QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 4 2008, 02:22 AM)

I can think of a dozen people here on Dumpshock who do that very thing. They already have characters to cover each and every concieveable niche. I don't know your proclivity for creating characters, but for the sake of this argument and your credibility, I'd like to see this be pure. Remember, *you* were the one who threw down the gauntlet.
Actually you threw down the gauntlet I just picked it up. This may turn out to be a problem, since I have no intention of getting a webcam for this purpose. I'll give other solutions some thought, because I don't honestly think a webcam would resolve any of your trust issues anyway (too many ways to cheat).
QUOTE
And I'm going to stick with books only. That's what most of us use, it'd be unfair to do anything else.
I'm unclear on whether this means I can't use the indexes and tables from the books, or whether I can.
QUOTE
That's actually interesting, because no one has ever asked what I consider to be a viable character.
You may not have stipulated what you think a viable character is but you've defined what you believe a "working character" is. That's good enough for me.
QUOTE
But in the interest of fairness, let's start with you. What do you consider to be a viable character?
A viable shadowrunner character at my table depends on the campaign/adventure we're running and the dynamics (and size) of the team as a whole. As a very vague guideline all that's needed is dice pool of 6+ in a number of essential skills (infiltration, perception, dodge or gymnastics, computer, and either a combat or a social skill), without these the other players in the group probably wouldn't accept a character as a regular team member. They also need at least a couple of contacts, ideally more than that. That's about it though. I'd prefer it if he/she had dice pools of 10+ in the essential skillsets relating to his chosen field of specialization, though I certainly don't enforce it.
I tailor adventures and opposition to the runners I have, and certainly don't shoehorn players into situations where their characters are out of their depth (unless of course that's the point of the encounter). For their part my players know that if they build optimized, top-of-their-field runners they'll face appropriate opposition and missions, and if they build "working characters" they'll have suitable challenges for that powerlevel. The choice at any given time is theirs not mine.
QUOTE
At any event, curve balls or not, you sound supremely confident that you can accomplish this in under two hours. Why not up the ante? Do this on your lunch break, 30 min or less. If you really think you're that infallible, this shouldn't be a problem.
I am confident I can turn something out in under two hours, even on my worst day. I do not believe myself to be infallible and since I've never claimed anything to that effect I see no need to change any parameters. I simply claimed that your statement that no one can build an SR character in under two hours "including the line developer" is false and that I could prove it by doing just that. So why up the ante? I'm well in my comfort zone. And its certainly not my fault that you are no longer certain of the statement you made.
[edited to reflect changes in Cain's post] I have said that at my table we do take as little as 45 minutes to build an SR4 character from scratch. I have
also stated that in the 3 years we've been playing, as we've become more experienced with the system, we have adopted a number of solutions that speed up our chargen process (such as the expanded quick reference table based on p.88 which I mentioned above and which has become an integral part of our creation process, but also stuff like our pregenerated "packages"). For some reason you've decided this gives my guys an unfair advantage even though it is something that anyone who wants can do and gain the same universal benefit. If you're arbitrarily removing options that are acceptable at my table, I do not see a reason why I should limit myself to a "best time performance." Fortunately I don't have to to prove your statement is false. 2 hours was the time frame you set, and that's all I have to beat to make my point.
QUOTE
As for me, let's just say that you learn a lot about a person by both how they treat their yes-men and their constructive criticism. Just because I don't go: "SR4, Rah Rah Rah!" means I get a lot of flack from people who do. Sorry, SR4 is not perfect holy canon, and people who believe otherwise go nuts whenever their Bible is shown to be just another book.
The problem has never been that you don't think that
SR4 is the holy grail. The problems, simply put, are that there is nothing "constructive" about your criticism and that you are unable to recognize that you are wrong even in the face of evidence.
I get plenty of constructive criticism, I actually enjoy it. Some of my fondest moments as a developer and freelancer have been huge (constructive) discussions with Frank Trollman, Ancient History, mfb and others. Even the occassional constructive feedback from people like SLJames/Crimsondude has proved useful and enlightening. Just yesterday I recieved some serious (constructive) criticism from someone whose opinion I value on a product we both worked on. It made me go back to the material being discussed and make several changes. Likewise, constructive criticism—well-thought out feedback and suggestions on fixes or interpretations—voiced on Dumpshock and elsewhere regarding recent books will manifest in upcoming errata and FAQs. Unfortunately, you aren't a "constructive critic" but simply a naysayer. Your opinions are unrelentingly negative, biased, uncompromising, and offer little that might be construed as constructive or useful feedback.
SR4 is by no means perfect, and its certainly not holy canon. Fortunately its also not as problematic as you believe it to be.