Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: When did Charisma 1 become okay?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Edge2054
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable @ Mar 6 2008, 11:54 PM) *
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.


But that's just for etiquette which I agree is somewhat of a rub off skill, people pick it up. For everything else most people would have 2 dice and that's it.

QUOTE
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.


Hence the default system.

QUOTE
*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.


The keyword here is superior and I'm not arguing that. In fact that was my whole argument, that taking influence as a skill group when it doesn't FIT your character is min/maxing. Hell it's cheaper to buy the Influence Skill group up to 2 then it is to buy 3/4s of it up to 2. The generalist wins for sure but if you're not asking yourself why does this character have this skill then you're putting together a spread sheet and not a character (your example, not mine).


QUOTE
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.


Again min/maxing. Not everyone cares if their character is superior and some of us strive to create realistic, believable characters. Holes and all.

To go back to the Face example I used a few pages back. The archetype in the book would benefit greatly by dropping etiquette and negotiation down to 4 and clumping all of that into the skill group. You end up with enough points leftover to buy tailored pheromones level 3. Meaning overall you just gained two points in negotiation and etiquette along with three points in con, three in intimidation, and seven in leadership. In addition to this you pick up 7 extra build points to spend wherever you want.

What you have to ask yourself at this point though is why does this face have Leadership anyway? Were did he get his pheromones?

I'm sure the game designers realized there was a more efficient way to build this archetype when they set down and designed it. From the looks of it though it seems like they were more interested in creating an interesting character template then a social skills stat monster.

Are you following any of this yet? If not I give up.
Mr. Unpronounceable
Grr!

QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 7 2008, 12:25 AM) *
But that's just for etiquette which I agree is somewhat of a rub off skill, people pick it up. For everything else most people would have 2 dice and that's it.

I don't expect every npc to have multiple points of every skill - defaulting on con for an npc works just fine. I don't even expect every pc to have points in everything. I do think a professional criminal in the SR universe should generally have some practice lying, fitting in, and bargaining. If he does it by having charisma 3 and defaulting, then he's not the focus of this thread, now is he? (checks thread title) nope. didn't think so.

QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 7 2008, 12:25 AM) *
Hence the default system.

I LIKE the defaulting system. It falls apart when you have a stat of 1, though - because rolling 1-1=0 dice => guaranteed failure. What's that thread title again?

QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 7 2008, 12:25 AM) *
The keyword here is superior and I'm not arguing that. In fact that was my whole argument, that taking influence as a skill group when it doesn't FIT your character is min/maxing. Hell it's cheaper to buy the Influence Skill group up to 2 then it is to buy 3/4s of it up to 2. The generalist wins for sure but if you're not asking yourself why does this character have this skill then you're putting together a spread sheet and not a character (your example, not mine).

Again min/maxing. Not everyone cares if their character is superior and some of us strive to create realistic, believable characters. Holes and all.


So what you're saying here is, a character that's built to resemble a person with a wide spread of abilities, similar to what would exist in real life, is example of min/maxing? What are you smoking?
And what are you putting the points in to "avoid" min/maxing and superior characters? I'm guessing you're putting those points in your area of focus, which is miin/maxing an attempt to create a superior character!

I didn't say a generalist was an optimal character. I said he was a superior character. as in character NOT combat monkey, NOT pornomancer, but an actual, fleshed-out character!

edit: I rather like (most) of the sample characters, warts and all.

I'm having no problems following your argument - you just don't have any basis for your positions here.
Whipstitch
Not everyone cares about every li'l detail of the character background though either. I'm not always out to write a novella on the past of a fictional character. Sometimes I'm out to play an archetype or role in the here and now and don't particularly sweat all the little details. For example, the most recent character I've wrote up is an Elf Face/Vehicle Rigger named Mercury. He's got a taste for fast cars, drives a chameleon coated Shin-Hyung (which looks like a roiling mass of quicksilver when operating in the Pimped Ride modification "vanity mode," natch), and he wears a lot of expensive steel gray and silver suits. How did this shadowrunner get his shadowrunning equipment? Well, by hustling out on the streets and shadowrunning, I suppose. He used to be just another wannabe runner but now he's clearly an up and coming smalltime fixer/info broker and a shadowrunner who could make it pretty far-- provided he can keep his rather nasty novacoke and Ex addictions in check.

