And please, keep this sane. This is a place for discussing one's OWN personal little...quirks.

We had threads discussing what some players do wrong, and what some GMs do wrong. But what are some of your own personal little skeletons in the closet? I don't think we're all perfect folks. So whether you're a rules lawyer, someone who insists that the only fun style must be played on a level where you start with a crackpipe and a rusty knife, or if you're a powergamer extrordinaire, here is where you can air your own laundry out. Hopefully for a laugh, because long ago I realized that if you can't laugh at yourself, there isn't much you can laugh at.

These can be either as a player or GM. They can be quirks, outright flaws, or something inbetween(aka, harmless stuff that just makes you a pain in the ass sometimes.)

I can start, here.

1. I have a habit of being a hardwired min-maxer. I'm not sure where this came from, but I'm guessing it was from an old gaming group I had(not my current one-but where I loved the people and still do, and while they weren't a bunch of munchkins, they WERE good at the min-maxing and did it often.) I basically have it in me it seems, whenever I make a character of any kind-combat, non-combat, middle-ground, or whatnot, there will be minmaxing involved. It takes me a long time to make a character sometimes. I need 10k nuyen? I look at my skills, shave here, a little more there, shave back again here, toss more into Athletics and drop a level of Synthacardium, not lose any dice, and get the 10k nuyen without really suffering otherwise(naturally a shaved skill had a specialization added back on.) No matter how hard I try to make a totally non minmaxed character, I end up going back to the number crunching. I've never coughed out a 51 die Pornomancer, nor do I want to. In fact, I don't really try to overpower the things-I just like to shore up weaknesses as much as possible. This leads me oftentimes in character critiques to automatically go into minmax mode when I state my opinion. THAT being said...

2. Even though I minmax, I'm known for making notoriously long backgrounds sometimes. I don't overload on the angst or tragedy...but I'm known for telling rather intricate stories, sometimes in mini-novel or short story form. However, this has a drawback-while it gets me into my character's heads...I end up liking how they interact with the other people in the story too much and no longer want to play them at the table. Solution: Short stories are fine, but I must try not to get too attached or let them go on to long. I've been trying to find a nice happy medium here somewhere. I somehow find I need to get to know the character a bit beforehand before I start the game. I don't know why.

3. An interesting twist on number 1. While I am a hardwired minmaxer-this one isn't really a flaw as much as just an odd quirk, I prefer making non-combative trolls and orks and more combat-oriented humans and elves(with dwarves my preferred mages. Ok, so that last one is kind of a minmax.) I dunno, but something just feels better about it. I guess I've seen too many of the ''me hit things'' trolls and just like to turn it around, while my current elf character is albino death on two legs, snapping a neck in one hand while he tweaks his gun in the other. This is an odd quirk with me that I haven't figured out yet.

4. Another quirk: like I mentioned in the gender thread, I play mainly male characters, and am told I'm actually better at it, even though I'm a female. I have a couple of female characters-both human, a gunslinger and an alchemist, which I like very much, but most of my concepts end up male. Again, not a flaw really but just an odd quirk. I blame it on my rampant tomboyism growing up and the majority of my friends having been guys, making me kinda ''one of the guys.''

5. I tend to get confused when I see people discussing something that is ''overpowered'', even though I have never had a problem with it. I think this quirk comes from, the past bunch of years, having one particular group(not the one that got me minmaxing, but another one), who just play so well together, we're willing to work almost anything in if it will make someone enjoy the game more. We tend to go rather lax on some limits(no Availability limits, we go more oldschool and allow modification past the Augmented Max for our own reasons-one being that it doesn't make sense to us that both a human and a dwarf with Reaction 3 end up with different limits after cybermods. a 3 is a 3, regardless, and if you pays the essence and the nuyen, you should be allowed to pass. Just another example of our houserules.) Basically, we leave things very open, and we still have fun, balanced games that no one ends up being the ''star'' of. But I guess a quirk of mine is sometimes I have trouble realizing that stuff like this DOES cause problems at other people's tables. This might be due to my favorite power level to play at is what I nicknamed ''Gritty Manga.'' It seems to be a bit higher than the average person around the board(700-750 Karma, though when we play with BP we usually sticked to 400, I don't know.) Sort of like...kinda pro-level, but still street. It's hard to explain. This might tie into number 6. In the end, though, I remember that everyone's mileage varies, and that what might work at table A might not work at table B.

