One of the greatest advantages of the core mechanic is that small errors in DP mod calculation do not mess things up, like errors in TN calculation did.
Maybe you all played SR3 differently, but I do remember a substantial amount of "playing for mods", beginning at chargen. That is mostly a thing of the past for us.

As for needed "fixes": The matrix is based on Moonhawks System now (have done my own, will use it once the current chaos in group composition resolved. But I digress). Strong spirits always use edge to resist binding (actually fine by RAW, keeps the mage from usurping the samurai throne). Nobody cares much about SINs; credsticks remain in use (as physical passkeys).

no it really isn't, take exceptional skill 'positive quality' (the new name for edges) and max out the skill at chargen

That's one Skill though. Not even a Skill Group. There are plenty more to learn and/or build up before you have no room to improve.

And it's quite expensive, so your specialist will be exactly that: a specialist.

A specialist with virtually the same dice pools as a generalist. What's the problem with that?

None, as long as they feel special

That was in SR3: the specialist had the same dice pools as the non specialist because you could buy a high rating in a skill/attribute without it being too expensive: Everyone could start with their skill at 6 (or 7 I don't remember the exact chargen limit), so in the end your "marksman" was no better than the average streetsam.

In SR4, if you want to max out a dice pool at chargen, it'll be very expensive. So you'll only do it if you want to be the best in this field. And that's what you'll be: the best. That's why it'll be very difficult (but not impossible) to get better.
I somehow understand those who regret being able to have their lowlife criminal be 2 times better at something than an olympic champion while still being quite competent in other fields. I don't regret that (as a GM I houseruled skill caps in SR3 to avoid such nonsense) and I don't see why not being able to get better when you're already the best is a problem. But that's personal taste, I guess.

Besides, even the "best" typically can improve their dice pools by raising their magic, getting better 'ware, and so on.

Take my gunslinger adept. Elven adept with exceptional Attribute: Quickness, aptitude: pistols, with muscle toner: 2, a reflex recorder and two levels of improved ability for pistols, and a smartlink. Quickness: 8 (10), pistols/semi-automatics: 7 (10) +2, and +2 for a smartlink = 24 dice.

Even such a maxed-out character, though, can be improved after play begins. Genetech to raise the Agility maximum even more, more muscle toner, some initiation to pick up the attunement metamagic, and of course some APDS or AV ammo.

That's assuming that I want to chase after those elusive points, though. If I don't, then I have even more options open to me for laterally improving my character - raising low Attributes, getting a broader spread of skills, getting some of the fun adept powers, etc.

As i pointed out in the last incarnation Fortune, the example may have flaws but moving up the scale to a Shotgun firing buckshot, or an assault rifle produces significant chances of pulling off a serious amount of damage on what is essentially an IFV, light tank.

this is without the armor bypass options

and another of my old characters drops dead of Edition change ssyndrome

Incorrect. You can still soft-max attributes and skills at the same basic cost. So, your super-specialist and your generalist will still have choice attributes at 5+, with everything else in the 3-4 range. And since most skills are capped at 4, both your generalist and specialist will be looking at 8 dice in most situations. And that's not including tricks like specializations, which again favor the hyperspecialist. Basically, since most of the dice pools are going to be in the 7-10 range no matter what you do, there's absolutely no reason to not specialize as hard as is humanly possible.



Completely incorrect. Mr. Lucky, my famous street sam, throws 20 dice for pistols and still has more than enough points for an Edge of 8. That's about as good as a mundane human can possibly get. There is no way he can get any better, not unless the GM allows him to buy the Adept edge post-chargen. (And not many would allow that!) It is not very expensive to max a dice pool right out of the gate, not if you're halfway competent at what you're doing... and I've only created a handful of characters for SR4!

I don't think he's incorrect that it is expensive to max out an ability at char-gen. You can max out an ability at char-gen, and still make a viable character, but it still is expensive. Getting an Attribute up to that final point costs 25, rather than 10, points, and if you take the exceptional Attribute quality and then max it, it costs another 30 points. For a human, for example, a base Agility of 5 costs 40 points, while a base Agility of 7 costs 95 points. That's a difference of 55 points that could have gone elsewhere. Even skills, the cheapest area to max out, cost 18 points (10 for aptitude, and 8 to go from 6 to 7). Both of them together total 73 points.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "not expensive". If you mean that you can do it and still have a playable character, then I would agree with you. My gunslinger and pornomancer builds are both playable, as is Mr. Lucky. But I would consider "expensive" to be paying far more to get the last few points in something than you spent to soft-max it. And those points are significant - sure, you don't need them if "playable" is all you're going for, but that amount of points can either shore the character up in several different areas, or add an entire extra specialty to the character. So completely maxing out a dice pool isn't the only logical way to min-max a character.

