any skill with out ever leaving home.
VR training programs are also used to explain how Humanis goons and all sorts of terrorist get so good with firearms. Also play up the time it takes to get and keep that a 5 or 6 level skill.
On real world example, I remember being at a convention and a marine was telling me how impressed he was with the tactics kids were using in roleplaying tournaments. Once a person had a chance to learn the difference between VR and real world they can end up with some interesting skills.
It seems to be working.
I didn't want to take too many points away because we were all new to the game. So I ended up limited the money the PCs had.
That keeps the cyberware, foci, binding materials, and equipment down. I also asked the adept to only take Increased Reflexes I rather than II since the Street Samurai only had wired I.
So far so good.
I don't know about having a five or six in a skill, but one thing to remember is that with skill wires, Know Chips, virtual learning programs, simulations, "danger rooms", and outright games and the like people can learn almost any skill with out ever leaving home.
VR training programs are also used to explain how Humanis goons and all sorts of terrorist get so good with firearms. Also play up the time it takes to get and keep that a 5 or 6 level skill.
On real world example, I remember being at a convention and a marine was telling me how impressed he was with the tactics kids were using in roleplaying tournaments. Once a person had a chance to learn the difference between VR and real world they can end up with some interesting skills.
It seems to be working.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| But there is nothing magical about generalists, or lower dice pools, that produces superior characters or better roleplaying. |
Glyph I pretty much agree with your post with the exception of the above quote (Well, I'm not entirely sure that we agree on what skill rankings Special Forces should have, but that is a minor quibble.) perhaps it's just a fluke, but in my experience lower dicepools do lead to better tactics and smarter plans on the part of the players.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying better roleplaying so it's possible that your remark wasn't aimed at me at all, but I do think that it's important to note that yes at least in my experiences there seems to be a "magical" change in playstyles that happens when the Players realize that yes, they really do need to scrape every last positive modifier they can while heaping the negatives upon their foes in order to get out of whatever fragging mess they've gotten themselves into this time. Now granted, I loathe the Gaming Police as much as anyone does and if people enjoy large dicepools then the more power to them, but I personally believe that the rules and setting weren't written to be nearly as solid at the higher levels as it seems to be when you stick to the lower ends where facing a sec guard with a natural Dicepool of 4-8 before equipment is a reasonable challenge.
The problem here is that hyperspecialists need not stink everywhere else. With dice pools of 4-10 everywhere outside their specialty, they're going to be no worse off than many generalists, and have a hyperspecialized trick or two to boot.
| QUOTE (Ravor) | ||
Glyph I pretty much agree with your post with the exception of the above quote (Well, I'm not entirely sure that we agree on what skill rankings Special Forces should have, but that is a minor quibble.) perhaps it's just a fluke, but in my experience lower dicepools do lead to better tactics and smarter plans on the part of the players. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying better roleplaying so it's possible that your remark wasn't aimed at me at all, but I do think that it's important to note that yes at least in my experiences there seems to be a "magical" change in playstyles that happens when the Players realize that yes, they really do need to scrap every last positive modifier they can while heaping the negatives upon their foes in order to get out of whatever fragging mess they've gotten themselves into this time. Now granted, I loathe the Gaming Police as much as anyone does and if people enjoy large dicepools then the more power to them, but I personally believe that the rules and setting weren't written to be nearly as solid at the higher levels as it seems to be when you stick to the lower ends where facing a sec guard with a natural Dicepool of 4-8 before equipment is a reasonable challenge. |
I agree that lower dice pools can make PCs use better tactics, simply to survive, but you don't have to limit the characters to get that same effect, not in an incredibly lethal game like Shadowrun. And players might not like that style of play - they may rather shoot it up than have to worry about every little thing potentially killing them, like a first-level D&D character wary of rats and kobolds. That goes back to my point of letting players know what kind of game they're getting into.
But I wasn't responding to your post about tactics, so much as I was responding to the general tone of snobbery I see so much on the boards, where the overused munchkin label gets trotted out whenever the prospect of a character being effective in a specialty gets raised.
