Honestly this whole thing comes down to personal preference. Unpronouncable believes (nearest I can figure) that a character with less than a 4 dice pool for social skills is so exceedingly crippled that he's destined to die a horrible death when he pisses off Bubba the Love Troll because he couldn't keep his stupid mouth shut. Others believe Cha 1 and no social skills is not only playable, but perfectly acceptable, for various reasons that have been stated numerous times.

You guys aren't going to come to an agreement, as both sides are looking at this in completely different ways. Agree to disagree?

Heh - not quite. It should, and does, increase the odds of said horrible death.

~4 dice is what I view as a 'normal' person.
~2 dice is someone who's a bit 'off' (Asperger's or the like.)
<1 die should have a background that actually explains why he's apparently completely unsocialized. (I could see it for a jarhead, for example.)

It's a weakness. A body of 1 should hope he's never in a grenade blast. A strength of 1 should avoid climbing walls. A reaction of 1 should stay behind full cover. A willpower of 1 should avoid mages. A logic of 1 shouldn't pick locks. et cetera, ad nauseum. All weaknesses. Any of which could, and eventually almost certainly will, happen on a shadowrun. In this thread the pro-Cha 1 people are saying that only "bad GMs" would let it happen to them. Bullpucky.

What does skill 2 mean in SR4? I thought that was supposed to represent a significant level of accomplishment in the related skill?

That would imply that skill 2/att 2 is not the "norm", but is an otherwise average person with a significant level of accomplishment in the specific skill. Someone with Cha 2/Negotiation 2 might have a few years experience as a waiter, for example, or an upper-level business school student.

See, that is a fundamental miscommunication here. IF the 'anti-1 stat' crowd were talking about 'letting things happen' I don't think anyone would care. Why should they? Are they/we supposed to be upset that you didn't hand out bonus dice to offset the low stat?


Of course not. Sometimes the Sammy might be the only guy with the right contact for this job, or maybe he's the guy that gets singled out for a social test one game. Dice fall where they fall.


But from the very beginning of this thread its been about 'forcing' bad situations on these characters. Its been about random harassment by Lonestar singling out the 'Elephant Man in the Crowd' or mugging the face on the way to the meet. Its been about forcing bad things to happen, like low charisma magically turning the Sammy into a clutz long enough to push an awkward difficult bluff check on them.

Not a lot of 'letting' going on, I'm afraid.

So is Charisma the only one you penalize like this, and "expect" things from all your players concerning?

I haven't been arguing in favor of "forcing." I've been pointing out that sometimes facing your weakness (especially one intentionally designed into the character) is unavoidable. And getting a lot of flak for it.

It's not "forcing" a bad situation when their fixer refuses to deal with an unknown middleman (i.e. the team face) - simply good sense for the fixer.

It's not "forcing" a bad situation when the charisma 1 guy is the logical first stop for lonestar (unless somebody else is doing something that should be attracting their attention) he's the guy who always looks out of place.

I don't know.

Charisma is the only one I've ever seen anyone expect to get away with though.

How so?

Seriously: How do you get that he looks out of place? There are flaws that cover that sort of thing. I've met plenty of jerks and wallflowers and other 'low charisma' types, and quite often they don't LOOK any different than anyone else. They don't particularly (in many cases...) ACT any different. Not unless you talk to them or spend a great deal of time watching them specifically, and seeing how they interact with others... or don't.

As a matter of fact, one of the guys I worked with up until last week was a nice example: no social life (literally, he stayed in the office until 8 or 9 o'clock at night... alone... ) no friends. He'd actually taken a major demotion years before I met him just to keep his career field, he couldn't get promoted in 'management' because no one liked him.

All in all, hes a happy, reasonably well adjusted jerk. Virtually impossible to talk to unless you are willing to take the casual abuse he heaps on everyone around him. He never thinks he's done wrong even when the boss comes in and pulls him aside for a half hour (or more) ass chewing for utterly disrupting the workplace with an uncalled for tirade against some hapless individual...

Do I need to repeat the 'no freinds, no social life' part again?