6. I admit, I really am not a big fan of the super-low powered game. I mean, I admit, I have that little thing-I'm a regular person IRL, let me do something more fun at the table. While I CAN have fun in the 300-320BP game, I somehow feel that I'm missing something. And besides, the min-maxer in me ends up coming out again anyway, only this time, the character DOES end up overpowered. (I think one thing I noticed about the more 650-750 Karma level, is that when we minmax, the minmaxed character somehow doesn't look like the ''star'' as much as a minmaxed character in a low powered game.)

7. In my current group, we have a rather funny stance on Edges and Flaws/Qualities that might make some people here cringe, but here goes: If you're obviously taking a flaw for the points, just admit it. We tend to be much easier on you if you just come clean, rather than try to hide and explain your way out of your Moderate Allergy to Skittles. Don't worry, we'll work it in somehow. We promise.

8. I have a hard time saying 'no' to certain things. Now, not everything. If someone walks up and says ''my grandfather left me 25% of Ares' stock and a Thor shot'', well, of course that's a big ''no.'' But if someone wants to do something not in canon, and they are really excited about the idea, I will try desperately to work with them, because I believe that everyone should be able to play the character that they really want. For example, there are no rules with Goat shapeshifters. But someone has an idea to play a Dwarven Goat shaman/shapeshifter and they really like the idea. I will really try to work with them to come up with something for that.

Well, those are but a few of mine.

my quarks are im and "Avatar Boy" i basicly play a tweeked verson of myspelf i dont act much i thinkbut its still fun
also i think up a gezillon new charicter ideas a week and get jazzed about a new on all the time probabbly somewhat annoying to my GM's when im like "hey ive been rolling an idea for a new dude in my head here it is..." then the next week i doit agian although when i do pick one its usally pretty interesting concept or atleast entertaining

I prefer making characters that are fun to play that might not be the most effective. I struggle to play min/max'd characters as they usually come across as two dimensional. Those characters end up being too strongly focused on one or two things.

hardwired min/maxing with at least one combat skill at 3/5, even with pacifist characters.
my face ended up the better combat machine than the orc-adept once . .

im not sure i can claim to minmax, but i sure do plan ahead (thinking about what the upgrades should be after mission x, y, z and counting).

im more into this to experience the world(s) then win "the game".

at the same time im not the most talkative guy, in the in-game social sense.

i sit back, watch, maybe comment, and try to simply figure out how to make the character survive it all with the tools at hand.

Rules Lawyer - not a bad thing, as I don't have an issue with house-rulings (as long as it is clear beforehand it is a house rule).

Min-Maxer (kind of) - I will come up with a character concept, & then min-max the character as much as possible (as long as I remain within the concept). This is opposed to one of my friends, who min-maxes the character, then builds the concept around the result (& he accuses me of being a power-gamer).

I play the opposite gender - This is actually kind of odd. I am male, & at least half the characters I create & play are male. For some reason though, probably 80% of my actual game time, I am playing a female. I do nothing differently as far as survival is concerned, but my male characters seem to have twice the mortality rate of the females, if not even higher.

The same as Hobgoblin, I tend to sit back & observe during social scenes. I don't talk well, so I leave it to others. I also plan my characters actions & (out-of-game) advancement out long before I reach that point.

My character's personalities tend to be on the edges of the bell curve.

I do not enjoy low-powered games. I often have difficulty with the standard 400BP even; I prefer games in the 500BP/750Karma range, sometimes even higher.

heh, yeah, okay, i mostly try to sit back and observe . . but there comes the inevitable train-wreck where i start bashing in skulls . .
i usually play what's most needed in the group, and if most of the others play tech types or magics, then that's usually the unwanted Troll Combat Mobster. I think i am what people call casual gamer

You know, mentioning characters, combat monsters, and mortality rates(over several posts), I think I realize why I like sticking with the human/elf combat monsters; somehow, somewhere, these tend to have the highest survival rates of my characters. I really don't know why; it's probably strictly a luck thing. I recall my troll critter hunter/tankish heavy weapons guy with tons of Body, good armor, didn't skimp on Dodge or anything and was mainly ranged(with some blades to help him defend if close if needed) ended up at at least a Moderate type of wound well over half of the time, while my close-combat monster elf barely got his pretty face scratched. You'd think it would have been the opposite, but nope.

dandelion eaters are better at dodging, and we trolls are frigging huge targets compared . . so everybody shoots at us first because they can be pretty sure that SOMETHING will hit and SOMETHING will probably come through too . . not that i want any of them there, but behind my broad body 3 elves can hide without problem . . aside for their big egos

I dont play good guys. I just dont relate well to helping people for no reason. If there aint somethin in it for me, you can go to hell.