As far as special ops go, it's not so much the skill ratings, but the overall breadth of skills that you would need, that make it so difficult to approximate that kind of character. Mercs or corporate expediters are more believable, as they could believably have a narrower range of skills. I agree with Frank that skills are overpriced compared to Attributes. I like his house rules, because they redress that, as well as resolving the fluff not matching the reality by capping skills at a higher rating.
Very good points, I'm a big believer in letting the players know roughly what type of "feel" the campaign is going to have, although I'm known for putting some sort of twist into things to shake things up as well, but yeah, when you game with me you are usually signing up for a very specific experience and "mood", and based off the reaction I get on these boards when the subject of how dark and cyberpunkish the Sixth World is and should be it's not for everyone. (Although it should be, damn mind control ray is on the frizt again...) 
However, from my perspective, although I do see the "Characters must be crippled to roleplay" snobbishness and get tired of it, I also get tired of what I see as the other side whining about how broken this or that aspect of the rules are when you start slinging massive amounts of dice. (Screaming naked orange men and faces that piss on a Don's mother come to mind as fairly good examples. ) ---Granted, I agree that something is wrong when starting characters can achieve that power level, but never-the-less it is still something that I find fusterating.
Oh well, that turned out to be more rambling then I intended, and I think we agree more then we disagree, we just enjoy difference types of campaigns and there isn't anything wrong with that.
However, from my perspective, although I do see the "Characters must be crippled to roleplay" snobbishness and get tired of it, I also get tired of what I see as the other side whining about how broken this or that aspect of the rules are when you start slinging massive amounts of dice. (Screaming naked orange men and faces that piss on a Don's mother come to mind as fairly good examples.
) ---Granted, I agree that something is wrong when starting characters can achieve that power level, but never-the-less it is still something that I find fusterating.Oh well, that turned out to be more rambling then I intended, and I think we agree more then we disagree, we just enjoy difference types of campaigns and there isn't anything wrong with that.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| I agree that lower dice pools can make PCs use better tactics, simply to survive, but you don't have to limit the characters to get that same effect, not in an incredibly lethal game like Shadowrun. And players might not like that style of play - they may rather shoot it up than have to worry about every little thing potentially killing them, like a first-level D&D character wary of rats and kobolds. That goes back to my point of letting players know what kind of game they're getting into. But I wasn't responding to your post about tactics, so much as I was responding to the general tone of snobbery I see so much on the boards, where the overused munchkin label gets trotted out whenever the prospect of a character being effective in a specialty gets raised. As far as special ops go, it's not so much the skill ratings, but the overall breadth of skills that you would need, that make it so difficult to approximate that kind of character. Mercs or corporate expediters are more believable, as they could believably have a narrower range of skills. I agree with Frank that skills are overpriced compared to Attributes. I like his house rules, because they redress that, as well as resolving the fluff not matching the reality by capping skills at a higher rating. |
Also nice points made here. See, when i was first getting into Shadowrun, it was around SR2 and i had been a longtime AD&D player. I was maybe 16 at time time(ok, longtime player being about 8 years, im not ancient
) Now, while the campaign ended up screwing us pretty bad(long story and rather hilarious that we looked back on it...it started with combo GMs, switched to another, and switched to get ANOTHER, all of who were involved in playing on the 11 person runner team, and this person had no SR GMing experience, and...yeah...ill tell the story sometime), the one thing i remember is that i could start with a competent, skilled, fairly scary character, which compared to a D&D starting character, was a god....HOWEVER, was still a little fish in the big pond. My first character was a sam, and the GMs even helped us with our characters, giving us cool hints of cool toys and ware to pick up. And i STILL felt, even before the big screwing happened, that i wasn't some god, even though i didn't fear rats and kobolds anymore. SRs power level seems to go ''competent to really competent to really fragging competent'', but still ''oh, but there is still stuff out there waaaay better than you'', while other level-based games go from ''you suck'' to ''youre awesome' to ''god'' with very little in between. Ok, i suppose some maged in SR can get to that ''youre really awesome'' range, but still, again, there's stuff that scares them still.
I too can usually tell whether a post is just saying how someone prefers to run a more street-level game, and one that praises how ''low stuff is better roleplaying and if you are skilled youre a munchkin!!'' I havn't seen too many in this thread but ive seen them in my time. I must be a horrible munchkin to those people, since i actually have a couple of characters who can throw 15 dice in a skill or two.
