Actually: Its for the magic and the elves....


Theme? I can't say I've ever participated in an RPG discussion involving 'theme' of a game. Tell me, what is this 'Theme' you speak of?

I think he is implying the 'theme' of SR is 'Cyberpunk with magic and elves' as compared to 'Cyberpunk with distopian, broken down society' or 'Cyberpunk with flying cars and late '80s retro' or even 'Cyberpunk with big eyes and small mouth'.

That's kind of why I play the game.

By the way, I did not mean to insult anyone who may play other games. Emo may not have been the best choice of words to express the specific appeal of WoD, but at the time, I could not think of anything better.

My reason for insulting D&D is basically the nature of dungeon crawling in general. My buff with Exalted is the same as my buff with BESM. If you want anime, go watch anime. Sure, any system/setting can allow roleplaying, just as any system can allow rollplaying. Sure, you can play SR like D&D, Exalted, or WoD, but I do not think the setting lends to it.

Anyways, sorry for stepping on so many toes. Game as you will.

he's not wrong. if i were playing Mr. Lucky under the GMs i usually play with, i'd be looking at branching out instead of advancing in my area of expertise. the suggestions people have made would help the character be more well-rounded, yes, but the character as presented is well-rounded enough to survive in most types of games i've played in. he excels in one area, and doesn't lack enough in other areas that his survival is more at risk than many other character types. QED, man.

and nathanross, just stop. you don't like other games, great. that doesn't make it okay to insult the people who play them, nor the way they choose to play them. personally, i can have myself a damn good time with a solid dungeon crawl. there's nothing inherently more mature about 'roleplaying' over 'rollplaying'. lording one over the other, that's lacking in maturity. for chrissake, look at the discussion me and Frank just had over the math behind different TN systems (and many previous, far more detailed discussions). yeah, that shit was totally for n00bs.

Then perhaps you can argue with Cain for a while since Cain himself has said that Mr. Lucky doesn't fulfil the challenge.



Cain claimed to be able to create a character from chargen that was unable to improve in his primary area and be so good in secondary areas that further improvement was meaningless. Not that he could produce a character that was "well rounded." Cain's claim was one that was very critical of the SR4 rules, latest in a long series of unsupported criticisms. As it's painfully clear that we are not going to see a character that meets Cain's boast appear, I would like him to do the decent thing and apologise for making unfounded criticisms of the rules that so much effort went into producing for us. All I'm asking for is a simple admission from him that he was wrong.

knasser, you may feel that Cain's criticisms are unwarranted, but it's hard to say they're 'unsupported' when he's discussed them as frequently and at as great a length as he has. you may not feel that the support he's provided is valid (that it does not support the conclusions he says it supports), but that's different from being unsupported. at least, it is in the context of a discussion board.

as for the character, yes, i feel it'd be pointless to advance unless i were interested in having the character branch out into other disciplines. i tend to plan 100-200 karma ahead, when creating characters; i know what directions i want them to grow in, and i have a rough idea of how they'll get there. Cain's character is solid--a good ol' boy done good, an urban cowboy who provides impressive fire support and is handy in almost any sort of pinch the team might find themselves in. he's perfectly suited for the role he's designed to play, and they only reason you'd need to spend karma or even nuyen is if you wanted to expand his role. if you don't feel he's perfectly suited for the role he's designed for, well, that's your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it. but that hardly makes Cain wrong.

Or to increase his Initiative, to be more effective in his chosen role (pistol combat).

Or to increase his defensive abilities in various ways, to be more effective in his chosen role (pistol combat).

Or to increase his Preception, to be more effective in his chosen role (pistol combat).

etc.

This argument is semantical and not worth having. Knasser says Cain was wrong, Cain and his lackeys can then attempt to claim that they didn't say/mean what Knasser says they did. And Knasser can assert that they're just changing the definition after the fact, they will counter that they're not, that there is only one definition, and by the way they're right, etc. It will not end unless one party is mature enough to end it. And it's guaranteed to be vapid drivel as long as it continues past where it already has.

Please, let's move on to higher intellectual pursuits.

move on to the intellectual pursuit of biting my cock. i think i'm done here.

Um ... you are aware that this is Dumpshock, right?

mfb, the problem is Cain himself said that Mr. Lucky didn't fit the bill. If even *he* says he doesn't meet the requirements, how can we be expected to?

I've never understood why people suggest that they want someone to bite their penis or how this can be construed as derogatory or threatening. At any rate, I would still like Cain to withdraw his initial statement. The debate does not come down to simple opinion - Cain's statement has been shown to be inconsistent with the rules published in the book and hence cannot be used as a criticism of those rules. The honourable thing to do would be to admit the statement was incorrect and withdraw it.