I do a little min/maxing but not to the degree of a munchkin. I like to know that my character is good at what he does. I also have a strong habit of planning long-term, even for games that are most likely to end in the short term.

I always have plenty of good ideas, but I suck ass at thinking on my feet. If I can plan ahead for contingencies I will, but if something comes up thats not planned for, I suck at dealing with it.

I also tend to ride the fence alot. I dont make decisions unless noone else wants to either, then I step up.

I also agree with Muspellheimer, I just dont enjoy those low powered games.

I dont like to play the "regular" either. If theres something strange or otherwise exotic, I'll usually wanna play that instead.

Why do Shadowrun teams all ways resemble the A-Team? That's another quirk of games I play in.

Or it's the Worf Effect.^^

As far as your quirks 1, 2 and 5-8 are concerned, i don't so much see them as quirks, but rather as the norm for almost all players who are more than casual gamers.
From my experience, someone who would not act along those lines would seem quirky.



What, your teams always shell out thousands of bullets without hitting anyone?
Nah, just kidding, i think it's something most RPGs encourage.
Usually, chargen systems reward a certain amount of specialization and in a game like SR, having a B.A. (streetsam), a Murdock (hacker/rigger) and a Face (the, well...face) just comes in handy in most runs.
And there's always a player who loves it when a plan comes together. ^^

I don't think our team was ever like the A-team. Me thinks it could also be the people you play with, or the style of the GM.

Anyways I rules nit pick. It does mean though that if they need to remember who is going next in the IP, what IP is it, how many simple, complex, and free actions everyone has taken, or some quick math to determine damage, tracks of different characters, or how much edge each character has used they just have to ask me.

It always takes me a while to get into the mind set of my characters. Eventually I play a character until I get a feeling for them, and then generally their past and history starts to take a different shape and evolve into something bigger then my brief blurb explaining the history of said character. My rigger went from a person born and raised on the streets, to being... well a lot more then that.

Can't really think of anything else, but I'm sure the other players at my table will know what else I do. I also suffer from social gremlins. I glitch on about one in five social tests that I make.

I tend to be pretty cynical towards players who create characters that fall along the lines of "I'm the biggest, baddest whatever there is in Redmond/Faerun/the Galaxy and I eat graphite and poop bullets". That sort of "I'm the best!" approach doesn't appeal to me at all as I find overcoming self-induced obstacles is the most interesting part of role-playing. Instead, I typically create characters who are lovers, not fighters. If I'm playing Shadowrun, it's as a Face pornomancer-type who charms and smarms his way into a target's good graces. Or a wheelchair-bound hacker trying to save up cash for a total bio-makeover so he can walk and be pretty. My Living Forgotten Realms character is a Heartwarder of Sune and my schtick is to try and evangelize the enemy with the promise of good lovin', be it male or female. Only if that fails do I bash heads in.

I'm guilty of doing the self-avatar thing: making a character who is just like myself only a little better looking and a little more clever.

I like running down and dirty games. None of this save-the-world stuff for my runners: they've got to pay rent. I also like giving my runners a moral dilemma: finish the mission you're paid to do, or do the morally thing. Sometimes I later throw in another curve: I once ran a mission where the Johnson met them in a wheelchair. He was an independent film-maker whose business was going under. When the mission was over, he walked into the meet. I also threw in a news story after another two missions: he'd been arrested for making kiddie films (not the Walt Disney kind).

Am I mean?

As a player, I lean very heavily towards anti-authoritarian characters. I didn't realise this until someone pointed this out to me recently. I can play virtually any role but it will nearly always have an anti authoritarian bent.

This makes it a real problem for me when I play in campaigns with a strict hierarchy (e.g. military themed campaigns). This is a real clash for me since one of my GMs I play with is only capable of running these sorts of games (he's wired that way) and we always butt heads.

- J.

As a GM, I'm notoriously stingy with karma.