Yet, you could meet this guy on the street and think nothing of him. He looks just like everyone else. If you talk to him for a few minutes you think 'hey, hes sort of loud'.. a few minutes more and 'man, I can't believe he just said that'. And you probably won't make any effort to call him or talk to him again outside of business. Of course, if you are unlucky (in game terms: he rolls that one...), you'll actively avoid him because he's told you that he thinks you are worthless, stupid or some other denigrating term, and he'll be completely oblivious to the fact that its insulting to you.



But pick him out of a handful of strangers on a moments notice?

Never.

so you expect the people who are protecting each other in life and death situations to instantly distrust each other. I hope you make sure your teams all fail early on then. Trust is the only way you survive in the shadows

No friends, no social life does not necessarily directly translate to a low charisma score (there's a correlation, yes.)
In SR4 terms, he could easily be Charisma 4, no (or very limited) social skills, uncouth.

As for why I would expect a low charisma, low-if-any social skill character to often "not fit in"?



The exception, of course, is if that character actually does belong there. A shadowrunner, by definition, almost certainly does not.

*shrugs*

When I play, I trust the other runners to do their job. I trust myself to have the minimal abilities neccessary to get out alive if my trust was unfounded.

Right. That's the Etiquette skill. Not the Charisma attribute.

If anything, the OPPOSITE would be true -- those with a high Charisma stand out, they're striking, confident, full of poise and balance. Innately remarkable (if either extreme of the attribute is innately remarkable).

In fact, my primary character once murdered two civvies in cold blood because of a certain someone else's high Charisma score. They saw us pulling a job in broad daylight, gawped at her (and her modified -- 11, I think? DE, mfb, anyone else remember A'ja? -- Charisma) and asked if she needed help. We were in the middle of kidnapping about as high-profile a target as you can manage, and could not be remembered...but she's not the sort of person that gets forgotten. Long story short, they each got a headshot for their trouble.

There are already flaws in place to cover the things you continue to attribute to a low Charisma. A Charisma of 1 is not Uncouth, or Distinctive Style, or Inept with any skills. It's not even automatically low social skills!

It's just a low attribute, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, it's just a low attribute, which is a tool in RGPs to describe the character and how he or she interacts with the world. I don't see the advantage of downplaying its impact in the game.

I'm not "attributing" anything additional to low charisma. Someone with a charisma 1 and etiquette 5 wouldn't stand out (usually...random rolls, after all) - I agree with that. But he'd still overpay his fixer unless he also had a decent negotiation. He still couldn't keep a straight face while lying without a decent con. It's cheaper and easier all around to bump the stat up, unless there's a roleplaying reason to keep it low.

Have you ever seen a low-charisma character with high charisma-linked skills? I won't say it's impossible - it's just something I've never seen.

Generally, a stat is roughly half the dice someone is going to roll on any given test. Someone with an estimated 2 dice on an etiquette test would be expected to blend in less than someone with 4. When a cop is lookign for someone to question, blending in less is going to get his attention. This is NOT picking on the low-charisma character, merely the way the mechanics of the game work.

How are you downplaying its impact on a game simply by not making up a whole new definition for it?

Like has been said -- there are other tools in this RPG that describe characters with real social issues. Some of the random punishments people are suggesting are appropriate to heap onto someone just for having a low Charisma are things that are unarguably already covered by those other tools. What's the point in not taking Incompetent (insert social skill here) or Uncouth or Distinctive Style, if your GM is going to randomly decide having a 1 in an attribute gives you all the same penalties? Because that's what people are suggesting. That's what people are describing, whether they mean to or not. They're not describing someone with a 1 Cha. They're describing someone with a 1 Cha and no social skills or a handful of existing Traits.

If someone has a 1 Body, do you randomly treat them like they've got Infirm or Low Pain Threshold? If someone's got a 1 Strength, does a "good" GM automatically act like they've got Incompent: Every Physical Skill? Do characters with low Edge automatically get Bad Luck tacked on as extra punishment?

Or, on the flipside, does every character with a high Charisma automatically get treated like he has First Impression and Bland?

My point is that having a 1 Charisma (or any other attribute) is already punishment enough, when the time comes to roll dice. It's a quantifiable, mathematically sound, "punishment," meted out simply by one having one base die (for that attribute). Having a shitty soak pool and being easily encumbered by armor is already enough of a penalty for a 1 Body, right? Not being able to carry shit is already a penalty for a 1 Strength. So why isn't having a low base pool for social tests already enough of a penalty for having a 1 Charisma?

