After being here for abit, (been Lurking for years) and reading about character builds and discussions, there seems to be an uncomfortable reality.

Characters seem to be built for the 'best build' syndrome. Everything is optimized 'why use X when you could use Y and be better for less'. It becomes an exercise in mathmatics, a formula, instead of building a character with a background that may actually not be built perfectly.

This may be just a forum based issue or may be brought on by conventions. The characters start epitomizing MMORPG character builds where the build of the month is based on what patches have done, or what spell, skill, combo, class is top of the damage charts.

Is this how characters are built in your games? Are all adepts based on 1 loss of magic for some bioware because mathmatically it costs less BPs and you get more?

What happened to the, 'I want to build Joe who is pure of mind and body and be damned what is mathmatically better'.

Number-crunching has always been an issue, since the days of D&D and the randomly generated stat.

More options, more chances to munch.

One of the fun things of CP2020 was the lifepath chart and the random "damn, that just sucks" when applied to the existing character.

-Siege

I call it "D&D syndrome" But I wouldn't count on this being a general trend. Players are always eager to test the rules of a system to all extents and for some, gaming involves getting the maximum out of whatever resources you have.
I tend to view most of the discussion about pure number builds here more as a kind of exercise rather than actual characters.

What else are people going to do on a message board? If you make a nice, flavorful character with a novella of background, nobody has a basis to critique it. All they can tell you is "do like" or "don't like." But if you're trying to make a really effective character, there are all kinds of ways for people to critique you. Numbers are concerete, and you can give concrete advice about them. If you're not concerned about the numbers, why would you bother to spend the time it takes to write up a character into a Dumpshock post?

Joe died from not having cyberware. His brother Jim ran right out and picked up a synthacardium and muscle toner.

Jim's doing just fine now. Joe's still dead.

I tend to agree with It Trolls! (funny how your handle makes a simple statement seem really enthusiastic)

I think a lot of these uber-builds are interesting, but only as intellectual exercises that help to understand the subtleties (some would say minutia) of the rules.

Personally, I would find it quite boring to actually GM a game with these kinds of characters, or players who want to sit and cruntch numbers all night to figure out how they can get an extra die for one certain test or whatever.

But then, I tend to prefer generalists with character flaws anyway...

as was said, how am i supposed to tell you how to roleplay your character? what advice can i give you on how you want to roleplay your character? chances are, i can't even tell you what archetype you want to play, or if you want to make up an archetype of your own.

on the other hand, it's quite possible for me to look at your character with no special knowledge and tell you that you don't need gymnastics, dodge, *and* unarmed combat. or that tailored pheromones will make you a better face. those kinds of things i can see instantly, and advise you on.

Characters posted on these forums tend to be either pure numbers-crunching exercises, or builds from newer players who need practical advice on what works and what doesn't. And the advice isn't always on how to get the most dice firing an assault rifle. It includes things such as whether a character is missing vital skills, or is too specialized, or is spread too thin, and so on.

If you want to see characters that people actually play, then check out the Welcome to the Shadows forum, where characters are often posted in spoilers.

Good call, Glyph.

i imagine/hope that it's more a forum phenomenon than the way most people game.

strategy is cool, but it's not chess. make a character and the gm should tweak the game to find that 'threat level sweet spot' for your team. the real interesting part of strategy isn't the number juggling anyways.. it's thinking of ways to describe yourself into a situation where the abilities and numbers you have do the trick.

I always thought the best way to break a system is to testing things on the very fringe - exploit the edges and you might find a scenario that doesn't work like you expect it to. I would think that the min-maxed characters do that and if 90% of the time, the characters are still playable (even with no Charisma and practically dead), welll, the system works pretty well.

If the characters don't, then maybe there's a system problem and the next edition will try (hopefully!) to fix it. :)

Min/max-ing and munchkinism has always been around, because there's always been people who want to cheat and manipulate the system [Rules Lawyers are a tenacious breed].

Saying that people are doing it to "test" the system is a an excuse to generate crap Characters [I don't know a single system that can't be broken, some just take more work than others - One of my friends "tests" an RPG by generating himself with the mechanics and trying to do things].

Looking through these forums shows many Players generating Characters built by numbers, with no characterisation at all..
..Because many people can't play Characters, they just don't know how, it's not enforced by their GM, they see it as "unnecessary".


But it only happens with a GM who lets it happen, who don't think about the games they're running, who allow unfettered access to all source material

Longterm GMs are more likely to not allows number-built Characters, because they actually want to play longterm games and such Characters can't be played longterm because they're just not sustainable.