By "not expensive", I mean that it doesn't cost you the ability to specialize elsewhere as well. For example, Mr. Lucky has his hideous dice pool for Pistols, while keeping a second specialty through his 8 points of Edge. I could have probably given him a third dice pool in the low teens, had I tried. You can have more than a playable character whilst soft-or-hard maxing the build; you can have a viable specialist who still gives generalists a run for their money.

Mr. Lucky won't be giving a social adept a run for his money anytime soon. But with a starting-max skill of 4 in Con (Fast Talk), he can negotiate with a Johnson as well as any generalist.

By "expensive", I'm referring to opportunity costs: how much are you sacrificing to gain that benefit? In many cases, the answer is: "Not that much". Which is why maxing a dice pool isn't that expensive, since we can all show that you retain the ability to have both general and specialized areas elsewhere.

The initial statement in this argument was that there was no progression possible. With "choice Attributes at 5+ and everything else in the 3-4 range," "most skills capped at 4"(at chargen), there obviously is for any character in those circumstances. Thank you for clearing that up.

It is possible to max out one single dice pool or come close enough that it makes no difference, no doubt about it, but doing so undeniably impacts the overall build. Whether it is expensive or too expensive depends entirely on the game you are playing. Cain has come up with a "solution" based on the principle that Edge (and specifically points spent on Edge) can be used to fill any gaps in abilities. This isn't entirely true, and may be completely untrue depending on the table you're playing at. SR4 does favor specialist builds, but it doesn't mean a generalist isn't as good or better (ignoring for the moment that there is no reason generalists can't take specializations and use Edge to boost pools too), in the long run and depending on the game you're running even in the short term.


As has been made clear on multiple occasions, Mr. Lucky is an exception (he is after all the Luckiest Man Alive) because he can use Edge to bolster dice pools to high-generalist ranges. Only a specialist with very high Edge can do that, so it is by no means common - and depending on the gamemaster it might not even be desirable because it can turn out to be an "expensive" choice.

As I've said before, even Mr. Lucky isn't a problem, if the gamemaster makes sure the opposition also uses Edge and throws him appropriate challenges over the course of an adventure to ensure the character gets a run for its money — same as he would a powerful spellcaster or a combat machine. If the gamemaster doesn't take into account Mr. Lucky's presence in a group and its game impact then it is his problem, just as it would be his problem to not factor challenges for a high-powered magician.

I've heard a lot about the Mr. Lucky build and I continue to be underwhelmed. Were one of my players to field a Mr. Lucky (and they have) I would have no problem in approving it; no adjustment to Edge replendishment speed, no need to go overboard on the opposition, no tweaking the lethality of combat - just going by the book. I would, however, ensure he faces appropriate challenges - same as I do for a competent hacker, magician and/or combat specialist - and that means, as any other combat character in my campaign, he's going to be burning Edge just to stay alive (I don't hold back on killing characters in combat, that's why they have Edge to burn. In a 2-year campaign all of my players have burned at least 3 Edge points to remain alive). At my table those extra build points pumped into being Mr. Lucky are quickly going to get eroded. Lower Edge characters have the advantage that buying back Edge to their previous level (2-3) is relatively cheap, Mr Lucky is going to be facing long-term reduction in all his non-specialist abilities since buying back Edge 8 is just a bad investment. So yeah, my players have learned Mr. Lucky is too "expensive" in my game. YMMV.

Cain,

Please tell me you are not turning yet another thread into the train wreck that is Cain's "War On Four".

I'm going to save everyone a lot of time and just link to what I consider the conclusive thread on this subject. What did we have? 21 pages of you shifting your examples around as they were repeatedly demolished under examination. And you are STILL bringing this up again and again and again in thread after thread after thread, forcing people to either let your statements about the rules being "horribly broken" slip by unchallenged or go through an interminable process of correcting someone who simply will not listen. You have been criticising the rules since before they came out and in the same way. Your sole interest in these boards seems to be to have this same argument eternally. I'd suggest before anyone engage in yet another debate on Mr. Lucky or the Long Shot Rules, they read through the entire tortuous thread I just linked to (or at least the last page). That thread should be enough and indeed was, for everyone but yourself.