For yearsandyears, my characters were almost never human/male. There was just no challenge in that. In the last coupla years, most of them were human male. Maybe race isn't really much of a challenge for me anymore. Either that, or I just concentrate on archetype and go from there. Very often, I decide I can't afford the BP for race, like when I'm making a mage.

So I guess that makes me a little bit of a min/maxer. I want to keep that distinct from "power gamer", because I go for efficiency of build, rather than being able to kick ass. Which brings me to...

My characters tend towards generalist. Another player in our group likes to say, "pick one thing you want to be good at, and be as good as you possibly can." I'm the opposite. I want to be reasonably good at several things, and have a chance at doing a few more things. Maybe this is because after everyone else is only good at one thing, I have to be good at several things.

I like low level campaigns. Not underpowered characters, so much as gritty street level games. It disappoints me when, three missions in to the campaign, we've made enough karma and contacts to graduate from the streets, to corporate work.

My GM style is...

I tend to create a setting and turn the team loose on it. I give them a goal, and have no plans as to how they reach it. No hints, no railroading. If it's a B&E job, I'll make a map of the facility (often on the fly), and let them attack it. If it's a mystery to solve, I'll take my cues from their ideas. When I hear what they're going to do, I decide if it sounds reasonable enough to work, and then decide the obstacles to enacting their plan.

Aside from that, I'm better with the big picture than the details. I like the setting, the back story, and the overriding plot. I have trouble tying that in to what the characters are doing. There are always cool things happening... and the characters just get to watch. Kinda lame, really.

#1. I hate elves. Always have. I think they are one of the worst race concepts in all of fiction. "Oh look at me, I am just like a human in every single way except better, woohoo!" I'm faster, more agile, I can run on snow, see hawks 5000 miles distant. Oh, and I live forever to! Isn't that just grand? No, it isn't its lame and dump and you are dumb for playing one. Fragging pointy eared punks. So I will never ever, ever, ever play an elf character. To me they are just pathetic, and I look upon anyone who DOES play one of those stupid keeblers with scorn and disdain. And yes, that include all you people out there on dumpshock who have done it! I am disappointed in you! Really, playing an elf. How pathetic.

I try with some moderate amount of success to keep my scorn from over-influencing my GMing. Luckily for me, the SR4 rules generally make elves a sub-optimal choice in BP, so I can take solace in the fact that the players are paying a BP premium for those stupid pointy ears of theirs. Now that I think about it, I sub-consciously steer away from elf NPCs as well, probably because my hatred towards them blinds me so.

#2. I hate vampires. Always have. I never understood what was compelling about playing a blood-sucking immortal creature of the night. Vampires make good villains but horrible protagonists. And all that crappy angst that games like the WoD build up comes across to me as crap. "Oh Whoa is me, I am immortal and nearly unkillable, with superhuman powers, what-ever shall I do? How I long to see the light of day again." Yeah whatever loser, cry me a river. It goes without saying then that I will never ever play a vampire, nor do I allow any PCs to play one. Frankly, unlike elves, I would not be able to control my distate for them and would just end up unfairly having them killed of anyways. So better to just avoid all that.

#3. I hate originality. Sounds terrible doesn't it? Let me rephrase, I hate the overblown attempts some players go through in the attempt to be something new and different. It never works. Indeed, often times the elaborate so-called original concepts come out more cookie cutter than characters cut from simpler cloth do.

I like to follow the KISS principle for character concepts. If you can't fit your character concept in one line, its probably not a good one. "I am an ex-Cop who left Lone Star after being involved in a terrible accident." = Good. "I am an immigrant from Russia who used to be a member of the Russian military." = Good. "I am an spoiled coprate brat out to cause some mayhem with my magic." = Good. "I am an Ex-Renraku company man who left Renraku because I got trapped in the Arc, where I was rescued by the Orc underground and iniated into the Mafia, but I was then expelled when my Technomancer abilities came to light after crash 2.0 and so I have joined the Yakuza and am re-discovering my true Japanes herritage" = Bad.

#4. I love to sterotype. Good orginal character concepts are fine and all, but for NPCs I find nothing beats a good simple sterotype. "Dumb Troll" "Spoiled Brat", "Ruthless Lone Shark," ect. Overly complicated NPCs are hard for the players to relate to in most cases. NPCs with simplistic motivations and patterns tend to work much better I find. So I make heavy heavy use of them.