As for the special ops comment and the 'breadth' of skills you mention, i agree there too. Funny thing is, in SR4, with the Skill Group system, youd THINK this is perfect for such characters. I mean, what better way to make sure someone can get a range of Influence skills(handy for special forces, they dont ONLY shoot), Firearms skills(and yes, they also do shoot), and Survival skills, and possibly some technical and stealth skills. Should be easier than SR3, right? Hell, in SR3, unless you used the points system, you were limited to 50 points and had to buy them all seperately!
Well, this is sort of where it can fall flat. 400 points can make a damned good character, im not saying that. It's treated me very well and only once was i dissapointed(and that was when i was trying to DIRECTLY convert an SR3 character, whom seemed to have lost half of their stuff in the process. I then learned that using it from the getgo was much, much better.) Where it falls flat is with some character types. As Ravor states, we might have different ideas of what goes into a special forces character, but this is my idea:
Attribute-wise, you're not going to be a slouch; youll probably burn the full 200, since you wont be physically bad, nor crude and unlearned. Skill-wise youll probably want groups of Firearms, Close Combat, Stealth, Athletics, Influence, Survival and maybe Electronics, along with the non-grouped skills of Dodge, Armorer, a Pilot skill, Perception, and some First Aid. And youll probably want these around 2-4 to get a really good picture of the Special Forces, with some 1s peppered in, for things like Electronics, which i can believe will just be a smattering of knowledge. But you will run dry of points REALLY quick here. Dont forget lots of contacts and some good gear as well. In addition, you might even end up purchasing firearms seperately so you can have one at 5, or, better yet, youll end up purchasing ONE of those groups seperate so you can have 1-2 of your ''best'' skills at five, which will indeed jack the costs up.
(BTW: I apologize for the long post, its taken me more words than i thought to go over this. Back to discussion.
)Now, I guess you could maybe axe the Electronics Group and drop Stealth, Influence, and Close Combat down 1 each..but thats a handful points in which to purchase the other skills. I think you see what i mean. Hes going to have alot of 2s and 1s in there, with a couple of 4s and 3s. (Lets not forget his knowledge skills. He probably has a good showing there and speaks a couple of languages).
What we have after the whole thing is a character with a light showing in about everything. A jack of all trades, master of none? Yes, we have done that. A highly skilled and decorated ex Special Forces character who has entered the military at 18, served his whole life and is now, say 35 or more? Not quite. Almost 20 years in service, traveling around, is a LOT of time to learn things.
It doesn't have to be superman. Honestly, the guy i mentioned above, i'd consider Special Forces if the majority of his skills were in the 3 range, even, which isn't THAT much more, but it's there. Perhaps im being a bit too...SR3, though. I admit that sometimes i find myself ''thinking in SR3'' if that makes sense to you, and i sometimes forget that ''X in SR3 is more like X in SR4.''(ie, a 4 in an attribute in SR3 is more like a 3 nowadays.) That could end up coloring my opinion.
Then again, that whole skill mess could indeed be caused by the skills costing too much. I am kind of on that boat, as well.
And Ravor, i also agree that it's probably just a case of enjoying different types of campaigns. Im in that...SR3 sort of mindset, where i don't have to be ''supar at everything with kewl powerz!!!'', but i also want to be pretty competent.