EDIT: I can see I may already be too late as Synner has now been snared. The descent into our seventh or eighth "Mr. Lucky" thread has begun.

Cain - No more thread jacking for the Mr Lucky arguments.

I'll drop that example unless asked, ok?

However, Synner has it wrong. It's possible to have a perfectly viable and fully-functional character with one, two, or even three hard-core specialization areas. And the difference in general dice pools between generalists and those multi-hyper-specialists isn't that great. You don't need Edge to bolster those areas if you're only halfway competent at character builds... and by that, I mean *me*, since I've pulled it off and I really haven't built that many SR4 characters Still in the single digits, actually.

Let's say you want your character to be the best sniper there is.
You need to max out your Agility+Longarms(sniper rifle)+modifiers dice pool.
I don't want to bother searching for the best cyber/spell/power combo, so I'll just consider the attribute+skill part.

Elf+Maxed-out Agility (Exceptional Attribute)+Maxed-out longarms (Aptitude) with specialization = 169BP
I call that expensive.

(For comparison, the "good but not specialized character"
Elf (to be fair)+Agility 5+Longarms 5 with specialization = 82BP
Half the price.)

Soft-maxed specialists are way cheaper than hard-maxed specialists. Whether that makes hard-maxed specialists "too expensive" is a matter of individual player preference, so it's pointless to really debate with Cain over whether what you can get by saving 73 points is worth it or not.

I will only say that every build point counts. 73 points or so can do things like:

> Shore up multiple weak/undeveloped areas in a character.

> Give that character an entire additional specialty (not just a skill - I'm talking about things like making your mage good at first aid and medicine and giving him some extra health spells, for example).

> Min-max your character in a different way (say, for that pistol adept, hard-maxing Magic, then pumping up resources, and getting synaptic booster: 2, and putting the extra Magic points into combat sense and improved senses).

So if you are content with being the best at one thing, and playable in other areas, hard-maxing can be a viable choice, but if some of the other options look tempting, soft-maxing might be the way to go.

The difference between a soft-max and a hard-max tends to only be one or two dice, so like Synner said: It's so close as to make no difference.

What's more, even if you hard-max, you can still achieve everything that Glyph points out. I have created a character with a maxed-out Edge, throws 20 dice for pistols, and throws 7-10 dice in many other skill areas. If you create a character well, there won't *be* any weak areas; you can go for an entire career without needing to raise those other areas. That's why many people are complaining about lack of advancement: you'll never get better at the things that matter to the character.

Glyph is right that "too expensive" from a point build perspective, is difficult to examine. I prefer to look at it from a dice pool perspective. If it gets to the point where the character is forced to toss 3-6 dice for most other skills, as opposed to the expected 7-10, then things might be too expensive. However, I've yet to see a character where that was the case.

The thing to remember about specialists is that not all bonuses will be specific only to that one skill. A pumped-up Attribute can boost a lot of other skills, too. So specialists will often have a leg up on generalists, by having several extra Attribute dice to bring into play for numerous low-ranked skills. This is especially true for high Agility builds.

The difference between a hyper-specialist and a soft-maxed specialist is in how many of those 7-10 dice skills they have. Cain is content with his hyper-specialists, because he judiciously chooses an optimal mix of skills that can be stretched to cover most situations. I prefer either a slightly wider mix of skills, or more of a boost to tertiary areas (higher Attributes, etc.).

A lot of it also depends on the campaign. In some campaigns, the extra dice from hyper-specializing can be the difference between success and failure. In other campaigns, they can be overkill, and thus, wasted. And the hyper-specialist isn't always "playing it safe", either, because they can often provoke GM overkill. Look at all of these threads asking for anti-magical tactics and mage-gimping house rules, all because someone's mage build is too effective.

I think that people who complain that they can´t advance are at fault for playing a specialist in (whatever area) from the get-go.

If I want to RP character advancement, I start out with low skills and suboptimal attributes and little augmentations. If I start at the softcap, I know that I´m already close to the best. And most specialist builds I´ve seen "work" from a playing perspective, but do not have conclusive skillsets.