#5. I love to steal. A wise man one said, "There is nothing new under the sun." True words. So I don't put special effort into coming up with original concepts. I steal my concepts for everywhere. Books, news stories, movies, TV, ect. Frankly even if I put the extra effort into an 'original' idea it would end up being similar to something else anyways. So why bother? I find adapting some other story to my setting is the most productive way of generating new run ideas.

But mainly I hate elves. Freaking elves.

And you vote Republican?

Do you know what a Curmudgeon is? You should definitely play one of those.

Merry Christmas, Max.

I could shoot you for posting that link - I spent about the next 10 hours yesterday with a rolling 50-tab total in Firefox, just rooting through tvtrops.org. *sigh*

As for quirks - I'm something of a rules lawyer. I absolutely want to stay within the rules - to the occasional detriment of my fellow PCs. One will try to do something, and I (not the GM) will point out that it doesn't work. Luckily doesn't happen too often.

Just much easier to maintain immersion when the rules are actually the rules...

thats tvtropes for you. it has happened to me multiple times...

1. I like characters who stand out in the world. The character tends to be REALLY good at what he does. I don't min/max for every possible bonus (you need something to look forward to, right?), but if I'm playing Billy the Kid in SR, damn right I'm going to be good. It's probably from reading Robin Hood/King Arthur and watching Zorro growing up, and then modern movies after that. I think of SR as a story/movie, and the main characters are really good at what they do, otherwise why are they there? ("I am a leaf on the wind.")

2. I like style. I hate it when a GM blows a cinematic that could have been amazing. I also hate it when you have a really cool character, and the GM just gives it away. Once when playing Alternity, -blah blah- got to showdown with main boss, and after thinking finally turned to the GM and asked "what does adrenal pumps kicking in look like?" And all the players did a double take and said "THAT'S WHY YOUR SO GOOD!? A MUTANT!"

2.5. As a GM I will make players leave the room, so that it doesn't spoil #2. If you split up with the party, you don't get to hear about the cool bio-tiger. If your lucky (hehe), maybe you'll get to see it later.

3. Sometimes I hide things in my character sheet if I'm playing against (yes, I said against) certain GM's. You know those GM's: "your going to die. Get over it." Well then perhaps I shall make my character sheet very long, so that you get tired and don't read it... yes, I do have several tons of Fuel Air bomb in my basement. Did you miss that?

4. I try to get along with the other players. I'll tweak my character concept so I don't have to kill the other players. Which makes me angry when the other players are a-holes and deserve to be killed. (My GM's either walk out of the room if the characters come to blows, or just sucks at PvP. See the beginning of #2.)

(Stealing from Max) #5. I like stereotypes. A stereotype is one for a reason, even if they aren't true, people can relate to them in a "oh, I've seen or heard abot that before." The hard bitten private eye with a chivalric soft spot. The mentor who is really the big bad guy. And so on.

#6. I only take what my character would realistically have on them. Which drives my GM's batty. What do you mean you don't have your -insert nessessary piece of equipment- on you. "Dude, you said we were going to the grocery store!" (Which sadly leads me to play paranoid characters, or characters with magic, so that I have my tools around all the time.)

Everyone knows my main quirks - strict RAW and as Canon as possible.

My main quirk is that, regardless of system, setting, DM, or adventure, I will likely create the same character. Sure, their race and story might be a little bit different, but they will be good at A) Gymnastics and B) Hand to hand combat. I'm the type of gamer that's in it for the big action, and both of those skills allow me to add to that action potential. In depth deep character roleplaying is just fine in my book, some people really enjoy that. Give me a rooftop chase scene, a rush to the rescue, or a battle with a Russian-cyborg-demon-undead-ninja any day.

Also, all of my characters have pronounced and distinctive accents. I've found this helps create a very good indicator of whether I'm in character or not, as well as generally adding some fun to the game. I strongly encourage everyone to try an accented character at least once, it's a bunch of fun.

That isn't a quirk! That's heavenly!

These are a few of my quirks:

1) Due to a certain issue with my real-life personality (like getting the leader of a high school clique that was always snotty towards me fired from her job at McDonald's when I know she doesn't have the credentials to work in anything except fast food and none of the other joints are currently hiring), my GM has houseruled that all of my characters must have the Vindictive flaw (I am allowed to enjoy the extra BPs, though).

