Is there a particular reason folks have been posting threads full of horribly min/maxed characters lately, and then rationalizing/explaining away every clever little rules-abusing twist, then harvesting praise or suggestive criticisms for their efforts?
Did I miss some challenge thread somewhere daring people to make the most silly and broken characters they can, is this some means of protesting little rules loopholes that I missed out on, or what?
Full Version: Why the slew of Munchkins lately?
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Did I miss some challenge thread somewhere daring people to make the most silly and broken characters they can, is this some means of protesting little rules loopholes that I missed out on, or what? |
well, actually, apparently you did miss just such a thread
Munckin threads, while initially can be perceived as wastes of time and/or board space, can be quite useful for the resourceful GM AND the player. They provide solid examples of when and where rules can be abused easily or not. Players can use the information to avoid said abuses, and GMs can know what to look for much easier.
| QUOTE (Starmage21) |
| Munckin threads, while initially can be perceived as wastes of time and/or board space, can be quite useful for the resourceful GM AND the player. They provide solid examples of when and where rules can be abused easily or not. Players can use the information to avoid said abuses, and GMs can know what to look for much easier. |
Amen; that's why I've been reading them, so I know what to keep an eye out for.
Those kind of threads pop up every now and then. Occasionally you have several pop up at once.
They're kind of useful, in a way, since other posters will point out the weaknesses and rules dodgery of the build. This can lead to house rules to close up loopholes, or ideas on how to challenge such characters. I like the mental challenge on both ends, both the "how many dice for this can you get?" end, and the "That can't be right! How could a GM shoot this down without resorting to GM fiat?" end.
At least they're not as annoying as all of those threads whining about how sammies, or mages, or spirits, or hackers, or just about damn well anything in the game is "broken", and how GMs should house rule like crazy to gimp them. And there are way more of those threads.
They're kind of useful, in a way, since other posters will point out the weaknesses and rules dodgery of the build. This can lead to house rules to close up loopholes, or ideas on how to challenge such characters. I like the mental challenge on both ends, both the "how many dice for this can you get?" end, and the "That can't be right! How could a GM shoot this down without resorting to GM fiat?" end.
At least they're not as annoying as all of those threads whining about how sammies, or mages, or spirits, or hackers, or just about damn well anything in the game is "broken", and how GMs should house rule like crazy to gimp them. And there are way more of those threads.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Is there a particular reason folks have been posting threads full of horribly min/maxed characters lately, and then rationalizing/explaining away every clever little rules-abusing twist, then harvesting praise or suggestive criticisms for their efforts? Did I miss some challenge thread somewhere daring people to make the most silly and broken characters they can, is this some means of protesting little rules loopholes that I missed out on, or what? |
Shouldn't there be more of these? Why should PCs not be horribly min-maxed if they are viable in a game? BTW, munchkins are not min-maxed, they are maxed, but they certainly are not minned.
Players should read these threads to find out what exactly is within the RAW and what the house rules the GM is putting forth. GMs should read them to know how to counter them without the need to resort to GM fiat or house ruling.
Well, not necessarily. Min-max means you min the stuff that matters least to you in order to max the stuff that you really want. So, yeah, it's both a core component of charop, and a major tool of munchkinism.
I enjoy the thinking that goes into good charop. What I *don't* like is charop that breaks the spirit or gratuitously bends the letter of the rules, like Pun-Pun (or, to steal another example from D20, the silly but constant usage of Jade Phoenix Mage in builds).
For example, Invoked Allies are really a gray area to me, while I have no problem with Inhabited jarheads or cyberallies based on genetically optimized clones. Likewise, while I can't see a GM actually allowing Buster's All-Physical-1s voodoo monster on the basis that there might be one person like that *maybe* in a century, and they probably wouldn't be a runner, it is fun and educational to work through the math.
I enjoy the thinking that goes into good charop. What I *don't* like is charop that breaks the spirit or gratuitously bends the letter of the rules, like Pun-Pun (or, to steal another example from D20, the silly but constant usage of Jade Phoenix Mage in builds).