Why tack on all this extra shit (extra shit that's specifically covered by other traits) for no good reason but to "punish" a "min maxer?"


Uhh...Yes you are. You totally are. Scroll up and read. You are. You -- or, at the very best, someone whose posts I'm mistaking for yours, but who you're agreeing with enough that I got you two mixed up (I can't review the thread from this edit screen) -- are having them randomly get picked out of lineups (covered by Distinctive Style), you're acting like they're complete social misfits (covered by Uncouth), suggesting they have to roll in situations other characters wouldn't (arbitrarily punishing someone because you don't like what attribute they've chosen as a dump stat), etc, etc, etc.

The only flaw innate in a 1 Charisma is...having a 1 Charisma.

if 2 Cha, 2 negotiation is ok, then what in the world is wrong with 1 Cha, 2 etiquette? unless the first thing you do with everyone you meet is haggle over prices, those 3 dice are more than 2 Cha, 2 negotiation in most situations.

Have you ever seen a Strength 1 or Body 1 character who isn't treated like an invalid (or rejected by a team at roll-up)? A Body 1 character will be getting sick more often, a Strength 1 character will be alternatly bullied and patronized by some groups - though a decent Charisma/Etiquette will have them rolling with the punches, playing it up, etc. Having that come-up in game isn't punishment, it's opportunity.

The game mechanics do treat you as inept at social skills because Charisma 1 character defaults to Long Shot - Uncouth, etc are specific facets of having having Charisma penalties, but if you don't take them as Negative Qualities, then you can raise your Charisma and skills at a later time (though likely this Charisma 1 character has already taken them, because metagame he can trust his face).

i can honestly say i've never encountered that. i just don't understand why 1 is so much worse than 2.

My current technomancer has a 1 Agility. I'm glad my GM doesn't infer this means I trip over my own feet every time I cross the street. I have decent body and strength (3 and 2 respectively). And I basically avoid any task that has to be hurried and requires manual dexterity, and though I've drawn my gun on multiple occasions never once have I actually pulled the trigger. Characters learn to work with their short-comings, so someone with Cha 1, will do everything they can to avoid any of those awkward social occasions. If that means standing and keeping their mouth shut while the face is talking, or just avoiding any place that tries to be too personal. Only a character with an Intuition of 1, and another stat of 1, should be penalized because then they might not realize that they are so inept. They probably shop at Wal-M.. err Stuffer Shack, and then they only have to deal with the personel who don't give a damn about their customers, or their business and are just there to make minimum wage.

Ditto. I don't see characters with a 1 stat immediately rejected, picked on or harassed in any of the games I've played in. 2 is more common than seeing ones, but still, the Bod 1 character might get laughed at about bruising easily, but that's about as far as it might go.

Hm, mathematically, you're half as charismatic. 1 is 50% 2, 2 is 66% 3, 3 is 75% 4, 4 is 80% 5... The as the rating gets higher, the less difference there is in attributes. Conversely, the lower the attribute, the vaster the difference.

The Face/Doc I'm playing has a str and bod of 1, fits with the background, isn't treated like an invalid and I get the other guys to do all my heavy lifting...
I haven't even thought about raising them, since I have done nothing that would warrant it...

yes, but those percentages don't mean anything. in game mechanics, the fact that 1 is 50% of 2 has no significance; it's just one less die.

Lineup? where are you getting a lineup?

I'll try this again. If a police officer responds to a call, and finds 6 people, 5 of whom look unhappy, and one who looks very nervous because he can't fake fitting in well enough...starting with the OBVIOUS suspect is NOT a bad thing. That's NOT Distinctive Style - the rainbow-afro guy was distinctive style. If the player buys up enough skill that his character CAN fit in, he won't get picked out first. He MIGHT get some advice on spending bp and karma more effectively.

Crimeny - the way you're reading it - if a cop shows up because a troll is creating a disturbance, and there's 5 elves and a troll in the room, he shouldn't be able to start by talking to the troll, because THAT would be bad GMing.


A stat of 1 in-and-of-itself isn't a problem IF it makes sense. But EVERY stat gets used sometimes, and when it comes up, the player doesn't have any excuse to cry foul.