I can answer his 20 questions, give out the GM-mandated small list of enemies/plothooks and I'm sure a lot of you could probably visualize a reasonable facsimile of what he's supposed to look like just from the tiny bit of information I've given you. I envisioned him in broad strokes and then I bent the system to my will until I had a character who can make a reasonable attempt at performing the tasks he claims to be good at. I can honestly say that he was kind of half-assed and useless in both the rigging and face skills until I broke out my bag of tricks, took a couple "dump stats" and optimized the hell out of him. And you know what? He's still not overpowered-- his all around stats are only decent thanks to all the 'ware he owns (he has a rather low essence) and he'd still be in very real danger of getting schooled by a Steel Lynx one-on-one without his car-- just like the team's samurai would run the risk of getting laughed out of the club if he showed up in one of Mercury's ridiculous but trendy outfits. Hell, he even depends heavily on contacts to repair his beloved ride if it ever gets damaged.

Contrast this to the "Joe Average" guy we have in the same group. He has a lovely background written up, but he's a terribly dull character and it's kinda hard to discern his purpose or "shtick" just from looking at his character sheet. You'd have to look at his background sheet to get any feel for the character, and even that's somewhat limited because well, the past is the past. Sometimes it's OK if the GM has the time to keep spotlighting one guy's background repeatedly over the course of a session, but it's certainly not appropriate for all campaigns and the character doesn't have a focused theme so much as he has an autobiography.

So you guys can talk all you want about what dice pool ranges break the game or which ones make the most "sense" for the theoretical Mr. Reasonable Shadowrunner, but please don't bring in something as subjective as an "interesting character" into the debate, because there's strengths and weaknesses to any approach and in the end whether a character is interesting or not in play is going to be a function of the player at the table more than anything.
ElFenrir
Another thing about the player injecting of personality...sometimes, in the past, ive seen those ''more balanced, average guys'' end up duller than the folks with high/low extremes. IMO, while stats don't make the personality, yes...a really high or really low stat could give a player some springboard to inject something into them. Willpower 1? They might be impossible to make up their minds...they go with someone's idea...then change it, then change again, because they are known for being extremely easily swayed. or perhaps they just can't resist blowing each credstick on synthahol and whores and end up broke every month, barely able to scrape enough for their Low lifestyle. People ask why, and they just 'can't resist!!'' That Intuition 1 character might be known as Captain Oblivious, who just doesn't *get* anything, and it could be a big part of their character. Charisma 1? Lots of possiblities...they could be VERY shy, to the point of near pain, or extremely rude, or isn't either of those and has a habit of being amazingly and annoyingly blunt with everything. Likewise, that 6 Logic character could be known as the human dictonary, with a habit of spouting out random bits of knowledge and thru his best fake ID ends up winning trivia contests on the side which nets them more money. The Logic 6, Charisma 1 guy could just be obnoxiously smart, or just so bookish they are socially inept.

There are tons of stuff to do with stats of all kinds, but GMs have to stop quashing every damn 1 they come across and maybe put a little faith in the players.
Edge2054
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable @ Mar 7 2008, 12:42 AM) *
So what you're saying here is, a character that's built to resemble a person with a wide spread of abilities, similar to what would exist in real life, is example of min/maxing? What are you smoking?
And what are you putting the points in to "avoid" min/maxing and superior characters? I'm guessing you're putting those points in your area of focus, which is miin/maxing an attempt to create a superior character!


That's not what I said at all. Did you read the example I gave of the face or just skim over it? I'm showing how you can spend more skill points affectively gimping your character by not being a generalist and was explaining how that's often times a more realistic approach to character generation.

QUOTE
I didn't say a generalist was an optimal character. I said he was a superior character. as in character NOT combat monkey, NOT pornomancer, but an actual, fleshed-out character!

edit: I rather like (most) of the sample characters, warts and all.

I'm having no problems following your argument - you just don't have any basis for your positions here.


I fail to see how saying that most characters (shadowrunners or otherwise) have little reason to have the entire Influence skill group is a baseless position and yes that does relate directly to the viability of 1 Charisma characters. As far as the character argument, I guess I misunderstood what you meant previously but I disagree on your point anyhow for the reasons mentioned in the sentence above this one.