SR has degenerated into a game where guns and damage causing seem to be the main drivers..
..And that is reflected in the Players and Characters it attracts [and has happened over the years to many RPGs [ D&D, Werewolf, etc].


Games where combat is not the focus tend to attract Players and Characters where min/max-ing and munchkinsism is not so prevalent, because they choose not to play Characters like that.


This all sounds very "old skool", boring and likely to get me flamed..
..But I roleplay to have fun, not to juggle figures and have a warm, happy, fuzzy feeling because I managed to spend less character points to do something and I can cause just a little bit more damage than someone else.

People who call it munchism deserve a punch in the face. Then another punch in the face. Having completed that, the reason we don't discuss sub optimal choices for roleplaying reasons is that there is really no common ground to discuss.

What are you going to say?

Poster: took muscle replacement because it's an intergral part of my characters background

Response: ..... ... ......

I mean, we can say that muscle toner is about a billion times better, but you're not asking a question, or discussing a point, you're making a statement. This isn't a 'statement forum' its a discussion forum. So we need questions to discuss, and that sort of thing is

"'Is muscle toner or muscle replacement better for a sniper?"

But the only answers that can be provided rely on maths, logic and numbers (ie a discussion of optimal and sub optimal choices) because a response like "Whatever is better for your characters background" doesn't address the question, reach conculsions or even make a point.

I think those discussions give a "baseline" to check your own characters and NPCs against. No one has to take all the advice (My latest character is a bio/cyber-free adept), but it helps to see what can be done, and what skills and stuff people consider essential.

The best characters, and by that I mean characters that my players tell stories about for years and years to come, are all "theme" characters.

Be it the Mystery Men knock offs
The Doc Wagon crew
or the Humanis Policlub chapter,

Parties with a theme make for the best character. As for the best stats, meh,

i tend to min-max the hell out of my characters, due in part to the fact that i like "winning" SR, and due in part to the fact that i like to roleplay characters who are very good at what they do. i could build less-optimized characters, but the types of person that sub-optimal stats tend to represent aren't the types of characters i really enjoy playing.

It's also worth mentioning that min/maxing your character isn't a sign of a bad roleplayer, and a suboptimal build is not a sign of a good one.

In a typical pen and paper campaign, "very good" is relative to the rest of the characters and NPCs, and ultimately up to the GM.

it's variable, based on the group's desires and expectations, yes.

The only time character stats end up posted online for commentary is when people want them tweaked.

I can't count how many characters I've made, played, and enjoyed who were suboptimal in some way, and who've never been posted to dumpshock. I can count on no hands the number I've posted here for tweaking.

More than happy to contribute to someone else's tweaking exercise, though. Good for the brain

Exactly...
If I want to play a guy who can hit a penny a mile away, asking how to optimize my build is just common sense...

The OP strikes as more than a little elitist and insulting. Why can't a character be optimized and have a back story? People optimize their skills in real life just like in some Shadowrun character builds. It's called specialization, and doesn't rob you of personality or backstory.

As a sidenote, I remember seeing some "backstory optimisation" threads or posts as well, when people asked for help with those parts of a character.

Indeed, this is a good point. I have a feeling that most of the one-dimentional min-maxed characters exist only on these boards rather than in actual games. Not all, but most.

First off, you must remember that the unspoken DS rule is "Post Your Character to be Pimped", plain and simple. Anyone can make a character, but here you have a very high concentration of people who are very knowledgeable about the subject and are more than happy to help.

I consider myself somewhere in the middle. I do not buy an assault rifle that is not an Alpha. My main armor is also always an Armor Jacket. I have enough years under my belt that I would seriously have to lobotomize myself to get away from this frame of mind. My only refuge is Adepts, who I have yet to create with cyber/bioware. Course, once I got enough money, Rating 4 Skillwires is first on the list.

(BTW, Has anyone else noticed that the Ares Alpha is essentially an LMG?)

Then possibly you are actually looking for something to be insulted about. elitist... hah I am about as modest as they come.

If you want something to be insulted about, maybe its that you infact min/max/ point gouge and put together that whole 3 line backstory to justify. "I am a retired sniper, I kill things fast" (which unfortunately I have seen...)

Onto that point, anything can be justified. If the difference between to identical characters is 1 paragraph or 1 page then there really is no difference save for the player put a little more time in.

*break*

Now back to the question. The start was simply an observation I had, I have seen this in RL and in the few cons I have attended.

I do agree, posting Joe Non-Optimized on the forums might bring alot of "... ... ..."