I think all of you as players are missing great opportunities. Agility 1 should be a bungler, Body 1 should be taking vitamins like an addiction IC: "because when he does get sick, he gets really sick", and Strength 1? Seriously? Never seen it, ever. But SR3 had encumbrance rules *shrug* If it means I'm a bad GM because I'd expect players to play these up and have fun doing so, oh well.

Yeah, sorry. I gave you more credit than that, I assumed you meant a group of people specifically being examined and having their ability to lie and/or fit in actively tested -- not just a bunch of people standing around on a city street. My mistake.


There you are again, assuming. You yourself say if he buys up some skill he's fine... because you're assuming he hasn't got the skill in the first place. You're talking about something totally different than what everyone else is talking about. You're talking about a guy who can't fake fitting in, who's automatically an obvious suspect, and all the rest. We're not. We're talking about a guy with Charisma 1 and who knows what else. You're putting stuff on the sheet that's not there (Incompetence with certain skills), or erasing from the sheet things that might be there (like social skills).


No. I'm saying that if there are five elves and a troll in the room, you should check the fucking character sheet and make sure that sixth guy is really a troll before you single him out.


He does, if the GM goes out of his way to only make it "come up" for him, in all sorts of situations where it wouldn't "come up" for everyone else.

There's a difference between wanting a player to "play these up," and forcing them to. Picking on them as a GM because YOU, personally, don't approve of their chosen stat-line. The Body 1 guy shouldn't need the vitamins any more than anyone else, because he hasn't taken a Flaw to reflect a damaged immune system (which exists). The Agility 1 guy might have cybernetic balance augmentation, reflex recorders, high skills to reflect stubbornly training himself, and muscle augmentation -- but hah-hah, it's funnier to make him fall down!

A low stat is punishment enough. Why make up additional stuff to tack onto it, force it onto someone, and then take the moral high ground? If someone wanted all the extra crap that came with a low Agility and Incompetent: Gymnastics, they'd take both. As it is, why ignore the rules as written to give people extra junk?

And I was assuming you were trying to avoid the over-exaggeration you're accusing me of, my mistake.



And once again - NO I'M NOT. This is NOT an automatic 1 charisma = arrested. Why else would I follow up with the bit about the skill?



You mean like how I elaborate about the guy with a low charisma, but decent pool?



Where did I say anyone else wouldn't have to make that etiquette roll? Except for the people who actually work there, y'know? The Charisma 8 elf is going to have to make the same bloody roll too. Generally, he'd be expected to get successes though.

Try debating honestly, hmm? Or at least reading for comprehension.

that's a completely different subject. i roleplay my characters' stats, and i expect others to as well--my lower-Int characters don't come up with the plans, my lower-Cha characters don't lead the group, etcetera. but that's got little or nothing to do with whether or not 1 Cha is teribblebadwrong for a character to have.

Mr. Unpronounceable: Based purely on my observations of this thread, you seem to be having a hard time convincing other people of your point of view, and many people seem to be taking somewhat of a dislike to you. Therefore, based on the evidence, I am forced to conclude that you are a shining example of a person with 1 Charisma. So as expert testimony, do you find it difficult to function in your normal life? Do you feel that you are "crippled" as a person? Or do you get along okay? Just wondering.


Actually, I'm just being an ass, so you probably shouldn't take me too seriously or get offended. Unless you're a big crybaby.

No, actually I really do have a hard time convincing people 1+1=2 in real life. When it's not to their immediate advantage, anyway.

I can lead a horse's ass to water...but I have trouble with that next step.

What are you even talking about? You mentioned a round-up on a city street as a situation where a guy with 1 Cha would stand out. I gave you the benefit of the doubt (by misremembering) and assuming you didn't just mean a round-up on a city street, but rather a lineup. I gave your stance more credit than it deserves. That's the exact opposite of accusing you of something. I thought you said two plus two equals five, when you were in fact saying two plus two equals a billion -- and then you corrected me, and let me know you did insist it was a billion. I don't even understand how your last comment fits into that chain of events.


Uhh, we're talking about guys with 1 Charisma. Here's what you said: "It's not 'forcing" a bad situation when the charisma 1 guy is the logical first stop for lonestar (unless somebody else is doing something that should be attracting their attention) he's the guy who always looks out of place."