For example, Invoked Allies are really a gray area to me, while I have no problem with Inhabited jarheads or cyberallies based on genetically optimized clones. Likewise, while I can't see a GM actually allowing Buster's All-Physical-1s voodoo monster on the basis that there might be one person like that *maybe* in a century, and they probably wouldn't be a runner, it is fun and educational to work through the math.
| QUOTE (Big D @ Oct 21 2007, 10:10 PM) |
| Likewise, while I can't see a GM actually allowing Buster's All-Physical-1s voodoo monster on the basis that there might be one person like that *maybe* in a century, and they probably wouldn't be a runner, it is fun and educational to work through the math. |
I call him "Mumm-Ra" and you don't have to worry about any other 1-physical-statted mages, because he hunts down and slays all other 1-physical-statted mages. Mumm-Ra keeps all the ancient spirits of evil for himself!
To me, Min-max means minimise weaknesses(of the things that matters least) and maximise strengths. Munchkins do not min-max, IMO, the max at the expense of their mins.
| QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 21 2007, 09:03 PM) |
| Is there a particular reason folks have been posting threads full of horribly min/maxed characters lately, and then rationalizing/explaining away every clever little rules-abusing twist, then harvesting praise or suggestive criticisms for their efforts? |
Honestly? They probably just like playing around with numbers. I know that's why I do it. I don't even need a practical reason to do so either and on a message board it's perfectly harmless. Playing around with RPG systems is fun for me; they require light crunch at most since they're designed to be somewhat user friendly and in SR4 at least there's often multiple ways of accomplishing any given goal. It's like Sudoku with gyromounts.
| QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 21 2007, 09:03 PM) |
| Is there a particular reason folks have been posting threads full of horribly min/maxed characters lately, and then rationalizing/explaining away every clever little rules-abusing twist, then harvesting praise or suggestive criticisms for their efforts? Did I miss some challenge thread somewhere daring people to make the most silly and broken characters they can, is this some means of protesting little rules loopholes that I missed out on, or what? |
I can't speak for anyone else, but I love to create characters, and it's fun to test my character against different situations and other builds. Shadowrun expects that you're going to play in a team of specialists, the rules are geared towards building specialists, and it's fun to see how far you can push your specialist's abilities. Sometimes it's just fun to see how many dice you can throw at a problem, regardless if you could actually stand to play that kind of character in a real game.
Also I keep hearing that one "class" of specialist or other is way overpowered in some way, but these threads and counter threads prove that it's nonsense. The authors have done a great job in the extremely difficult task of balancing all the rules for cybersams, hackers, riggers, faces, and mages.
However there are loopholes in the rules that need to be examined closely and possibly patched. The Bloodzilla problem was discussed on these forums and was easily fixed with a simple reinterpretation/tweak of the drain rules. The Agent Smith Army is definitely a problem without any official fixes, but we came up with all kinds of great ideas for fixing the problem. My possession mage shows that possession spirits are possibly a problem and may need to be patched. Or maybe not, maybe someone will post a valid argument about why it isn't as godlike as it first seems.
Besides what the hell are you doing with your life that's so much better than the rest of us, finding the cure for cancer?
Boy, would your face be red if he really IS a doctor/chemist/whatever involved in cancer research. Gah, that would be hillarious.
Chris
Chris
| QUOTE (Whipstitch) | ||
Honestly? They probably just like playing around with numbers. I know that's why I do it. I don't even need a practical reason to do so either and on a message board it's perfectly harmless. Playing around with RPG systems is fun for me; they require light crunch at most since they're designed to be somewhat user friendly and in SR4 at least there's often multiple ways of accomplishing any given goal. It's like Sudoku with gyromounts. |
...nice
@Buster: I'm with you on enjoyment of creating characters. I have a fairly "healthy" stable of PCs in case the inevitable occurs. What's more, I can change afew things here and there and I have an Instant NPC with complete actual personality and fleshed out attributes/skills/abilities ready to go when I GM.