It was posted as a topic for discussion and it has been replied too, which was the whole intent.
(else why post a thread that noone has an option about, re:posting non-optimized builds)

And the concensus is:


That is want I was curious about.

Well, he could also feel insulted because there are actually players around who like optimized characters but also care about a colorful and consistent backstory and good roleplay.
You will agree with me on the conclusion that "All optimized characters are munnchkins" vs. "A character has to be severely gimped for roleplaying sakes!" is a common false dilemma and has been discussed to death, undergone cybermantic rituals and been argued about again until it was just a pile of bloody pulp.

The whole reason people post on Dumpshock is to make sure their characters are legal. How is it cheating to make a character within the rules?



I see, the whole "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong" argument. I think that the players on this board are mature enough to decide how they want to play. While I agree that roleplaying is an integral part of Shadowrun, different players have different skill levels and different comfort zones on exactly how much roleplaying they do. And you have no basis for flaming them about it.



Do they? I can make you a non-combat twink, be it a pornomancer, hacker, infiltrator, or any number of things. Combat is not the cause of munchkinism.



That's the key -- fun. That should clue you in that, however people play, they do it to have fun. Munchins don't make powerful characters to ruin the game, they do it because they enjoy it. And GMs who let them also enjoy it. What was the point of your post, other than to launch a meaningless flame on other peoples' playing or GMing style?

...however if done right, flavourful characters can still be effective as I proved last session with the Short One. Her largest DP is 13 (& that is if she uses her Weapon Focus) and she still kicked hoop (sorry, still a bit old school this morning).

[edit]

Then there was my Met2000 merc Gracie (3rd ed) who is totally optimised to the point she could go total lead hose without a TN modifier and yet she was a helluva a fun character to roleplay.

You forgot powergamers.

[note: this post does not reflect my views on anyone here and mostly reflects what I've seen in person and on other forums. I am serious. I do not meant anything against anyone here, well unless one of the people in my group start posting here lol]


no seriously. Anytime people "label" the way someone else plays it usually hurts someones feelings. I am not saying it is not often accurate however. There was a recent schizm in our gaming group because one person called another person a "powergamer". The ironic thing is, I would have called the one who said it the powergamer of the two of them. They are both most definitely meta-gamers, totally unable to leave RL out of the game or one game from another. One basically punished two people in a game he was running by making their characters totally ineffective and beating them up and making them feel useless. The other thinks of kicking the first out of his game, not because of anything he has done as a player but because of how he GM's. Anywho this all spawned several threads on rpg.net.

I personally get sick of the whole argument. On one end you have people who believe you have to squeeze every possible point out of a system and have to justify every single bit of a character with a quantifiable reason why you have something for a character with usable "in game effect that helps you 'win'!" On the other end you have people who believe "roleplaying" is making a deficient character who is not good at anything and is so crippled by his flaws that he can't fulfill any role in any team or anything. You expect them to lie in a bed with tubes sticking out of them. There is also another of the latter who thinks you have to be good at everything to the point that you are just mediocre at everything.

then both sides yell back and forth and call anyone who isn't on their side the other side. It just ends up being a bunch of braying jackasses going on and on. There is value in making a useful character and in making an interesting character, however if you go too far in either direction it becomes stupid.

This thread is exactly the kind of flaming pile of crap people always point out when I'm trying to convince them that Dumpshock really isn't as bad a board to spend time on as they think it is.

And even if you do think you're modest Slymoon, it doesn't particularly matter, since the damage is kinda done, omae. The post presents a false dichotomy with a dollop of sweeping generalizations, and contains the classic "Kids today. Things just ain't like they used to be" subtext. There's a reason script writers go to the same kinda statements when presenting old people as crotchety and judgemental-- it works.

Well, my take on the whole thing is that 'munchkin' doesn't always mean trying to throw the most dice(though yes, many do), it's about being a prick at the gaming table trying to ruin everyone's fun. Not all powergamers are munchkins. Some powergamers just like to have a big, Hong Kong Action movie fun time, and there are some who used to be under the yoke of a killer GM and HAD to severely optimize just to survive, and they got use to it. Still others played systems that might have rewarded it more.

I actually believe there can be what i call 'healthy minmaxing'. For example, someone might post their sam character with a Intuition of 3 and a Strength of 4(5). To me, there is nothing wrong with suggesting ''you know, you might drop Strength to 3, dig up 7,000 more nuyen for Muscle Augmentation 2 and make Intuition a 4, if you want to be faster''. However, if they see their character as being stronger naturally than more intuitive, they can turn down the suggestion. That example to me is not powergaming, it's just pointing out they could get a little something if they tweak a bit.