2) I'm a killer GM, when I GM. I don't pull punches, don't play soft, make the players fight for every advantage, and am not unknown for throwing out mixtures of APCs, dragons, cyberzombies, and high-innitiate mages. I typically only GM when my GM has decided he wants to throw the group an extremely tough one. I typically GM holiday-themed runs lately, for some reason.

3) My characters all tend to be psychopathic. I'm talking the kind of character who starts a kidnapping of a corp's exec by walking into the room and headshotting his secretary with a silenced pistol while pumping him full of gel rounds with a machine pistol.

4) I'm the only person of my group who is allowed to simply rely on a dice roll for intimidation checks and not having to describe how. This ties in with #'s 1 and 3.

5) Typically, I avoid the Matrix; this isn't due to any particular dislike of the Matrix systems (though, I think my criticisms of the current one are well-known), but simply due to circumstances. The two who play the rigger and hacker are fast at generating those characters.

6) I am not allowed by my group to play trolls, orcs, or metavarients thereof. See #3.

7) On occasion, I like a game where we know from the very beginning that the characters are going to die. Where you are told, in no uncertain terms, that they will not survive. It's fun seeing how long you can avoid death and how long you can managed to escape; and, on a couple of occasions I've actually, despite the GM's best efforts, managed to get a character to survive. Usually, my characters in those games go out due to a gun malfunction while it's loaded with EX-Ex and the character's got several kilos of plastic explosives and grenades all around them.

I'm the only person in the group that's played a mage who uses grenade launchers instead of spells for combat.

Bah humbug. Christmas, another thing those blasted keebes have messed up. Why we had to mix up a perfectly find religous holiday with those dreking elves I'll never know.

----

One of my quirks as GM is always asking the players "Are you SURE you want to do that?" I started doing it only when they were doing obviously nutty things, but have increased its frequency so as to make them doubt perfectly reasonable decisons .

I'm also bad about accidentally revealing my hands through fruedian slips. Such as "No you can't search the body there is still a trap on top of him" when of course I do not intend to reveal the fact that there is in fact a trap there! Luckily for me, my players are often times oblivious to these slips of my tongue (Oh no problem, we'll move the trap first!).

I also do terrible accents for my NPCs.

My quirks:

I generally start out with a concept, rough out the stats, then do the background, changing the stats as I need to. Doing the story first doesn't work as well - I find doing the two together makes for a character whose stats and background match better. I like structured formats like Bull's 50+ questions, which help me avoid writer's block and organize the background. I try to keep it relevant - if they had a life-changing experience that led to their becoming a shadowrunner when they were 18, then their childhood years don't need as much detail.

I like combat and chewing up the scenery, so my characters tend to be combat-oriented with a touch of face (the non-face ones tend to have more extravagant personalities). I like being good at my specialty, but not to the point where that's all the character can do. I like having a good secondary specialty or sometimes more than one.

In SR3, I loved sorcerers, because you could max out their specialty with one skill and two Attributes, leaving you plenty of points to spend on other things - and the spell selection itself gave the character plenty of options. In SR4, I favor adepts with a bit of bioware. Mages and sammies are both okay, but sorcerers are not really worth it any more - for the very slight difference, you might as well play a full mage. I have not gotten that into conjurers or riggers, even though they are probably the two most powerful archetypes. I guess I prefer a character with personal power over one who can command an army of spirits or drones.

I find that my actual played characters aren't as maxed-out as some of the dice pool exercises that I have posted on the forums. Partly because it reaches a point of diminishing returns. A face with 40 dice will dominate social tests (and be bored) and be weak (and bored) in other areas. I would rather have someone rolling 12-15 dice, who succeeds most of the time but fails some of the time, and who can also ride a bike, shoot a gun, and so on.

My main flaw as a player is playing characters that do not fit into the general group. This is usualy a problem with making a character seperate from the group. I tend to have similar problems when GM and trying to link together completely seperate people into acomplishing one goal. I think this might be more a group flaw then just myself as a player.

I do have a bad habbit of playing underpowered characters by not min/maxing. This is as much as a problem as min/maxing can be as I don't fit the power level of the group hen its very difficult to challenge the other players or just not completely destroy my character.

As a quirk, one thing that drives me insane as a player or a GM is the character with no social skills who insists on argueing, persuading the NPC or other players. Always using thier own natural skills at speaking and getting thier point across when the character has no skills at this and has a cha of 1.