I wasn't challenging anyone for doing it, or insisting they stop, or trying to make people pay a toll for it or anything. I was just, y'know, asking why it seemed to be happening all of a sudden.
Most of the "rate this character" threads I recall seeing were ones people tended to post for (in theory) well rounded characters, maybe just asking for rules advice or help since they were knew to the system or a certain archetype or rules set ("is this a decent commlink, what else does my street sam need, am I understanding the magic rules right," etc).
The last few I've seen sometimes even have "munchkin" in the subject line, or are such gimmicky characters that, between the numbers themselves and the comments of the OP and those who reply, it's obviously an exercise in rules abuse rather than character creation. I was just wondering what the reason for the shift in focus was, or if it was just a shift in my perception instead.
*shrugs*
No challenge or anything. Just curious. So calm down there, sport. I was asking a question, and not one (I think) deserving of any sort of silly "what are you doing with your precious time, blah blah blah" nonsense. I know you've been here four whole months now, so your shit smells like strawberries, but trust me, you'll know when I'm out to actually insult people or otherwise show I disapprove of their posts.
Most of the "rate this character" threads I recall seeing were ones people tended to post for (in theory) well rounded characters, maybe just asking for rules advice or help since they were knew to the system or a certain archetype or rules set ("is this a decent commlink, what else does my street sam need, am I understanding the magic rules right," etc).
The last few I've seen sometimes even have "munchkin" in the subject line, or are such gimmicky characters that, between the numbers themselves and the comments of the OP and those who reply, it's obviously an exercise in rules abuse rather than character creation. I was just wondering what the reason for the shift in focus was, or if it was just a shift in my perception instead.
*shrugs*
No challenge or anything. Just curious. So calm down there, sport. I was asking a question, and not one (I think) deserving of any sort of silly "what are you doing with your precious time, blah blah blah" nonsense. I know you've been here four whole months now, so your shit smells like strawberries, but trust me, you'll know when I'm out to actually insult people or otherwise show I disapprove of their posts.
I noticed the same trend (in fact I just caught some flak for posting about it in the wrong place, as I should have). So its definitely not just you.
| QUOTE (Narse) |
| ... in fact I just caught some flak for posting about it in the wrong place ... |
Wasn't really meant as 'flak'.
Well, maybe it should have been. I could probably use some.
I could lend you some of mine. I've got plenty.
Yeah, i like these threads for the A. Entertainment value(they did WHAT?), B. GM resource(what to look for just in case), C. GM resource 2(my PCs are uber-twinked and i need opposition! 
), and D. Player resource(ive actually made a few things that ended up sort of cheesy...without even meaning it. I just grabbed a bunch of stuff that looked cool, but it ended up being rather bloated and overpowered. So this lets me see the stuff ahead of time.)
And yeah, i admit, its fun to play with numbers and see just what can be done.
), and D. Player resource(ive actually made a few things that ended up sort of cheesy...without even meaning it. I just grabbed a bunch of stuff that looked cool, but it ended up being rather bloated and overpowered. So this lets me see the stuff ahead of time.)And yeah, i admit, its fun to play with numbers and see just what can be done.
I like these threads because they collect the "things to do for X" all in one place. One can then select how far he/she wants to go at chargen time.
The number of threads is certainly a mood thing, depending on who as enough time on his hands to build a "test char" and open a new discussion. Kinda like the holostreets threads, just with more prep work.
The number of threads is certainly a mood thing, depending on who as enough time on his hands to build a "test char" and open a new discussion. Kinda like the holostreets threads, just with more prep work.
I just figured that with the growing popularity and wider spread of SR4, we were getting a lot more people that are used to the d20 mindset.
not to mention the similarities between the two games. ooh! did i go there!? i think i did!
Naaah, major charop has been part of Shadowrun since the SR1 days.