I also agree with the comment that sometimes new folks want to make sure they are doing something right. If someone really new posts their character has Infiltration, Shadowing, and Disguise at 2(24 points), and Palming of 3(12 points), with no specializations, someone might say ''you might consider taking Stealth Group of 3, and save 6 points where you can buy your Dodge(Ranged).'' Again, if the person wants to turn down the suggestion due to them seeing the character as being more Palm-y(is that a word? ), as the other ones, cool. But i don't think it's some sort of powergamey sin to do the skill group suggestion.

Sometimes people just get in the moods, too. Sometimes they want a low-key, sometimes middle ground, and yeah, sometimes high-powered, and they might suggest this when they post a critique (''yeah, this guy's being made for a pretty special John Woo type of campaign. Help?'')

But yeah, sadly these discussions end up degenerating into said shouting matches. Honestly, i don't care if person A likes to play bedridden characters, B likes jack of all trades but masters of none and C likes action heroes, if they're having fun. It only becomes a problem if they start saying the other's style of gaming is 'wrong'. Which people tend to do, for reasons i will never, ever know. It's not like they are proving anything.

..Swirler & ElFenrir, excellent posts.

I've played on both ends of the scale, as well as the middle and for the most part much managed to enjoy the experience as long as one of those spotlight hogging Jackasses didn't mess things up for everyone (& yes, I've dealt with enough of those in my time as well). To me, they're kind of like the schoolyard bully who always feels the need to be the centre of attention and a step above everyone else.

exactly

forum CS <> Game CS

no way, i'm way more modest than him!

Some opinions disagree.

WMS

I tend to create/build characters on a concept/idea, then if possible get the maximum tweak out I can get with out breaking out of the idea/concept.

Does that mean in some parties my characters not the optimized party member? yes.

WMS

i may be what people call powergamer/munchkin . . it comes with experience i think O.o
i don't get to play even close to how often i would like to(either group or myself out of time), so i do the next best thing for me . . i prepare for the time WHEN i get to play . . i do this by building characters, to try and get a better grip on the rules used by that specific character . . i somehow come to the point where i think:"hey, that's a concept right there . . if it ain't good for ANYTHING else, i can allways throw it at the others in my group to maybe annoy/freak them out a little bit" and then i start building the character and do the whole math-excercise . . i didn't get to play even 10%(constantly sinking because i am still building) of the characters i built . . about 10% of the Characters are proof of concept things like:"see! i CAN build a good character that IS an elf" or "see, i CAN build characters with a good background-story all fleshed out and more or less self-explanatory" and maybe some day a GM will want to do more than just one time ever runs and one of those characters will actually get played . . else i build characters that i can have fun with and basically say:"fuck background-story, he will be probably be played only once" . . and if i have decided on one or the other i try to get the most bang for my buck out of the character . . either in stats/skills or in the fun i will have in playing them . . one of the characters i had the most fun with was a trickster, a practical-joker, a mage who did not do anything usefull but had ways to annoy other characters (all of them, NPC AND PC) that the whole group shook their heads at . . but most of the time i just look at what the others wanna play and hand the GM a pack of pre made characters and tell him to chose or ask the rest of the guys what they would like me to play or i just play what i think is sorely missing in the setup . . so we have the decker, we have the charisma 8 elven bitch, we have a mage, we have a rigger . . what's missing? oh, yeah, the Tank is missing . . i keep in the background, i let others do their thing, i WAIT for them to fuck up and when they do, i can say:"see, now you're all glad i brought my grenade-launcher" and heroically defend the rest of the pansies while we're on the run or do the full frontal assault to get us in/out or just blood carry one or two(yeah, happened, 2 dwarves got dropped simultanously, i was playing the STR16 Troll so i just picked them up and started running ignoring pretty much any attack on my character[Armor of 9 and 16 Body Dice are one fine thing in SR3] and made sure that they got out relatively unharmed) . . that's what i do, that's what i am good at . . annoying people and being the semi intelligent indoor tank with heavy weapons platform . . if they don't fuck up? good, i won't need to pay as much attention(which could be considered good roleplaying when being the team-troll) and just be there to intimidate or haul things around . . call me powergamer, call me munchkin . . but i dare you to tell me that a group does not need something like that from time to time, if the other players wanna have their all stylish but barely able to survive a single fist-fight specialist characters . .

in conclusion: i ain't there to be a good roleplayer, i ain't there to for good roleplaying either, i am there to have fun . . either with my buddies or on their expense . . but they know that and actually like that about me . .