Those words right there are from your post. We're all talking about a guy with a 1 Charisma, and you're saying he's the "logical first step" for Lone Star, because he's the guy who "always looks out of place." Those are your words. Right there. In between the quotation marks, in the paragraph above this one. That's you talking, there.

You did not say "when the charisma 1 guy with Uncouth" or "when the charisma 1 guy with no social skills," did you? Here, let's look four inches skyward together and check. Hmm, nope. Nope. I don't see it. I just see "when the charisma 1 guy," how about you? You are saying any guy with a 1 Charisma is the logical first step for Lone Star on any call they get to a street. Period. That's what you're saying.

What the rest of us are saying -- mfb and Fortune began about four pages ago, I'm carrying the torch while they work or sleep or whatever it is they do this time of day -- is that you are ASSUMING that "Cha 1" (which is what everyone else in this thread is talking about) means "first step for Lonestar" and "always looks out of place." What we're trying to say is that this is not necessarily the case.

Maybe he's got a Cha 1 and Influence Skill Group at 6, because he's a sociopath that has no real connection with other human beings but has practiced his entire life at faking it, and everyone else on the street is a Cha 2-3 schmuck with no skill points invested in social skills... He's got double their dice pool, but you're assuming that simply cannot be the case because you're saying Cha-1-Guy automatically stands out, and the cops automatically approach him first.

See that? See how what you're saying and what might happen in-game do not necessarily mesh up? That's what we're arguing. You can use caps and say I'M NOT SAYING THAT all you want to, I can just check back a couple of pages and read it again, to remind myself that all the caps in the world doesn't change what you wrote.


Because, three or four pages later, I called you on it? There was nothing about skill in your original post, the one I'm talking about. Don't tack it on after the fact and act like you were talking about skill all along. Christ. No wonder you're winning this argument in your head, if you keep changing your stance.


This bit may or may not (I'm trying to skim the thread and find it) have been directed precisely at you. I distinctly recall one of the GMs earlier in the thread insisting that there were plenty of situations wherein they'd make someone with a 1 Charisma roll for a social situation, when he'd let anyone else glide without having to touch their dice. That is, to me, unfair GMing. That precise comment may not have been yours, but what I specifically quoted and responded to was your comment. You'll note that I'm saying "if the GM goes out of his way" and not "If Mr. Unpronounceable, YOU, are GMing, and you go out of your way..."

You can say I'm debating dishonestly, or not comprehending what I'm reading, but that doesn't refute the point. I stand by it. If a GM is arbitrarily deciding someone with a 1 attribute has to roll for situations and encounters that no one else would have to roll for, especially if he's doing so because he has a chip on his shoulder about Charisma (in particular) being a "dump stat," that's poor GMing. That's not impartial. That's putting someone on the spot just because you can, and you don't like their character build. I don't care if it's you doing it (or you that proposed it initially), because the comment isn't pointed at any one person, it's a blanket statement of my opinion. I don't care if it's you, me, mfb, Synner, or Jesus H. Christ running a Gencon game for me -- if a GM decides to punish someone for a low attribute (regardless of traits, skills, or anything else) by forcing them into a situation where they have to make a roll that other characters would simply have hand-waved away, that's poor GMing. It's not impartial, it's not fair, and it's not in the rules. That's a grudge, not role-playing.

Yes, I know I got long winded on that last bit of quote, but I want to make sure I'm very clear on it. It's not necessarily directed at you in particular, despite the fact we're quoting each other. It is a general statement on my opinion of GMs who do that (and, since I still can't seem to find the post where it was suggested, I'm not sure who it was that said it in the first place).

EDIT TO ADD: And, yeah. I'm well aware I'm being kind of a dick in this post. I could edit it out and try to act like I'm not, but that'd be dishonest of me. I could also apologize, but that'd be insincere. Instead, I'll leave the dickishness there (even after having a good half hour to "cool down" or "reflect" or "eat a sandwich" or whatever), and just say that I'm being dickish because it really feels like people have been trying to say the same thing to you over and over again for like four, five, pages now. "Cha 1 doesn't mean Cha 1 plus no skill, or Cha 1 plus Incompetence, or Cha 1 plus Uncouth. It just means Cha 1. Stop treating it like more than it is." And...just...yeah. I'm a dick, when that sort of repetition has to happen. I don't think you're an idiot, I just don't understand why this argument is still happening.