Yeah, to be fair, I think I notice it more right now because I wasn't on the boards during the "early days" of any of the other editions. I've been wondering if this kind of stuff is just due to the game still being "new(er)".
Well, the Pun-Pun/Bloodzilla thread had a ton of SR3 characters in it, so I wouldn't say edition has a lot to do with it. If anything, a newer edition gives us power players more untested rules to bend out of shape.
Seriously, I've seen playtest groups before. Their job is to test the system, to make sure it runs; they only report on glaring play issues. Nobody that I know of has a destruction-test squad, who's sole purpose is to find every loophole in a game system and exploit it until it breaks. This is the Microsoft model, where they now send every piece of software to a special team that tries anything and everything to break it. Even they miss a lot, but things have gotten a lot better since the destruction squad came into being. I think RPG's would benefit from the same sort of thing.
Seriously, I've seen playtest groups before. Their job is to test the system, to make sure it runs; they only report on glaring play issues. Nobody that I know of has a destruction-test squad, who's sole purpose is to find every loophole in a game system and exploit it until it breaks. This is the Microsoft model, where they now send every piece of software to a special team that tries anything and everything to break it. Even they miss a lot, but things have gotten a lot better since the destruction squad came into being. I think RPG's would benefit from the same sort of thing.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| If anything, a newer edition gives us power players more untested rules to bend out of shape. |
That's what I was getting at. Not that the systems are any better/worse, just that I've never been on the boards for a "new" system.
...I used to do Destruction Testing of software. The only thing with FRPs is it would even further impact release dates for what appears to be an impatient customer base (from the many "when is [insert supplement title here] coming out?" threads I've seen).
Well, honestly the reason I've been doing them is 1) familiarizing myself with new material (aug) 2) I only have 1 face to face game I play in, but if another came up, I have plenty of idea for a variety of characters that I could make, and 3) number crunching is fun for me. (I used to make vehicles via the R3R creation rules by hand, for kicks)
| QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 22 2007, 01:06 AM) |
| No challenge or anything. Just curious. So calm down there, sport. I was asking a question, and not one (I think) deserving of any sort of silly "what are you doing with your precious time, blah blah blah" nonsense. I know you've been here four whole months now, so your shit smells like strawberries, but trust me, you'll know when I'm out to actually insult people or otherwise show I disapprove of their posts. |
Come on, don't tell me you weren't trying to be insulting. Your entire thread was meant to be baiting and insulting.
In case you really don't know what your insults were, I'll point them out to you:
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Is there a particular reason folks have been posting threads full of horribly min/maxed characters lately, and then rationalizing/explaining away every clever little rules-abusing twist, then harvesting praise or suggestive criticisms for their efforts?(NOTE: That was an insult) |
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Did I miss some challenge thread somewhere daring people to make the most silly and broken characters they can(NOTE: That was an insult), is this some means of protesting little rules loopholes that I missed out on, or what? |
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| I know you've been here four whole months now, so your shit smells like strawberries(NOTE: That was an insult) |
Just because some posters agree with you and the moderators let you get away with this crap doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
Just curious Buster, but why do you think he was referring to you specifically? I've posted more munchkin character threads than you have. Not to mention my munchkins having a better chance of actually completing a run.
This isn't a mod post/official/on behalf of the staff:
There might be some "inflammatory" terminology being used, but the question is just as legitimate as any other. "Why are there so many character optimization threads right now?" might have been a more pleasant way to word it, sure, but we don't have a policy that says "your posts must invoke images of cotton candy and happiness".
The thread is only baiting if you take it that way, and respond in kind. Nowhere did the original post say "Buster sucks because he likes to see how powerful he can make a character". In fact, before you took offense, posted a parody thread, and then came back here to vent, this thread actually contained some decent discussion on the validity, purpose, and number of the type of thread in question, including the majority of your first post.
You don't have any perspective on how frequently or how infrequently the type of post being referred to happens. That's not an insult. It's how it is. You are a newer member, so you aren't seeing that there has been a relative explosion of these threads lately.