Also, the difference between DPs is not as important as the difference between SR3 skills was. With TN mod stacking, 6 more dice often ended up 4 to 5 more successes, while with fixed TN, 6 more dice only net about 2 hits more. (of course, depending on how tough the the opposition is, that can be the difference between "target dead" and "target seriously hurt", but also the difference between "target dead" and "target dead twice over".)

I think this says it all. The system is flexible enough for you to create a rounded character capable of advancement or to create a munchkin that throws enough dice to obliterate most of his opponents.

Some people may claim if you can create a character that cannot improve their skill from what they have at chargen it's the systems fault for allowing that choice.

Like the system has a mind of it's own and forced you to do it.

An open build system allows characters of widely ranging effectiveness to be built. However, a good system should allow for character growth after char-gen, and limit the upper end of certain things to start out with. The assumption should be that there will be players interested in making their characters as effective as possible. So if the system lets you start out with a character who is too powerful, or who cannot further improve his abilities, then YES, it is the system's fault.

Personally, I don't think there is a problem. I have demonstrated that even hyper-specialists have plenty of room to improve, and high dice pools are not the huge problem they have been made out to be. But if there is a problem, it is certainly not the responsibility of the player to magically discern what "too good" is, and make a character who is not as good.

The system does reward you for doing that, though. You not only get more screen time, you get more critical successes, which allow you more narrative control over the game. You get to create your own flourishes, allowing you to show off your character even more.

A tie in dice pools means that the generalist won't get any more screen time in general areas than a hyper-specialist will, and the hyper-specialist will also get more screen time for his specialty. And as Glyph pointed out, there won't be a huge difference in general dice pools, just in skill breadth. And even that isn't worth much: for example, there's really no need to have both Con and Negotiation unless you're a dedicated face.

As for the charges of munchinkism, I'll counter with a charge of roleplaying elitism. The system favors power gamers, that is a fact. Just because you gimp your character deliberately doesn't mean you can roleplay; but it might mean you're a roleplay snob that ruins the game for everyone.

While I disagree with the fact that the SR4 chargen rules promote min-maxing, I disagree far more that a min-maxed character gets more game time, and thus makes the game less fun for other people. When I played with a pretty min-maxed Orc Sammy, the only time he got to really play was for about 5minutes of combat. He had hardly any contacts, no social or logic skills and just had a huge dice pool for shooting people in the face. Meanwhile I was playing a fairly balanced Face that was good at kicking people in the face as well as talking their pants off. I got a TON of game time.

More recently, Ive been playing a very generalist Ork Samurai. My highest dice pool is 11 in Automatics, I have only one Attribute at 3, and many dice pools at 8-10. Because of this, I am useful in almost all situations (Hacking aside), thus I get more game time. I tried super min-maxing in SR4, but you really end up with a one trick horse, and you may hardly have the opportunity to use that trick. Thus, I feel that even if you can min-max one dice pool into the 20s, it really doesnt matter, and doesnt create powergamers.

Going strictly by the numbers, the cheapest way to get one skill at 7 is at chargen.


It's usually the other way round - egocentric players that tend to capitalize screen time and make the game less fun for other players use min-maxing as one of the methods to justify doing so.

OK..since the other players in my grup were unfamiliar with chargen, they had me build their characters. They gave me basic descriptions of what they wanted, and I built characters that fit that. So, we have an Ork Shinto Priestess, an Elf Gunslinger Adept, a Human Hacker/Technomancer, a Human Tank Sam, and my Rigger(yet to be built). Do you know how many of them are hard-capped anywhere? NONE. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Do you know how many have skills outside their specialty? ALL of them. Heck, the Samurai even has Artisan(Ikebana) and Academic Knowledge: 16th Century Haiku. Why? Because it makes cultural sense, and sense with the rest of the character's concept(the player said he wanted something of a blend between Traditional and Modern in his character.) The Sam's specialty? He is our Heavy Weapons Specialist(specifically, Machine Guns). And, he has a 16 Soak Pool. Some Karma and nuyen, though? he will fix that real quick with some FFBA, increasing body, finishing his dermal sheath. Is he a specialist? Yes. Has he other areas to work on? Yes. Is he "Mister Pefect"? No..because, there is no such thing as a perfect character. Where ever a character has something they are really good in, you know there is going to be an area they royally suck in. After all, he only has the default Human Edge of 2. So luck is not going to save him too often.