Anyway I'm content to agree to disagree at this point before anything else I write gets pulled out of context

QUOTE
I'm guessing you're putting those points in your area of focus, which is miin/maxing an attempt to create a superior character!


Seriously?!? indifferent.gif

Mr. Unpronounceable
Not having the entire influence group isn't a problem by itself. I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing that.

Well, except as an ease-of-use thing - it's often simpler at chargen to look at is as 2 points of the influence group or 5 total points of its sub-skills? Especially when throwing together a quick-and-dirty character.
For any specific character - sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not-so-much. Generally, though - show me a 15 year old, and I'll show you someone who can at least attempt any of the influence group skills. He may be lousy, but he's either defaulting to 1 or more dice or has all the skills.


But not having any points in a skill when a roll is called for and only having a related stat of 1 is a huge problem. I don't care if the stat in question is charisma, body, or anything else.

i.e. I'm saying that a competent runner should have at least a die or three for any roll that is moderately likely or better.


Per the face...oh, now I see where you're going...but that's not making the face more generalist except within the face archetype - that's optimization, not generalization. By generalist, I usually mean more along the lines of the mage with a pip of pilot rotorcraft, since he was an RC enthusiast as a kid or a rigger with knowledge (antiques).
Edge2054
Yeah man, my whole argument was based on you saying that most of your players take influence almost as default. When I responded to it initially I even noted that maybe I was responding to an exaggeration on your part.

Anyway I agree on that sort of generalization creating more interesting characters. From the context of our previous posts though I was assuming a 'generalist' archetype if you will. Someone that takes points in most every skill group just to cover up holes which I think at this point we can both agree that that sort of thing is often times min/maxing.
Jaid
it has been noted before, but appears to bear mentioning again. there is still a huge difference between charisma 1 and no social skills, and charisma 1 + uncouth.

with a few positive modifiers, you can actually have a non-zero dice pool with charisma 1 and no skills. so actually, even those with cha 1 and no social skills can still function in social situations, they just have to plan ahead a crudload more than the face will wink.gif
Cain
QUOTE
Per the face...oh, now I see where you're going...but that's not making the face more generalist except within the face archetype - that's optimization, not generalization. By generalist, I usually mean more along the lines of the mage with a pip of pilot rotorcraft, since he was an RC enthusiast as a kid or a rigger with knowledge (antiques).

That's neither optimization nor generalization. That's developing a secondary skillset, which is generally a good idea for anyone.

True generalists usually fare poorly when compared to specialists and hyperspecialists. Having a bundle of skills at 4 and average stats doesn't compare to having a few carefully-chosen high stats, and a select set of skills at 3 plus one or two super skills. I'm running a generalized mage who simply isn't doing as well as more highly-specialized characters have.
Larme
QUOTE (Wynters @ Mar 6 2008, 06:30 PM) *
Incitement? Very mature.


Sorry Wynters, I wasn't actually trying to incite you. I was trying to point out that Mr. Unpronounceable, who was getting flamed a lot, had a pretty reasonable opinion compared to yours. You feel that cha 1 characters should be punished mercilessly. Apparently you don't put much stock in a GM telling their player "Don't play that character in my campagin." You'd rather torment the players. To each his own. If there's one thing I will not do, however, it is be bated into arguing about arguing. You think all my arguments have been strawmen, whatever that means? Ok. Have fun with that.

The point is, I figured out some pretty good rules for solving this whole issue, and everyone is ignoring them. Here they are again:

If a player wants to take a low attribute, make sure to tell them exactly how that's going to hurt them in your campaign. And if they want to play a character that is too twinky, don't just let them do it and spring surprise consequences. The game is about fun. A GM taking revenge on a player because they are too twinked out is not fun. That's like me taking revenge on a bug. Not fair, not fun (at least for the bug).
Glyph
I agree, in a way, that it can be a bit cheesy to take a skill group for a character who has no logical reason to have those skills. The influence group, though, is pretty easy to justify taking at 1, since it would be pretty easy to justify almost any shadowrunner having a basic level of skill at fitting into various subcultures without sticking out like a sore thumb, fast-talking people, negotiating payments or prices with Johnsons and fixers, and taking charge of a group when they need to. That's not to say that I have always done so, just that it is pretty easy to justify, roleplaying-wise.