There might be some "inflammatory" terminology being used, but the question is just as legitimate as any other. "Why are there so many character optimization threads right now?" might have been a more pleasant way to word it, sure, but we don't have a policy that says "your posts must invoke images of cotton candy and happiness".
The thread is only baiting if you take it that way, and respond in kind. Nowhere did the original post say "Buster sucks because he likes to see how powerful he can make a character". In fact, before you took offense, posted a parody thread, and then came back here to vent, this thread actually contained some decent discussion on the validity, purpose, and number of the type of thread in question, including the majority of your first post.
You don't have any perspective on how frequently or how infrequently the type of post being referred to happens. That's not an insult. It's how it is. You are a newer member, so you aren't seeing that there has been a relative explosion of these threads lately.
Egocentrism. That's how it works, that's what I think, and that's all that matters.
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
That's what I was getting at. Not that the systems are any better/worse, just that I've never been on the boards for a "new" system. |
Boy, do I recall the SR2/3 switchover here. There was a s**tstorm over how many broken characters you could make in SR3, and that was before the advanced books came out.
Granted, however, that I don't recall a Pornomancer, a Mr. Lucky, or a Bloodzilla being possible back then, but you are right that newer systems get chewed up and spat out. Which is why I think, despite the delays incurred, destruction testing of RPGs is a good idea.
The Pornomancer was born out of the ashes of SotA64, with its plethora of craptastic Adept Powers.
I tend to agree with Cain's and eidolon's interpretation of newer systems encouraging people to test the limitations of the rules. But for what it's worth, I believe that SR4 might have fewer exploits than SR3 did. Every system has some, but I think that the drive to simplify/unify the rules helped level the playing field.
| QUOTE (Fortune @ Oct 22 2007, 05:19 PM) |
| The Pornomancer was born out of the ashes of SotA64, with its plethora of craptastic Adept Powers. |
What's red, covered with feathers, and pulsating with the power of life as it rises from the ashes of SOTA64?
A SURGED pornomancer shapeshifter's dong.
EDIT: Over on bullshido.net, Hedgehogey +repped me for mentioning Bene Gesserit in a certain thread and left the comment, "Remember when Duncan Idaho started an arms race with his cock?"
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| Come on, don't tell me you weren't trying to be insulting. Your entire thread was meant to be baiting and insulting. |
*sigh*
To Buster: Alright, listen. That really wasn't me trying to be insulting. Seriously. It wasn't. You know why? Because I fucking listen to Master Yoda, that's why. When I carried that green little fuck around the swamps on my back, I was really pissed off about the humidity on Dagobah and how much his little muppet ass weighed, so I was determined to get my money's worth out of his Jedi training sessions, so I payed attention. And you know what he told me, once? He said DO OR DO NOT, THERE IS NO TRY.
So, no. I don't "try" to be insulting. I'm either insulting, or I'm not. I either ask a question (that's this thread), or I insult people (that's when I piss people off 'till they call me an asshole, and then reply by singing Denis Leary's "I'm An Asshole" song at them).
Now I'm sorry if you think my question was really mean or something, but when there are thread titles like "Meet My Munchkin Mage: Suck it Muggles!" I tend to just assume that those involved aren't going to get their fucking feelings hurt when I make comments about how silly a character is. Until you started this little back-and-forth, for the record, I had no idea one of the thread titles that sparked this thread was yours. Now, I'm sorry if a Shadowrun character with a "smokin'" smiley face next to it and a Harry God Damned Potty reference in the thread title is the pinnacle of your gritty, cyberpunk, mature, serious storytelling technique, but that's not my cross to bear, okay? But when you call your own character a munchkin, and then fill your mangina with sand and have a little hissy when someone else does the same, it really makes me worry about whether or not you're staying on your pills. You need to talk to someone about your bipolar disorder, and spend less time jumping someone's shit for asking a question.