One (hopefully productive) note about calling for extra tests for low-stat people, and to make a distinction about when it's fair and when it's asshattery.
I'm going to use an example, and in my example I'm going to use strength, because I can't think of a good example using Charisma, so deal with it.
Case 1) A group of characters are climbing out of a manhole. They're all fit characters, street sams, melee adepts, etc. I do not call for a roll.
Case 2) A group of characters are climbing out of a manhole. One of them has Str 1. I make everyone roll a threshold 1 test.
Case 3) A group of characters are climbing out of a manhole. One of them has Str 1. I make that character roll a threshold 1 test.

Case 3 is the asshat. Case 2 is just treating everyone fairly, to the potential disadvantage of one character. And Case 1 is the GM controlling the pacing of his game and not calling for boring tests with foregone conclusions.

Precisely.

heh - fair enough. It sounds like we're arguing more-or-less the same position, just from opposite sides...and using phrasing guaranteed to get up the other guy's nose.

Once again, my position is that charisma 1 is not in-and-of-itself a horrible thing - it's inefficient spending and amplifies the weakness inherent in low-social skill characters unneccessarily, but it isn't a target by itself.

I guess I should have said "almost always looks out of place" (see following:)

I will say once again that I have never seen someone take charisma 1 and make any attempt to strengthen that character's social-fu, while the body 1, agility 1, reaction 1, willpower 1, intuition 1, or logic 1 characters that have shown up on rare occasions have universally mitigated those areas where they were weakest. (Anectdote != data, but it's what I have to work with, since nobody's posting full builds for examples...if we were, it probably would have prevented a lot of these arguments.)

As for the etiquette examples: I was never talking about a random on-the-street round-up, though others may have been. More like...think security overwatch at a corporate party during which something important turned up missing. They wouldn't be looking for an 8 foot tall albino, just somebody who doesn't quite 'fit.' The team member with a dice pool of (1 + x) is probably going to attract more attention than the one with a pool of (2+ + x), because that's how the mechanics work. But everyone who is 'out of place' would have to make that roll, and someone could, possibly, do worse, and thus be the prime suspect.

And I'll not debate that singling out a character for rolls due to a low stat isn't good - I agree with you there, and don't call for such*. But I got complained at earlier because I insisted that rolls that indicate how well he, specifically, does should be rolled by him, not his friend, the face (i.e. etiquette tests, negotiation tests, etc.)


*One exception I can think of: low strength - the book gives an 'automatic' carry weight tied to strength. The guy with the low strength had to roll to see how well he could carry an item, while everyone else had enough str to skip the roll. He did fine, and there really were no serious consequences for him failing - just someone else would have had to carry it.

@Moon-Hawk: Excellent example.

Here's a Charisma example: A group of runners are on their way to a nova-hot, buzzworthy club for some well-earned R&R time. The group decides they don't want to stand in line, so the boldly walk up to the bouncer and offer up some nuyen to help get their names on the VIP list.

Case 1) The runners transfer the bribes, erm, reservation fees to the bouncer and are admitted to the club because they look like they ought to be there.

Case 2) The runners transfer the bribes, erm, reservation fees to the bouncer, but the bouncer looks them over and isn't sure if they're right for the 'feel' of the club tonight. Its a very trendy club and he doesn't want to kill anyone's buzz by letting in some inappropriate people. Each player rolls Cha + Skill (probably Etiquette), Threshold 1.

Case 3) The runners transfer the bribes, erm, reservation fees to the bouncer, but the bouncer looks at (the Cha 1 character or character) and decides he just doesn't like him (them). The player(s) with the Cha 1 character(s) roll Cha + Skill (probably Etiquette), Threshold 1.

Yeah. Thanks.

It is a nice example.

I can think of one potential quirk in the charisma case - if the bouncer/bar is racist, anyone with that metatype might have to make the roll, even if others didn't. Not based off of the stat #, but at a glance it might look like it was.

It would be particularly asshattish if the bouncer is racist because the PC has low charisma, because the GM is actively seeking ways to punish the player for "dumping" on charisma.

The person we should be flaming on is the OP. He's the one who said that you'll get arrested, randomly mugged, and generally harassed for having a 1 cha. Bad things will happen to you if you exploit the system by doing something the system allows you to do.