It's not the size of your dice pool that matters, it's how you use it!

I'm not going to generalize on the relationship between min max and screen time hogs because I don't think there is one. The correlation between a CS and a players behavior is tenuous at best.

And the system also doesn't force me to give screen time to the player with the biggest dice pool either.

The person being the biggest dick tends to get less of my time.

I have to agree. The system favors nothing. The GM either controls his table or he doesn't. I had a player that used to munchkin each character. He had the highest death rate/retirement rate. I balanced the opposition to him at important parts of the mission. He finally realized that sometimes you rule the scene and other times discretion is the better part of valor. In the end, he created a more balanced character and was really happier than with his earlier characters.

A good plan means you don't need those huge dice pools at every turn. Well balanced characters get more more screen time/more narrative control over the game because the one hit wonders are only good at one thing.. The balanced characters are using their different skills/contacts all the time.

Yes. See combat-only chars. There WILL be combat because else they would not even get five minutes of fame. (I mistyped pain instead of fame. Guess I´m more GM than player now ). Besides, if I see another CS with Automatics 6 and NO Rifles skill I´ll be needing some source of fire. "I don´t have to learn that, the rules don´t say". "See my cool other dicepools". "Yep, I remember. Your the GM now. Oh." Don´t laugh, it happened (shortened to be more funny, but still).

You guys are hung up on a hyperspecialist as a combat-only character. I'm talking a pornomancer with 13 dice in Pistols and high technical skills. It's more than possible to pull off, and the system rewards you for doing so. Power in SR4 is dependent on the size of your dice pool, so whomever has the most high dice pools has the superior character, period.

Would you mind giving this pornomancer's stats or a link to a different thread? I also dont feel that having a 13DP is min-maxed. It is borderline in my opinion.

EDIT: Spelling mistakes that made what I was asking for almost ambiguous.

A shadowrun game typically involves working your contacts and dealing with social situations, planning and sneaking, and combat, either when the runners are detected, when it is the most expedient way to get past an obstacle, or when setups and betrayals happen. Despite being specialists, an optimally-built runner should be able to function outside of their specialty. The combat guys should be able to sneak a bit, and not embarrass themselves in social situations. Conversely, the techie and face types should at least be able to fire a pistol.

But that assumes a campaign where all of those things are given some heft. If it's purely a shoot-em-up campaign, Mr. Lucky and the elven gunslinger hog the spotlight. If it's a campaign of talking and working contacts, with violence a rarity, the pornomancer will dominate. A lot of GMs will complain about how dominating a combat-oriented character is, and ask for advice on how to curb them. Such GMs would be better off running a game like nathanross described, where non-combat abilities are treated as equally (or more) important as the combat-oriented ones.

It also assumes that a character with a high dice pool in one area will automatically be low in other areas, or that a generalist will always be useful. Actually, you can roll 17 dice in pistols and still have a well-rounded runner, while someone who overgeneralizes has to be careful that he isn't a stereotypical Jack of all trades, master of none - who will forever be the backup to all of the other characters' specialties.

I'd go a little further than that. You can have a character who throws 17+ dice in pistols, and still has 7-10 dice in other major skill areas: for example, sneaking and social. A generalist, due to the caps, is going to be throwing 7-10 dice in the major areas of combat, sneaking, and social. Not really an improvement. The 17+ dice well-rounded runner is the way to go; generalists are gimped and are forever relegated to backup roles in a well-balanced team.

The hyper-specialist can, and frequently does, match the generalist in almost every area. He gets screen time in his many specialties, and shares equal screen time with the generalist in the other areas. It gets even worse with a Mr. Lucky, who has Edge among his specialties. In short, he can be potentially good at everything.

I'll also point out that the hyper-specialist gets more critical successes than normal characters. That allows him to add more flourishes than anyone else. That translates not only into a character with a higher coolness factor, it translates into more narrative control (*you* get to add the flourishes, not the GM) and more screen time. So, not only do you do everything as well or better than everyone else, you get rewarded with a cooler character who can hog the spotlight.