I didn't say munchkin threads were worthless. I didn't say I was going to call my Congressman and get them banned. I didn't say they were wasting bandwidth, or making baby Jesus cry, or giving kittens cancer. I didn't say I cared about them all that much one way or the other -- I just asked if I'd missed some specific reason for them (and apparently I did, in at least one case characters have been posted as a sort of challenge), or if there were certain rules people were creating characters to abuse, and all that sort of zany shit. I'm sorry if I didn't compliment everyone in that first post, or give everyone a hug, or hand out cotton candy and lollipops, okay?
But maybe you've noticed, no one got pissy about it but you. No one made me start being insulting but you. Other people commented on noticing the same trend I noticed, or answered my question, or whatever. You're the one that got all grouchy and righteously indignant, and started threads specifically to be inflammatory (which this one wasn't), and had to push for a little internet showdown. Much like mommy and daddy's divorce, the direction my posts have taken is all your fault. I hope you feel better now, since I'm being insulting, and you can sit back and just revel in your self-fulfilling prophecy.
To everyone who is not named Buster: Thank you for your replies. My curiosity has been sated. It's good to know that people take away something positive from the threads in question, it's good to know that they're helping give people ideas they're able to roll over into a little more serious characters, it's good to know that sometimes it's just people flexing a new supplement a little bit. It's been a while since I hung around the SR4 forum very much, and I didn't remember these sorts of threads being around much, so it's a new phenomenon for me. Have a nice day. Here's some cotton candy, a hug, and a lollipop.
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| I tend to agree with Cain's and eidolon's interpretation of newer systems encouraging people to test the limitations of the rules. But for what it's worth, I believe that SR4 might have fewer exploits than SR3 did. Every system has some, but I think that the drive to simplify/unify the rules helped level the playing field. |
Like I said in another thread, SR4 fails to reduce its number of exploits due to the fact it was never destruction-tested. SR3 had years upon years for all the major holes to get ironed out; and the ones that didn't tended to come from newer material.
If the devs increase their speed of responsiveness, then I'll accept that in a few years, SR4 will have about as many exploits as SR3 did. But considering how long it took for them to fix the Teamwork test, and how they've still left in major loopholes like the Pornomancer, Edge and the Longshot test, Called Shots, and the Agent Smith army...well, years seems like a short estimate.
Everyone has their cup of tea. Some favor Darjeeling while others might favor Ceylon or Assam. It is a matter of taste and preference. Some people like to play optimized characters that do not give as much thought to how role-playable those characters actually are. There might even be some suspension of disbelief on the players part because their character is not necessarily realistic, but they enjoy playing them. Critias and others, it is obvious you do not like characters whose tendency is to be effective mechanic-wise over roleplaying. This is your opinion and will not stop other people from stating their opinions on their preference. I realize their view of things might not be the best way to go about playing the game, but as long as they enjoy it and it fits their group, I do not see what the big problem is.
Also, just in terms of "rules of debate and the internet":
It's not an insult to correctly point out what something is. If I call a guy a nazi and he's wearing a Waffen SS unform while sig heiling a picture of hitler, it's not an insult. It's an observation.
The same goes for saying, "Hey, that character is a horribly min-maxed, rules-loophole exploiting thing. It's designed to be ridiculous. It is not, in fact, well-rounded.
I'm just sayin'.
It's not an insult to correctly point out what something is. If I call a guy a nazi and he's wearing a Waffen SS unform while sig heiling a picture of hitler, it's not an insult. It's an observation.
The same goes for saying, "Hey, that character is a horribly min-maxed, rules-loophole exploiting thing. It's designed to be ridiculous. It is not, in fact, well-rounded.
I'm just sayin'.
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| Also, just in terms of "rules of debate and the internet": It's not an insult to correctly point out what something is. If I call a guy a nazi and he's wearing a Waffen SS unform while sig heiling a picture of hitler, it's not an insult. It's an observation. The same goes for saying, "Hey, that character is a horribly min-maxed, rules-loophole exploiting thing. It's designed to be ridiculous. It is not, in fact, well-rounded. I'm just sayin'. |
Yes, but you don't see people making remarks that too many role-playable characters are being made when people like Fortune and Kyoto Kid post their characters.