This is what the whole roleplay vs. power-gamer argument in a nut shell boils down to. The important thing to keep in mind is that it's all subjective, different groups have different standards.

Like the guy above who said he built a character who's highest die pool was a 13, to me that feels pretty high. I see starting characters on these boards that roll 22 dice and it blows my mind (like the active night elf gun bunny thread). But that's my play style and the play style of my group, it's what we dig... mostly anyhow, our mage is pretty power gamed.

Also to put things into context I've made and played severely broken 2nd and 3rd edition characters like a 24 +4d6 initiative 'gunslinger' who throws 12 dice at every pistols test before adding in combat pool so I haven't always been into more 'normal' characters. It's just that I find the more or less average joe trying to scrape by a far more believable character concept then the ex-military/ex-company man/ex-government secret project type characters. I also find them easier to roleplay because their motivation comes off as something I can relate to as a person.

Some people power game. Some people build for role play. I have done characters for both. A GM really needs to specify if he is going to have a story based run or a power based run beforehand. Even when I do go all out for the math for a character, I still want to have him be a new and different character with a purpose in the world. Everyone needs a backstory - and no two backstories should be near or dear to each other. At least for my own characters, they're always different. But yeah, this is a problem with D&D just as much as it is with Shadowrun. It becomes a game of munchkinizing or breaking the system and meta-gaming to beat the GM/DM rather than actual role play. Which is why as a GM, I reward role playing and thought out actions over "my character rolls a lot of dice so he always wins" type mentalities or characters.

Ugh, this just drips with passive aggressive flippancy. It makes me sick.

Look, Slymoon, if you feel that people who crunch numbers are inferior gamers to yourself why don't you play Creepwoodrun?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t=0&start=0

The issue isn't at all that people on DS are necessarily powergamers, or even min/maxers. It's that the rules system is essentially agnostic toward roleplaying.

I generally start my characters with a general idea of "who I want them to be", then I go into "what I want them to do" and figure out the best way for them to do that. With D&D this is really easy for me, as I'm intimately familiar with the setting, lore, and rules of the D&D world.

With SR, I'm a total newbie, although I've made it a point to read as many of the SR books as I can get my hands on, and thus have developed somewhat of a knowledge of the SR lore. This being the case, I generally only need help in the last part of that, ie figuring out the best way for the character to do whatever it is that I want them to do.

Having them being the best that I can figure out at that in *NO* way impacts thier background, thier personality, thier characterization, or my ability to roleplay it.

So to move away from discussions about the posters and to the posts before a mod drops in and has to issue a thread warning (or worse)...


I think this is the key. Some GM's want a fast light game, running it more roll-playing than roll-playing. There's nothing wrong with that if everyone understands thats the game up front. Same for role-playing intense games. I'd had games without a single combat in the night and very little dice rolling. Had others that made me feel like I was in a dungeon.

I have a couple of players in my table-top who have switched characters several times and like to 'tweak the build' on each new one. As long as we all have fun, thats really the point....

Hey Slymoon. Would this guy be an excercise in creating a character or an excercise in Min Maxing? Is he crunch or personality?

I find that Shadowrun lore is far easier to immerse yourself in. The set timeline and world is a lot better universe than the D&D one, I feel. Also, there's less room for this "har har I dominate the world" crap that a lot of D&D DMs throw at you, it would seem. But, in terms of building... Yes you should build your character to be as best as he can be. But his skills will determine some of his mannerisms.

For example, my last street samurai had a knowledge of Troll Thrash Metal Bands (we're talking an intense knowledge, here). In fact, it was the whole scene he was into when he wasn't into Shadowrunning. So really, how you build your character is directly related to who they are and what they do.

As It trolls! has already pointed out, the stats vs. roleplaying argument is a false dilemma, since the two are unrelated in any way. You can have a min-maxed monster of a character with a 200-page backstory, or you can have a useless character with an semi-coherent, illogical half-paragraph background.

The numbers are a vital component of roleplaying, because they allow you to objectively quantify the things that you put in his background. Because SR4 isn't sit around the campfire, it's rolling dice to see if your character actually accomplishes what he is trying to do. And too many "roleplayers" forget that a character background isn't merely an exercise in creative writing, but something more specific. It is creating a character, in a game of professional criminals, who works with a team of other professional criminals, in a dangerous distopian world. The character should have a reason for being a shadowrunner, be able to work with other runners, and be able to meaningfully contribute to a team.

Well, just think about the disproportionate number of Academy Awards that go to actors playing characters who are crazy, retarded, addicted, paralyzed or self-destructive.