I dont see why only having 7-10 dice is a bad thing and automatically relegates a character to a support position. Who's to say the whole team isn't composed of generalists? Everyone should have a role that only they can do, and they should be able to successfully complete their duties or the whole team suffers. This is what I consider a balanced team. Whether one of these jobs is throwing 8 more dice over the others in their respective role is insignificant. What would be an issue is if that player who is throwing 17 dice to shoot a pistol, also out talks a face (or at least tries to), hacks better than a hacker, and slings spells better than the mage (mind you this is a very extreme case and most likely wont ever happen). When you have overlapping roles, the issue of character to character power balance does become an issue. However, the game does not happen in a vacuum. It is played by human beings who can communicate and resolve issues, either through role play, or out of character discussion. Is that really so hard?


This is only a problem if the GM allows it to be a problem. If the GM allows Mr. Lucky or whoever else to always hog the spotlight, and not allow opportunities for their characters to shine then it the GM's fault, not the min-maxer (Power gamer is better to define this game hog though).


How does a higher DP give you a higher probability of critical successes? If anything, I think it gives you a lower chance of crits. I am right in saying that a critical success is achieved when over half the dice pool are 6's right?

Finally, if this power gamer's objective is just to hog the spotlight and relegate all the other players to mundaneness, the group will not last long. We are there to have fun, and I can honestly say that if all the players arent having fun, Im usually not having fun. Of course there are people out there who find it their purpose to rule the game, but they get booted in no time, or other players just plain leave. Such is the fate of power gamers.

No. A 'Critical Success' in SR4 is a test with 4 or more net hits.

If "specialist" means more dice in one, maybe even two skills, then yes, the specialist will loose little general power. A true specialist has all relevant skills higher than the generalist, and both augmentations and gear are choosen for his area.

A true "generalist" does mostly have lower dicepools, but a few more of those. Like the secondary skills of the specialist, his DPs are large enough to matter. Yet he has more skills because the BP went somewhere. Augmentations are choosen for general utility, gear covers as wide an area as the skills.

I´ve played both. The BP to karma ratio favours the first, actual gameplay the second type of char. Unless you play PC-RPG style were only one on the team needs a given skill. There is also a tendency for strong pools to be compensated for by stronger challenges, while being able to do more can be very rewarding.

Yes. There often is a (sometimes unconscious) tendency to simply "adjust" the challenges, since the specialist's DP are seen as the norm. That can be bad for the rest of team if it happens in combat and they are not as optimised.

I've done the first two in a single character. He could also out-sneak the Covert Ops specialist. The game system rewards this, and so does playtime: you sneak right along with the ninja, negotiate right alongside the face, and dominate combat. You share the spotlight with everyone else in their specialties, and dominate your own areas. The system should not encourage this, instead of saying one thing and forcing the GM/Players to do another.

It's not the player's objective. It's the designed objective of the system.

While his DP's are enough to matter, he seldom covers more skill areas than a well-designed generalist. He might have more depth, but not than a specialist in any given area. Again, there's not much reason to have both Con and Negotiation unless you're a generalist... or a dedicated face. So, you don't have any skills that the face doesn't already have, at a dice pool any higher than the face has. You might be good if the face is tied up somewhere else, but the GM will have to work overtime to give you screen time. And that's not something a game system should acknowledge.

As far as rewarding roleplay, I can say from years of Shadowrun experience that the generalist doesn't get to shine in the same way that the specialists do. Sure, a good GM can artifically force screen time for every player, but the generalist simply doesn't do things as well. This is exacerbated by the new Critical success rules, where scoring more successes is now in-game rewarded with narrative control and a cooler character.

You want to say "than a well-designed specialist" in the first sentence. Took me some time, slow day.

If you need both Con and Negotiations depends on your GM. You get to use both in my game, and most players not being adept at Con is a common reason why stealthy plans don´t work. Does any of your NPCs use social skills on the PCs? Those who do will know how a social skill is resisted, and how attribute alone somehow does not help. Don´t have Con? Resist someone conning you with Cha alone. Cha is your "dump stat"? You keep narrative control, but you go along. Besides, some skills you should have because your char would have picked them up. (Not directed at you personally, mind you. It is just a flaw of nearly all specialist builds I´ve seen. Those who keep consistency are far from reaching their potential).

As for specialists being more shiney... they can feel so, but it does not really change things around much. "Know what you want to play" was my basic premise. If you are not into doing the same thing, but harder, all those point concentrated in your "key skills" being better are straight-out wasted. If you are, have fun.