Not that i dont MIND a good gutterpunk or uber-skilled campaign now and then, but i kind of like mine in a happy medium. Like, competent characters in tough situations kind of thing. | QUOTE |
| Im in that...SR3 sort of mindset, where i don't have to be ''supar at everything with kewl powerz!!!'', but i also want to be pretty competent. Not that i dont MIND a good gutterpunk or uber-skilled campaign now and then, but i kind of like mine in a happy medium. Like, competent characters in tough situations kind of thing. |
I keep hearing things like this and wondering if people played the same SR3 that I did. Last I checked, determined SR3 Awakened characters could break games just as easily as their SR4 counterparts and Samurai could open a door, waltz into the room, shoot a bunch of people right in the face with a SPAS-22 and close the door on his way back out before anyone else reacted. Frankly, I find that if anything I have an easier time playing generalists and less cyber intensive characters than I ever did in SR3 (although both systems definitely favor players who take Priority A/50 Gear BP, at least in the short term). Then again, I come from a military family and have different expecations of what most Special Operations guys are capable of, and generally, I doubt that they have skills of 3-4 in more than 2 or 3 groups. A lot of special operations guys actually spend as much time teaching what they know as they do putting things into practice. They're good and skilled but there's so much out there to learn that to expect them to be at truly professional level or higher in multiple disciplines is a bit much; it's far more reasonable to expect them to instead have many individual skills taken at 2-3 with the appropriate specializations along with a decent Edge pool (AKA, professionalism) and high quality attributes. After all, much military training is practical and concise rather than exhaustive and detailed. My grandfather is a prime example of this; he's a former Ranger instructor and it's interesting how many practical tricks and improvised solutions he can come up with to improve a situation. But that's just it: he usually can only (greatly) improve the situation; as multitalented as he is, he knows enough to hold things together long enough to get a job done but at the end of the day he's still going to need someone with a more specialized skillset and tools to finish the job.
| QUOTE |
| I keep hearing things like this and wondering if people played the same SR3 that I did. Last I checked, determined SR3 Awakened characters could break games just as easily as their SR4 counterparts and Samurai could open a door, waltz into the room, shoot a bunch of people right in the face with a SPAS-22 and close the door on his way back out before anyone else reacted. |
While Awakened could be powerful in SR3, it wasn't until you reached fairly high initiate grades that the game would start breaking; also, Bloodzilla and the Pornomancer weren't possible. And unless he was packing shot and the people were laid out just right, the sam couldn't shoot everyone in the room before people reacted-- he'd get two shots, max, before others had their chance. SR1-2, you'd be correct.
If anything, I've discovered that generalists suffer more greatly in terms of spotlight time and feelings of effectiveness. A good specialist will have insanely high skills in one or two areas, then have mediocre skills everywheere else. Mr. Lucky is an example of this: he's got 19 dice in pistols, and Edge of 8, 10 dice in other firearms, and 4-10 dice everywhere else except technical skills (and those are what skillwires are for). Hyperspecialist with no singificant weaknesses.
Pornomancers were born out of SotA'64, and were definitely possible under SR3.
| QUOTE (ElFenrir) |
| Anyhow, yeah, a starting character to me is one that a player makes for a game that's starting. Be it a professional who left, or a totally wet behind the ears 18 year old who was abandoned, or someone in between. |
...Thank you, I agree.
@Cain, [Awakened in 3e] Very true, regarding spellcasting. Drain in 3e was much harder to shake down as it was rated by wound type (L,M,S,D) rather than individual boxes on the stun track in 4e. Furthermore, Mages, had to allocate Spell Pool dice over an entire combat turn for both casting and drain and as I recall spell pool, even of a "tough" mage was usually smaller than the Combat pool of an "equally" powerful Sammy.
Now, Hermetics, because they could have up to their Charisma in bound elementals (& how many were Elf Hermetics with the edges: Exceptional Attribute & Bonus Attribute Point in Charisma, as well as an Increase Attribute: Charisma 4 spell on a sustaining focus?). That is where the real power was as one character could have their own little private army of Elementals and Watchers (and Watchers still added to the friends in combat modifier even if they were wusses).
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| Very true, regarding spellcasting. Drain in 3e was much harder to shake down as it was rated by wound type (L,M,S,D) rather than individual boxes on the stun track in 4e. |
Funny, but I find it much harder to shake off Drain in SR4 than SR3. I played magicians more than any other character type, and very, very rarely even took one box of damage from Drain in SR3. Can't say the same about SR4. Keep in mind that Power Foci could be used for Drain in SR3, as well as things like withholding dice from Conjuring tests, not to mention (too late
) the ability to lower Target Numbers (as opposed to only add dice).| QUOTE |
| Furthermore, Mages, had to allocate Spell Pool dice over an entire combat turn for both casting and drain and as I recall spell pool, even of a "tough" mage was usually smaller than the Combat pool of an "equally" powerful Sammy. |
But that mage also had a Combat Pool, which he was then free to use pretty much solely for defense.