The face archetype, on the other hand, is simply sub-optimal. It is not a "more interesting character" for lacking the Influence group or tailored pheromones - actually, for a face, those are pretty glaring omissions. Leadership is essentially any time you try to get people to do what you want them to do, and tailored pheromones are a no-brainer for someone making their living by networking with people. Even the description of faces on pg. 19 mentions that they are augmented by bioware "more often than not".
Vegetaman
I only ever had one character with Charisma 1, and it was a Street Samurai who was in it purely for the bloodsport. No talking (or if it was, just to yell at people and be hateful), either. Interesting character, at any rate. But yeah, I try to give even my Street Samurai a few points in Charisma. Usually 3. I don't want them getting screwed over, and I prefer them not to stick out like a sore thumb and be hated by everyone.
Wounded Ronin
Would Golgo 13 have a CHA of 1?

He was a pretty popular fictional character. If he can do it your character should be able to do it.
Edge2054
QUOTE (Glyph @ Mar 7 2008, 05:46 AM) *
The face archetype, on the other hand, is simply sub-optimal. It is not a "more interesting character" for lacking the Influence group or tailored pheromones - actually, for a face, those are pretty glaring omissions. Leadership is essentially any time you try to get people to do what you want them to do, and tailored pheromones are a no-brainer for someone making their living by networking with people. Even the description of faces on pg. 19 mentions that they are augmented by bioware "more often than not".


I just now realized that Leadership also includes persuasion or affectively person to person interaction as opposed to dealing with a group of people so yeah, that really would be a glaring omission and the skill would be a lot more common then I had assumed in my previous argument.

Aside from that I really hate the fact that the archetype speaks like seven languages or some crap. I don't find that realistic at all for most character concepts.
Vegetaman
QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 7 2008, 06:05 AM) *
I just now realized that Leadership also includes persuasion or affectively person to person interaction as opposed to dealing with a group of people so yeah, that really would be a glaring omission and the skill would be a lot more common then I had assumed in my previous argument.

Aside from that I really hate the fact that the archetype speaks like seven languages or some crap. I don't find that realistic at all for most character concepts.


That is a pretty glaring omission. And yeah, three languages is pretty good, IMO. Seven is a bit overkill and unbelievable.
ArkonC
QUOTE (Vegetaman @ Mar 7 2008, 07:15 AM) *
That is a pretty glaring omission. And yeah, three languages is pretty good, IMO. Seven is a bit overkill and unbelievable.

Not really, I know several people that speak 7 languages and most people I know speak at least 3...
Now, in America (as in other places where there are a lot of people speaking the same language, like china, australia and many others) people don't feel any pressing need to learn other languages, which makes perfect sense, but to decree that 7 languages is unrealistic is unrealistic... smile.gif
IMO...
Adarael
Also note they don't speak those 7 languages perfectly. The archetype speaks them okay. Some of my danish and dutch friends would laugh if you said they couldn't speak that many languages passingly well.
Glyph
That's another way the face archetype is sub-optimal, since language skill caps your effective social skills. He would be better off with 3 extra languages at rating: 5 than 5 extra languages at rating: 3. It would be one thing if it were a player, deciding he wants to play someone who knows a lot of languages, and willing to take the hit on effective skills. But for an archetype, it is simply sloppy.
Fuchs
Just a bit food for thought for those who say a GM is punishing a player when he makes them roll in some cases where higher charisma characters don't have to roll:

Sometimes, that's not a punishment, but exactly what the player wants. It puts the spotlight on the character, and the player gets to play out an often funny scene.

In some cases, such "low stat characters" even outshine the specialists because the specialist gets to roll (sometimes not even that), and succeeds, in 1 minute, and then every focuses for 10 minutes on how the clumsy/abrasive character escapes his troubles.
ElFenrir
QUOTE
I agree, in a way, that it can be a bit cheesy to take a skill group for a character who has no logical reason to have those skills. The influence group, though, is pretty easy to justify taking at 1, since it would be pretty easy to justify almost any shadowrunner having a basic level of skill at fitting into various subcultures without sticking out like a sore thumb, fast-talking people, negotiating payments or prices with Johnsons and fixers, and taking charge of a group when they need to. That's not to say that I have always done so, just that it is pretty easy to justify, roleplaying-wise.


