How can a character concept be illegal? Simple, when the concept violates the preexisting guidelines laid down for what characters will and will not be allowed, and with one exception (Axe), four of your five concepts did exactly that.
Dante – Wired Reflexes 3 exceeds both the availability and essence limitation. Monowhip exceeds the availability limitation.
Todd – Contacts exceeded both the maximum Connection Level and types of contacts allowed (high level and well-placed/connected) and the Hung Out to Dry flaw does not exist.
Doc – Specializations pushing skills to a total dice pool higher than 4 are not accepted, which your cybertechnology (bodyware) 3 (+2) would do.
I even missed Feeler having a Shop, which Sparky caught.
QUOTE
I hate to disagree but according to your posted house rules, the only character concept that violates your posted guidelines in any way is Doc, and that's with his high medicine specialization. Even then, it says in your character creation section, and I quote: "Specializations that raise skill dice above 4 (e.g. Blades 3 w/Specialization in Swords would effectively grant 5 skill dice to Sword related rolls) must be specifically explained." Everything I have worked up so far I've rigorously followed the rules posted on your site , and in the very start of the post I wrote that I wasn't married to any of the ideas. They were just quick, down and dirty rough drafts of character concepts for you guys to look at and see if any of them appealed to you. If you dont want more players, then just tell me and I'll stop posting, but unless you have specifics for me please don't just say I'm not following your rules, because I can only go off of what you've posted on your site.
--edit--
I realize that might have sounded bitchy, but I get really defensive when I've rigorously followed the letter of the law to the T and someone complains that I'm not following the rules. So my apologies but what I said still stands. How can a character concept be illegal?
You still want to stand by this statement?
While I’m here, you also had at least some variant of a house rule tacked on to 3 of the 5 characters (Dante, Todd, Doc) which we (Slipshade, Vegas, and myself) have repeatedly said over and over and over in this thread is not allowed. Slipshade even reminded you of this immediately after you asked if there was still an opening!
If you really want to get technical, you also missed everything we posted in the Recruitment Thread, not least of which was my elaboration on what constitutes ‘specifically explained’, which is NOT the same as ‘come up with generic remotely plausible definition that anyone could come up with in 10 seconds flat’.
You did not follow the rules on the site for four of the five concepts posted above, and I even missed one of the ones (Feeler) that didn’t.
You did not follow the guidelines and answers to questions we’ve posted multiple times in this thread, several of which specifically addressed some of the things you wanted to do.
All of this shows me you clearly did not, in fact do your homework by reading the thread and the wiki since you then posted concepts with components that we
just told you we did not want to see.
And then, instead of asking for clarification on where you may have gone wrong or politely presenting why you believe you are in the right, you decide to just go off and then justify it with, ‘I get really defensive when I've rigorously followed the letter of the law to the T and someone complains that I'm not following the rules. So my apologies but what I said still stands.’
If you want to get defensive fine, but for someone who ‘rigorously followed the letter of the law to a T’, the results don’t match the claims. I wasn’t
complaining you weren’t following the rules; I was
telling you you weren’t following the rules. There’s a world of difference between the two.
Instead of getting defensive, why not ask what someone else sees before getting all snippy about it? We’re here to help people, as even a remote perusal of this thread would have shown, and we’ve been more than willing to discuss and work with people when we haven’t seen eye to eye with them.
For my part, I apologize for the abrupt nature of my post, it has less to do with your concepts personally and more to do with the fact that was only the 28th time we had to address the
same issues.
As far as competing concepts, there’s nothing technically wrong with having multiples of the same concept. Nonetheless, I was pointing out that Feeler would be moving into a niche that Drip (and Child, who I forgot to mention) already occupy. Is that a problem per se? No, but you haven’t done anything to distinguish the concept from them either.
And this comment:
QUOTE
And in what way is a straight-up gang-warfare soldier in any way similar to a combat mage?
Maybe you ignored the character files when going through the wiki, which is certainly a possibility. Maybe you haven’t read through the IC thread yet. But no one in their right mind would remotely, and I mean REMOTELY assert that Grack is a combat mage.
Sparky is correct, no one is Grack, but that’s because Grack takes it to a whole other level. Beyond that, Axe is basically a toned down version of Grack. It wasn’t a criticism or a rejection, simply saying you basically presented me a character which is already functionally identical in tone, style, and concept to another existing one, without giving me anything that distinguishes this concept from the preexisting one.
If you’d study his concept on the wiki before spouting off, you would have seen the comparisons. Is there room to disagree on my assessment? Sure, but you might want to make sure you have some clue as to what you’re talking about before you start that discussion.
There, now you have a detailed and specific response to your challenge. Satisfied?
As for the rest of your questions, the others have done a great job of providing additional detail for your information. Thanks all for the help everyone.