Perhaps this is because said characters are not horribly min-maxed, in general. Perhaps readers choose to observe other things about said characters because "ridiculous" and "OMG WTF BBQ" are not the first things that come to mind.
there's not much to discuss about such characters. you look at them, you say "yes, that is an interesting character", and that's it.
Could also be that role playing is the point of the game, and thusly, role playable characters don't warrant remark.
Haven't yet posted here, so I thought I'd lob my 2 
on to the pile.
As far as most of the muchkin/min-maxed characters, and the end result of horribly broken ones. All serve to test the bounds of the game system.
The horribly broken ones are the glaring holes that need fixes (as many have pointed out and developed their own solutions to those holse). munchkin characters serve the same purpose in a sense. They don't find the holes of the fabric of the system, but find where there is a saggy area that needs to be examined when the holes are fixed. And in that sense some of the sagging areas have already been fixed, the changes to bullet damages in errata 1.5 was a prime example of that.
I wish in many ways that the play testers for SR were real testers who would methodically plan and exploit the system to look for errors, but for the time being, we've got what we've got.
on to the pile.As far as most of the muchkin/min-maxed characters, and the end result of horribly broken ones. All serve to test the bounds of the game system.
The horribly broken ones are the glaring holes that need fixes (as many have pointed out and developed their own solutions to those holse). munchkin characters serve the same purpose in a sense. They don't find the holes of the fabric of the system, but find where there is a saggy area that needs to be examined when the holes are fixed. And in that sense some of the sagging areas have already been fixed, the changes to bullet damages in errata 1.5 was a prime example of that.
I wish in many ways that the play testers for SR were real testers who would methodically plan and exploit the system to look for errors, but for the time being, we've got what we've got.
some of the playtesters tried to do exactly that, for a while. there's only so much polishing of silverware one can stomach, though, when one is on the Titanic.
| QUOTE (Eleazar @ Oct 24 2007, 05:37 AM) |
| Yes, but you don't see people making remarks that too many role-playable characters are being made when people like Fortune and Kyoto Kid post their characters. |
Just out of curiousity, I would be interested to know just where you have seen any kind of character posted by myself, outside of actual character submissions for games in the Welcome to the Shadows Forum. In all of my time here, and all of my (some say too many) posts, I have never, not even once, posted a character for review.
Mfb, this isn't an insult or sarcasm, but an honest question. Were the devs less than responsive with glaring holes found in the rules? And how many of the glaring holes we knew/know about were caught by playtesters, and ignored? Like the Teamwork test, for example.
they were very responsive to problems within the structure of the rules--that is, issues with things like movement rates and cyberlimb balance were brought up, and later rules revisions would fix the problems that had been pointed out. i'd be surprised to find that the teamwork rules were pointed out as being problematic, because the devs seemed very willing to fix stuff like that.
Using the term munckin is inflammatory and will cause a debate.
As for the substance of the question - a substantial subset of RPG gamers like making characters. A substantial subset of people are naturally competitive.
As character generation and flexibility of a system increases, you tend to get more 'chargen' lovers showing up because they have lots of options to play with which increases the 'fun' of the system to tinker with and see what you can do.
Now, add a community of other people - many of who are also playing 'lets see what we can do' and are also playing 'Rawr, I can do that better' and you're likely to get 'Rawr, look how cool THIS is.'
Or so I reckon.
As for the substance of the question - a substantial subset of RPG gamers like making characters. A substantial subset of people are naturally competitive.
As character generation and flexibility of a system increases, you tend to get more 'chargen' lovers showing up because they have lots of options to play with which increases the 'fun' of the system to tinker with and see what you can do.
Now, add a community of other people - many of who are also playing 'lets see what we can do' and are also playing 'Rawr, I can do that better' and you're likely to get 'Rawr, look how cool THIS is.'
Or so I reckon.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.