This i agree with. If a Sam character decided to pop, say, 150 points on skills(a healthy pool), and blows alot of them on his Sam-stuff(guns, some melee, athletics, stealth group, perception, some social skills like Street Etiquette and Con), and has, say, 10 points left after this...they decide they have a past with electronics and get them Electronics Group of 1. Their Logic might only be 2(more street than book smart), but they take it anyway, because it fits them.

Now, the language cap thing...honestly, i think it's a bit harsh and i would do it around Language +1 for the cap. Ive discussed languages several times before, and having a 3, or Professional rating, is basically fluent. You can do your job in this language, talk to your friends in it, and generally do quite well with it. There might be scientific terms you don't know(ive known people who lived 10+ years somewhere and never learned all of them), medical terms, and so on, but it's a Professional rating. 4 in languages and you're starting to go into the realm of good enough to be a translator, 5+ and you're talking diplomatic translator/interpreter. I personally find the cap of language ยด+1 to be a little better; since most of the time you're dealing with buisness folks that a Professional rating should be just fine with.

Unless, of course, they are talking about ''trying to pass as a natural citizen'', which, IMO, would take amuch higher skill. But talking to the Johnson in his own language while it's obvious it's not your mother tounge is quite respectful, and with a 3 you aren't going to be insulting his mother.
Wynters
QUOTE (Larme @ Mar 7 2008, 03:51 AM) *
You feel that cha 1 characters should be punished mercilessly. Apparently you don't put much stock in a GM telling their player "Don't play that character in my campagin."

*sigh*
QUOTE (Wynters @ Mar 4 2008, 10:50 PM) *
I would have talked the character through with the Player and made sure he knew how things were likely to play out.
If you could produce the quotes that show me advocating 'merciless punishment' and not communicating with the player about his character?
QUOTE (Larme @ Mar 7 2008, 03:51 AM) *
You think all my arguments have been strawmen, whatever that means?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
Larme
@Wynters: Ah hah. Well, it looks like I may have been amalgamating the positions of various tools on this thread into one, ultra-tool argument which I then attributed to you.

But you haven't responded to my arguments about hidden consequences. I assumed that, because you never claimed that you would let players know how you thought low attributes would affect them, you would be springing hidden consequences on them.

The whole thread seems misguided: if people hate charisma 1 so much, why do they even allow it? It more feels like people trying to argue first principles and "prove" that their practice as a GM is the "right" one. How is that even relevant? GM how you want; if you think charisma 1 is acceptable, good for you, if you don't, don't complain because you allowed it in. Yeah, I know it's a forum for discussion, but there is no logical end to this discussion because there really is no "right" way to play Shadowrun.
Mr. Unpronounceable
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Mar 7 2008, 06:59 AM) *
Would Golgo 13 have a CHA of 1?

He was a pretty popular fictional character. If he can do it your character should be able to do it.


Not at the rate he got laid.

Well, unless he had con(seduction) 6(8 ) to go with it.

rotfl.gif
ArkonC
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable @ Mar 7 2008, 05:01 PM) *
Not at the rate he got laid.

Well, unless he had con(seduction) 6(8 ) to go with it.

rotfl.gif

Seriously, getting laid is nr 1 priority for every character, isn't it?
Mr. Unpronounceable
QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 7 2008, 03:14 AM) *
Yeah man, my whole argument was based on you saying that most of your players take influence almost as default. When I responded to it initially I even noted that maybe I was responding to an exaggeration on your part.

Anyway I agree on that sort of generalization creating more interesting characters. From the context of our previous posts though I was assuming a 'generalist' archetype if you will. Someone that takes points in most every skill group just to cover up holes which I think at this point we can both agree that that sort of thing is often times min/maxing.


Oh, almost missed this.

I don't really have a problem with people taking a pip in a skill group at chargen, even though it's (gasp) cheaper than buying even 3 skills. Buying 4 points in that group probably needs an explanation, but 1 point is merely "Has done this a few times. Can handle some easy tasks, some of the time." Or, in other words, skills that the character would recognize as valuable, and would seek out minimal training for, even if not his focus.

Basically I view one point in a social skill or the skill group as "went to school, dealt with the cliques without becoming an outcast." 1 point in athletics could easily be "went to school, passed phys ed." etc.

In my experience, players tend to break skill groups almost immediately after play begins anyway, since specializations are so nice to have.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012