| QUOTE |
| (and Watchers still added to the friends in combat modifier even if they were wusses) |
As far as I can tell, they still do.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 31 2007, 07:23 PM) |
| If anything, I've discovered that generalists suffer more greatly in terms of spotlight time and feelings of effectiveness. A good specialist will have insanely high skills in one or two areas, then have mediocre skills everywheere else. Mr. Lucky is an example of this: he's got 19 dice in pistols, and Edge of 8, 10 dice in other firearms, and 4-10 dice everywhere else except technical skills (and those are what skillwires are for). Hyperspecialist with no singificant weaknesses. |
So, you're basically saying it's now possible to branch out into many areas and -still- have the points to pick up a big heap of dice in one or two chosen skills. How in the heck does that hurt generalists? I mean, the Mr. Lucky you keep going on about could easily drop down to "only" 6 Edge, pick up some tech skills and become a "true" generalist without gimping himself. I mean, I suppose I see your point in reference to your earlier post- you want to be merely competent rather than competent in most skills AND uber in one or two right out of the box. I guess it's just a difference in view point. You see Mr. Lucky and think he's a hyper specialist who generalized a bit and I see a generalist (practically ALL mundanes fall into this category, imo; you need to be an adept now to REALLY overkill a skill) who happend to specialize some.
It hurts generalists in that the simply don't get a chance to shine like they would otherwise. In a team game like Shadowrun, a generalist only really gets spotlight time when someone is missing, enabling the generalist to step up. Otherwise, the combat bunnies rule in combat, the mages dominate magical stuff, the faces own in the social arenas, and the ninjas beat them in all the sneaky stuff.
The generalist, who has medium dice pools in all areas, is always outdone by someone who has a huge dice pool in one area, and mediocre dice pools elsewhere. This is because the screen time always goes to the specialist in their arenas. For example, combat bunnies will always dominate the combat scenes, and everyone else will be an accessory.
As far as Mr. Lucky goes, it's true that he could be pushed to something like 28 dice in pistols if he went elf adept, and dropped Edge from 8 to 6. He could also drop Edge from 8 to 6 and pick up a ton of other skills. But the point is, he doesn't have to. That Edge of 8 more than makes up for a lack of skills, and he can go to 27 dice up to 8 times a game. At any event, the difference I think that many people view hyperspecialists as having to be being damaged in one way or another. A hyperspecialist without damage simply blows people's minds. He didn't specialize some, he specialized a *lot* in two areas, but manages to cover any weaknesses (making him look sorta generalist, I concede) and becomes a soild all-rounder.
The generalist, who has medium dice pools in all areas, is always outdone by someone who has a huge dice pool in one area, and mediocre dice pools elsewhere. This is because the screen time always goes to the specialist in their arenas. For example, combat bunnies will always dominate the combat scenes, and everyone else will be an accessory.
As far as Mr. Lucky goes, it's true that he could be pushed to something like 28 dice in pistols if he went elf adept, and dropped Edge from 8 to 6. He could also drop Edge from 8 to 6 and pick up a ton of other skills. But the point is, he doesn't have to. That Edge of 8 more than makes up for a lack of skills, and he can go to 27 dice up to 8 times a game. At any event, the difference I think that many people view hyperspecialists as having to be being damaged in one way or another. A hyperspecialist without damage simply blows people's minds. He didn't specialize some, he specialized a *lot* in two areas, but manages to cover any weaknesses (making him look sorta generalist, I concede) and becomes a soild all-rounder.
See, I've never really had that problem; my generalists generally hit the threshold where extra hits would be extraneous in most cases, and even then they have Edge to fall back on. After a certain point a super specialist's dice act mostly as a security blanket or a way to notch some more often than not extraneous hits. You can't make someone extra dead, after all. Apparently we both agree that it takes some determination to make a one dimensional character by the current rules; frankly, it takes some real anti-munchkining talent to make a mundane who who's only got a single trick to pull out of his hat, and even my Adepts characters routinely toss double digit dice in many tests. I think any further disagreements on this one would basically be splitting hairs.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.