All that Mr. Unpronounceable seems to be saying is that if you have a low cha, it should bite you in the ass. You shouldn't expect to get away with it like you might in D&D.

I think the whole debate is solved very easily by two basic rules, which I think everyone can agree on:

1) If a player in your game wants to have a low stat, make sure they understand what that will mean. Make sure they understand how the stat they're gimping is important, and that when it goes against them, they don't have cause to complain. And they should also expect to RP accordingly.

or, in the alternative:

2) If you, as a GM, do not approve of the character's attribute choice, reject it outright. Do not let the player make a character that you think is broken, and then punish them for it over and over. If you'd rather not have it in your game, keep it out of your game altogether. Don't just "discourage" it by being an ass to your players. Singling out a character for torment whose choice has displeased you, when you never even let them know that you didn't like their choice in the first place, is very bad GMing.

I know this was a few pages back but since this was directed at a comment I made on an earlier comment I want to comment on it.



2 dice is the average pool for social tests for an unskilled human. Most people will have some sort of Etiquette skill maybe even specialized in their general sub-culture and that's it. Some people may have a Negotiation of 1 or 2 (maybe they worked in sales), some people may have a leadership skill of 1 or 2 (maybe they worked in management at some point), and some people may have a Con skill of 1 or 2 (street hustlers, cops, spoiled kids who manipulated their parents). Very very few people will have all of these skills (upper management types may end up with all except con, hostage negotiaters would probably have all except for leadership, and a street gang leader would probably have every one except for negotiation.)

I won't argue that a shadowrunner needs Con, Etiquette, and Negotiation to a degree as a function of their job. But in most shadowrun games it's assumed that the character is early on in his or her running career. These are skill areas they can develop as time goes on and unless they've either been running for awhile or have a background that leans towards them knowing these skills already your average runner is going to sit at a Charisma of 3 and defaulting on most of social tests.



Again this is another form of min/maxing. Because no one wants to suffer the default penalty on social tests they're picking up the skill group with little thought of the why said character would have that group. It's flaws that make characters believable, it's these chinks in their armor that suspend disbelief. A character with no holes is another example of trying to 'win' the game even if he's not superman.



Don't confuse concept and 'class' please. As I outlined above there's very few character concepts that would have the influence skill group and your average non-social outcast (human) rolls 2 dice on social tests unless they have some skill related to the test. For the record, concept is exactly what you just said, it's who you're character is and was, because characters don't spring from the cradle into their chosen profession.

Most characters will have some reason to have some social skills but very few will have a reason to have a heap of them, even if it's a heap that's only at 1 or 2 it's still a heap.

Moon-Hawk & paws2sky: Excellent examples. That is exactly what I have been talking about. I just couldn't seem to get my point across.

they should feel honored . . as far as i've seen you can be about as blunt as a troll with a lamp-post from time to time *g*
If you can't get your point across it's a rare sight indeed *g*

Do you guys feel the love? I feel the love. Really, I think we just had a moment there. Group hug? No? Little creepy? Thought so.

Incitement? Very mature.

I didn't bother responding to Spike as he clearly refused to engage in a reasonable debate. I had hoped for a bit more from you. Ho hum.

Let's take this nice and slow...

I quoted the BBB's description of exactly what Charisma represented. I then quoted the BBB's description of what having a Attribute at 1 meant. I then pointed out what the two combined logically meant.

You and others immediately posted a series of Strawmen arguements, generally either fabrications or extreme exagerations of my post, in an attempt to somehow 'win' a debate the aim of which was to identify the origin of a trend and understand it.

Later, I changed the example of using raw Charisma to one of using raw Strength in an effort to a) make the point easier to understand and b) avoid hitting a sore nerve that clearly exists out there.

In response, a series of Strawmen arguements were posed. Yet again fabrication and exageration of my position played a key role.

Realising that most people weren't interested in a debate around the value of raw stats or even discussing the defined effects of the base Attribute system from the BBB I refrained from posting.

In response you decided to encourage everyone to flame me.

Nice.

What is there to debate? The Raw Value of a stat, any stat, of 1 is... and stop me if you've figured this out yet.. One Dice on tests. No more, no less.