Ad hominem. Please note that for the last few pages, you haven't given one single shred of evidence against my position, you've simply attacked my character. You haven't resorted to outright insults yet, but that's not required for an Ad Hominem. At any event, the honorable thing to do would be to apologize.

But, let's deal briefly with the subject at hand. I've posted three characters that fit the bill in some form or another: two complete, one incomplete. I conceded that what constitutes an "area" was sufficiently vauge, so that Mr. Lucky might or might not fit the bill. And then the OP conceded, and I was asked to not start a flame war. So, we all agreed to drop the topic. And then, the thread moved into productive avenues.

I may be stubborn, but I don't hold onto internet grudges for ten pages after everyone shook hands and agreed to play nice. I don't go out of my way to bring down someone who is doing the right thing in avoiding a fight. In short: I don't start fights, I finish them.

Shall we agree to play nice? Or do you really want a flame war? I sure as hell don't, but then again, I'm not betting that you'll apologize, either.

the OP didn't concede because you proved him wrong, he conceded because he didn't feel like slamming his head into a brick wall for days on end. there is a difference Cain.

he decided that it was a waste of time to continue discussing it with you. i have to say, i'm inclined to agree... i can't say that after reading any of your posts, i'm convinced you have anything to say other than to scream "i'm right" at the top of your lungs. it's gotten really old, really fast, and i can't say i care to listen to it anymore.

[edit] and for the record, don't bother responding to me. you are now the first and only person to make it onto my ignore list. congratulations on your outstanding achievement. [/edit]

Belive whatever you wish. But also believe this: Silence is Assent.

No, it's not. It's only assent when you want to conjure up illusionary supporters. The people who vocally support you are on your side, the others are either on no-one's side, or an opposing side. It's really not that hard to figure out.

I'll refer you to the famous poem by Niemoller.. Since you already regard me as the enemy, this will serve as a reminder of what silence means.

You know Cain, it really isn't that we are prejudice against you. We (at least I) just disagree with your argument. We are not being prejudice, and certainly not based on race/ethnicity/religion. Also, the forum messed up your link (removed the last '.':

First they Came... by Martin Niemöller.

Now now, Cain. The proper term is "nemesis." Honestly, I don't regard you as an enemy. Enemies I actively seek to destroy and remove from existence. You're a hell of a sparring partner though. I don't agree with your stances (about 90% of the time), and vice versa. With you, I get to try to assault ideas that I think are flawed, and in turn you do the same. Enemy is definitely the wrong word.

That said, being silent in the face of oppression by a tyrannical regime is one thing. It's quite another to withhold comment on a discussion board about rules interpretations. Silence != Assent in a discussion forum about written rules and their interpretations.

I thought he was talking about biting his own cock, I was confused. That not being the case, doesn't this board have rules against flaming? That whole ding dong comment was about the most blatant flame I can recall seeing on a message board.



I never said it was a matter of opinion (I dunno if you were referring to me, but just clarifying my own position), it's a matter of semantics. And I think Cain's response, that he didn't concede exactly what you say he conceded, proves my point. Semantics are boring, empty, and unproductive. WE HATES THEM. Please, think of the lolcats, or something.

@Cain: Here's the problem. Stubborness is unproductive in a back and forth debate. All you can do by continuing to assert your position in the face of valid arguments to the contrary is reduce your credibility. The proper form of argument is to make a point, wait for a response, and then counter that response. Unless the response is completely groundless, you will usually have to concede some part of it, but make a distinction that will allow the thread of your argument to continue and develop. If you simply reassert your original point without ever conceding anything you are not arguing, you're just pounding your chest and grunting. You can do what you want, I'm just suggesting that your style is very ineffective if you have any desire to convince anyone of anything. Case in point: few agree with you, and some seem to actually hate you, perhaps out of frustration with your unwillingness to participate in a two sided argument.

So. What are you? A troll? Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Or are you a true believer who cannot concede anything because you're so convinced that you're correct? I'd be interested to hear your answer.

No good troll would admit to being a troll.

Not that I think Cain is one. I actually agree with what I thought he was arguing for in the beginning, though after 13 pages...I'm...not quite sure what we're arguing for anymore.

Something about swordfishes and mustardballs probably.

You frequently try to characterise criticisms of what you've said as criticisms of yourself, saying "Ad hominem" and then ignoring all the points made. I haven't attacked you personally. I have repeatedly challenged what you have written. I don't believe that you are unable to distinguish between the two, I do believe that you deliberately respond as if its the latter in the hope that it will distract people from the points that you are ignoring. Is this statement itself an ad hominem? Not really as I'm criticising your style of argument which is increasingly becoming the focus of this thread. Pretty much everyone here thinks you are wrong in your initial statement and the focus of interest now seems to be your obsession with arguing - over the course of years - points that everyone else has long since decided were baseless.