What I'm referring to is more the fact that if have Con/Fast Talk, you don't need Negotiation so much. When it comes to bargaining with a Johnson, you can use either. When selling things to a fixer, then the skill comes more into play; but that's the Face's job, not the street sam's or the generalist's.


Once again, Critical Successes. You might not be earning Edge left and right, but you are getting the flourishes that other player's aren't. That translates into more screen time, and a higher quality of it at that.

This is one problem of munchkins, as the GM has to make opposition harder to prevent them from becoming bored.


First off, unless you are demanding to negotiate instead of the face, there is no issue with you having a larger etiquette/negotiation pool. Same with the Covert Ops specialist. I assume all Shadowrunners to be at least acceptable Covert Ops specialists.


The system has no objectives. There is ONLY the player's objectives and how he can maximize the rewards inherent in that system to build a character he will have FUN playing.


I guess I can see what you mean about Critical Success rules. I had thought it was as rare as a glitch, but I guess Im wrong. Personally, even though I know the official rules, since I do know the reality of high dice pools, Im just going to ignore it, and play as I have been. Afterall, they are trying to say that it should be when you are trying to do something that is challenging to you, and for the character described, shooting someone in the face is not challenging (thus the crit rule does not apply).

Either way, I feel that groups find an equilibrium, and a balance between all of the roles. Whether one character gets a bit more time than others may just be a reality. After all, some people, even though their character has a huge DP, will just sit and let the other characters do whatever because they just arent the type to get up and fight for their actions. There are a million other things that come into play before rules are even taken into account.

Or if you're cooperating. Then, you get to share the spotlight. You get more screen time as a result, even if you're not dominating the scene. The same thing happens if you're frequently used as the backup.


The system has the objective of providing a fun framework for everyone to play in. Without that framework, we may as well all be playing cops-and-robbers with finger guns.
I'll also add that we have a word for a player who maximizes the game rewards at any expense: munchkin.

I think you misread the rule. The "Cool finish" bit is mandatory by RAW, no matter how easy the task is. Giving a point of Edge isn't. So, a Mr. Lucky would still get to add his flourish when he outshoots his opponent by 4+ successes, but he wouldn't regain Edge for doing so. Which is fine, but still means that Mr. Lucky gets extra screen time, and basically gets to show off more.

And the system should encourage that, instead of rewarding scene hogs with tangible, mechanical rewards and increased narrative control. Good players deserve to be rewarded, not punished.

You cannot reasonably expect the mechanics related to modeling the game world to deal with the social issues related to having a bunch of people together playing a game. Just like board games don't have their rules designed to accomodate sore losers, an RPG shouldn't have its rules designed with limiting "screen hogs" in mind.

DS

I was pretty amazed by this myself, but given the mind boggling number of posts he has made to this effect, I believe he is sincere in his desire to have a set of RPG game rules that can do just that.

The problem there, though, is not with the combat specialist. It is either the GM who creates challenges more suited for a team of combat specialists, or it is the non-combat specialists who forget that their characters are not killing machines. There are plenty of supporting roles that other characters can perform in combat, such as hacking enemy drones or commlinks, shooting out spotlights, laying down suppressive fire, or even contributing to combat from behind some good cover.

I personally don't buy the tired excuse of "If I challenge the tough guy, everyone else will get wiped out!" Give the tough guy a few mooks, and everyone else just one. Have enemies concentrate on the people who are hurting them the most. It's not hard! I detest the Harrison Bergeron attitude so many GMs seem to have, that all PCs should be brought down to some low common level, so that no one feels threatened by another character being better than them at something.

It sure as hell shouldn't encourage them. Which the SR4 favoritism of hyper-specialists and the Critical Success rules do.



"To have"? There are plenty that *do*. Of the ones I've personally played, Capes and Wushu do a good job of equalizing screen time between players. And I'm not really that big into the indie game scene. It's not a stretch to demand that my favorite game adopt some of the good qualities of other games. If SR4 can get away with wholesale robbery from nWoD, why can't it also learn from other games?


It's not always the "tough guy". In combat, it could be the drone-stealing rigger who constantly steals the limelight. Or it could be the pornomancer who seduces the guards before combat ever has a chance to break out. Basically, you're right that it's the GM who sets up a game that doesn't challenge all players equally... but it is *also* the fault of the game system that allows for such wildly unbalanced characters.