This leaves us with, supposedly, a bunch of unnecessary strawmen... at least according to you, in response to statements about forcing characters to test just because they are low, singling them out for extra negative attention, and even, in one post (yours? Not my concern actually) an example that shows that uncharismatic people aren't just ugly, but clumsy as well...


But I'll give you that you are right about one thing: I'm not interested in a reasonable debate on the merits of your perspective. I'm here to roundly denouce it as foolishness. I'm avoiding 'agreement by silence' or whatever the latin term is for it... If you change your mind, hey that's great, I'm happy for you, but more imporantly if some other Shadowrun player, possibly a newish GM, doesn't read your post and go 'yeah, that's it, I'll punish my players for not doing what I want them to do'.... I'll chalk it up as a worthy endeavor.

Let us all agree to not flame anybody at all.

right: average stat 2, and a point or two of etiquette for the typical person. i.e. about 4 dice (really, anywhere from 2 to maybe 6.) That's just what rubs off from dealing with other people from day to day.



I don't really see it as min/maxing - as I said, just the result of living in modern society. One learns a little about just about everything, and only later starts specializing in a more focused area.



*shrugs* again, personal preference - I've had this discussion in much greater length and detail with the folks I game regularly with. And repeatedly demonstrated that generalists are, typically, superior than specialist/defaulters in any kind of 'realism' sense because you can't always be in your ultra-focused area of expertise.




Honestly, I'm not even really saying "should" more like "inevitably will" if you're playing by the rules as written in a game that isn't merely a bunch of cut-scenes.

I'll go with what the BBB says about Attribs, in fact, there's a whole section on it. You can go with whatever other take you want though.
Quote once, just once where I said that I would single out a character with a 1 attrib and force them to roll a test that I wouldn't make another character in a similar situation roll.

Just once.

If they have a weak attrib, and that attrib comes up in play then it is not singling them out...it's playing the game.

Would that be this one?
Do you want to point out which bit of this mentions Charisma as the reason that a character is clumsy?

But don't let fact get in the way of your continued character assassination, it certainly hasn't so far.

I've no idea why you and certain others decided to turn this from "Wow, having a lowest possible attribute means you are outstandingly poor in the raw areas that the BBB says that the raw attribute governs" and instead turned it into

But, as the great man once said..."Yeah? Well, you know, thats just like er..your opinion man"

If not you than others here have. Quite frankly, you seem to have the opinion that every counter arguement is entirely about you, at least from the tone of this and your last few posts. If you aren't a poster claiming that its perfectly alright to force a player to roll when the more balanced characters get a pass, why are you so defensive about it then? You are not the only one on your... well... side here. But don't worry, since you've summoned me by calling me out by name, I'll address your posts in specific, just as you ask, soon enough.




Sure. If that attribute is tested and they have to roll their one die plus skills that's fine. But there are people here, maybe you are one, maybe you aren't, that are in fact advocating that the NPCs will somehow, inerringly seek them out for Charisma tests because they happen to be uncharismatic. there are posts in this thread that mention, in specific, being singled out by Lonestar as suspicious, being spat on in public. that's not a weak attribute, thats something else entirely.





Gee... let me think....

No.

That would be the 'actually happened to my character' post where the charisma 1 sammy, listening through a door, stumbled through said door into a horribly botched bluff check cum bloodbath. Because of a 1 charisma... which I was unaware had anything to do with stumbling through doors until that enlightened post. Again, not everything anyone said in this thread revolves specifically around you, though you may, in good faith assume that all my following posts WILL be addressed specifically to you, just because you asked.



thanks for the permission, but where exactly did I engage in character assasination? The CLOSEST I can think of is saying 'playing like this is harassment' or words to that effect. Where I come from character assassination would be saying 'Wynter's mom is a camel, thus we can't listen to him... he's half camel'. I'm pretty sure I never did anything remotely similar, if less humorous.



Well, all I have to do is look to the Thread title and I can see 'allowing charisma 1 characters is not-okay' pretty clearly subtexted, so forgive me if I felt that allowing my own GMing preference (allowing players to make their own characters and not passively aggressively punishing them for making what they want) was under attack and launched a counter volley. Glass houses and all that.




Fill in the blanks: Opinions are like ______ Every one has one. Glass houses again.