You keep saying you've posted three characters. In fact you posted (after much pressure) one character of your own which you stated yourself didn't meet the challenge and which didn't even have Perception, and then later followed it with someone else's character you copied from this site which was even less able to meet the challenge. The mythical third character I'm still waiting for.



Summary of the above:
By demanding that I make good on my boast you are being not nice. It's not my fault we are having an argument when you could just accept that I'm right without proof.

As to "I don't start fights, I finish them" you indeed do start these endless discussions by making heavily critical statements of the SR4 rules that you cannot support, inviting people to take them apart. You don't finish fights, you just think that so long as you believe you won, you did.



I am happy to play nice. Please post a character that meets the boast that began this thread, or admit that you were wrong.

See, once again, you're not actually putting up an argument; you "challenge what I've written". You make the statement about my style of argument rather than the arguments themselves. That's a classic Ad Hominem, with or without the outright insults, and that limits my responses. I have to acknowledge the fact you made a point, but then dismiss it as the fallacy it is. In short, because you're doing nothing but shouting: "You're wrong! Wah!" at the top of your lungs, there's nothing I can do but repeat that I'm right.

See what I mean? Mr. Lucky meets the area I defined, (and even has perception) but not the impossible-to-meet area of perfect shadowrunner with 28's in every stat that you defined. I asked for clarification, and instead of getting it, i get more ad hominems. Which, because they're a logical fallacy, I dismiss.

As fpr the rest, why are you dragging up something from five pages back if not to start a flamewar?

Then please apologize or admit you were wrong.

Cmon Cain, now who is engaging in ad hominem...

You are now just being deliberately antagonistic, hoping that a flame war is started that locks this thread or gets the discussion banned, so you don't have to admit that several people have defined areas ranging from pistol specialist through to combat specialist and in each case it has been shown that Mr. Lucky could meaningfully improve with karma, which is a direct refutation of your original claim.

At no point during this thread, apart from increasingly obvious attempts to either claim everyone is picking on you or declare that there is no meaningful advancement unless you add 12 dice to a skill, have you actually either:

a) posted the mythical 'third' character that you believe meets the criteria of your claim (even the simplest criteria of being the best pistol shot in the game).

b) refuted any of the arguments placed against Mr. Lucky or the Pornomancer being 'impossible to improve' with karma, aside from to say 'nah nah I am right because I don't believe adding 2 or 3 extra dice counts as meaningful improvement'. Seriously, if that is your only defense then we might as well close this thread now.

If you truly cannot produce a character who cannot be improved in their primary area with karma, then just admit that you were wrong and we can all move onto other threads. Please. Pretty Please. Pretty Please with diced Devil Rat on.

You mean there's such a thing is a good troll?

I got ignored, so I'll ask again: Cain, are you a troll, or just a zealot who believes he's right? Are you sticking to your guns because you have no doubt that you're correct, or are you just trying to stir things up? Or none of the above? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm geniunely interested in your response.

I have not seen a single char that fits the bill in this thread. I´ve even given it a shot on my own, but the one comment given did not get me closer to fulfilling the challenge. It would have stretched the BP even farther. While I was happy that the thread stayed productive, the challenge has to be deemed a failure.

This is the problem with opinions: everybody has got their own set of them, and most of us can't distinguish between our opinions and hard fact.

• Cain has the opinion that being able to build a character who is as good as they can get in one particular area right at character generation is a bad thing, because it limits the characters ability to progress. Others on the thread don't think this is a bad thing because they want the opportunity to be able to start the game with a character who is at the top of his field.
• Cain has the opinion that Mr Lucky and Mrs Pornomancer meet the criteria of being virtually as good as they can be in their chosen areas of expertise. Others disagree and think that those characters are deficient in important areas, or at least not completely broken.
• Cain and several other posters on the thread don't care for some of the basic mechanics used in SR4. Some people agree, and some disagree with this assessment to varying degrees.

Cain is neither right nor wrong in his opinions. He has just as much right to them as anyone else does. The only thing about this conversation that annoys me is that he refuses to acknowlege that anyone else's contrary opinions could hold equal validity. There's a big difference between saying "I don't like hard caps on skills." versus saying "Hard caps are a stupid idea" and refusing to acknowlege anyone's counterarguments.

Alrighty folks, we're closing this one. Incidentally, we'd like to thank everyone for, by and large, keeping this debate civil, and we're closing it up not because it's been a problem, but because we're wildly off-topic and focusing no longer on the initial challenge and it's resolution but instead on the various merits of debating style and logical structure.