QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 29 2008, 10:05 PM)

Generally, since this isn't a player problem, it can be solved by asking the player to rein it in a bit at chargen. You just tell him: "These are the rules I'm using, there are the one's I'm not using, and this is the general power level I want in the game." But if you're an anything-goes style of GM, you're voluntarily waiving that solution. How do you handle this issue?
I'm of the anything goes type of GMs and generally prefer to coordinate character creation, trying to find out the desired power level, individual minmaxing skills, stylistic preferences, setting interpretation and general strategic and tactical outlook of the players.
It does eleminate the chance of mechanically vastly superior as well as dangerously weak characters.
I'll also point out differences in power level between PCs and will, if i haven't GMed for the group before, point out to what extend i'll use the rules, how my interpretation of the setting works, that i don't fudge rolls, that i let characters die from bad rolls, restrict escape certain death use of Edge to once per character and so on.
This approach of collective character creation has other advantages as well.
It does not only lead to better character interaction, closer tie-ins of the characters into the campaign and thematically distinctive groups, but also avoids that characters are stepping on each other's toes or that no one is able to cover a specific skill.
What i really dislike is tailoring challenges to specific players.
I'll adjust the overall difficulty of course and assume that no Johnson would send a team without magical backup into a spirit-ridden nightmare of a security installation.
This means that a team who lacks vital roles will either have to hire backup or miss out on job opportunities.
But in general, i get the feeling that coming up with custom challenges results in an overall worthlesness of character competence, that it doesn't really matter how good the PCs are at what they do, as getting better just means getting tried harder and ebing mediocre would be safer.
It boils down to "don't stat out a hacker, the GM will just send more drones at us and someone will attack our comlinks!"
"Don't put that many points into climbing, the walls will just get higher!"
"Don't max out your mage like this, it will just mysteriously raise background count!"
Of course, teams that perform outstanding on a job, completely walking over what i have set up for them, will get more challenging runs in the future- but not because i feel the need to come up with a greater challenge that shows those pesky twinks that the GM always wins if he wants to (every roleplayer knows that already), but because they have earned a better reputation.
The new, more risky jobs will also pay better.
They have achieved something by being as good as they where and get rewarded for it.
If they have given me good story hooks, it might even bring them one step closer to their personal goals.
I have to add, though, that i don't enjoy playing characters into quadrupple-digit karma, so i will never be confronted with PCs who can really do everything.
I view SR as a game where characters are competent at least in their core aspects when they start game.
It is, in my opinion, not a system designed for leveling up to epic.
So i might just not understand the concerns of GMs who have 20th level initiates who whip up Force 15 spirits with a snap of their fingers at their table.