Lets see, I have a number of little quirks.

-I tend to place a heavy emphasis on game mechanics, which irks some method actors. I tend to look at a characters numbers before looking at the backround, and often criticize people who don't apply their numbers in a logical fashion.

-I strongly believe in creating strong, well balanced characters, and often cite the hard to argue role play point that my shadowrunner/adventurer(depending on the system) won't party with someone who has a huge gaping deadly flaw (like someone with a body score of 1 who tries running in the meat), I don't care what the roleplay reason is, someone with that big of a flaw doesn't survive this long.

-I usually play in the third-person. I will say what my character does, how they do it, even in great detail if need be, but I rarely every talk like my character word for word, which annoys some players. I personally see it as a valid way to play a character with better mental stats then me(mainly charisma).

-I usually always play magical characters, and I almost always play the charismatic manipulator types, with illusions and mind-altering magics if possible. When I don't I usually play the biggest toughest meanest tank you can find.

-I have a tendency to play very...morally ambiguous characters. You usually couldn't call them out-right evil, but they can't always be called good either. To be specific, my characters intentions are usually someone good(if oftentimes selfish) but I usually pick the most effective means to reach those goals, whatever they may be.

-I tend to use Occum's razor a lot, my simple solutions oftentime angering GMs with very complex plots. (We could do that, or I could just astrally project inside, and summon a spirit to open the door from in there instead of tailing someone for hours to steal their key).

I don't GM often, because I tend towards the sadistic.

As a player, I have no concept of "restrained application of force". Panther cannons to hold up a stuffer shack? Yes! Force 10 fireballs to intimidate children? Yes!

I tend to be WAY to detail oriented, sometimes to the detriment of the big picture. Or, I refuse to let anyone see something until it's 'done', which means I over think it and then refuse to let anyone ever see it because I can't decide on it's final form. It's one of the pitfalls of having OCD. Everything must be perfect!

My quirks, hmmm.... I'll try the short version.

As a player:

I usually get a lot more involved in the surroundings than the other players and do a lot more research on the relevant background of the campaign. This results in several issues:

1. I hog spotlight. Even when I play silent type characters, I tend to inadvertently be the one who interacts most with NPCs because I know most about the situation without resorting to metagaming.
2. I can't keep myself from OOC commenting on the situation constantly. Call it multiple MST3K persona disorder or whatever. It can make for a good joke, or destroy immersion and annoy the others.
3. I cringe everytime another player decides on a certain action because of ignorance of rules or odds. Like a mage with magic 4 and a drainpool of 14 not ever casting stunbolt above force 4, when a force 8 would have instantly knocked that guard out, because he never sat down and thought about the odds of taking a real hit from the cast.
4. While I go along with it, I hate acting first person. It just feels ridiculous to me.

Also in the recent years I shifted from playing more male characters to female characters. Maybe it's got to do with that tendency in cRPGs where I think "If I have to look at my character's butt while I play the game, it better be a cute one."

And as a GM:

1. I loooove conspiracy plots. Which often results in the players not knowing what's what after a few sessions.
2. I never write anything down. Intricate plots have been too often destroyed by Occam's Razor.
3. I hate dwarves. Seriously.

And to twist Max's #3 around AND send more people into TVTropes hell: I hate Darker and Edgier, as well as The Chosen One. As a rule most characters who don't try to be someone special come out very well-rounded and reasonably interesting.
As soon as you go to implant any chosen destiny and probable singificance of the character on a global scale (i.e. something like "He's the child of Dunkelzahn and a Horror!") it gets ridiculous, boring and twodimensional quick, also because usually every aspect of the character becomes about this one thing. I have observed the same problem with SR novels too.

Quirks of mine:

I occasionally cheat. It's a habit I have learned and one which I am again learning away from. Sometimes I want to fail. Sometimes I want to succeed.

I like making involved characters that during the game I flesh out into "real" personas.

I like writing things, keeping a diary, drawing pictures about my characters or the campaign I am involved in.

Most of my characters also seem to have a death wish of some kind. I have yet to have a character die like that, but I keep hoping.

In Shadowrun I have so far played a few psychopathic characters. Vera was a serial killer and Sonya goes from calm to violent with a drop of a hat.

Quirks of mine:

As a GM:

I'm a softy. I hate killing characters...for me, taking a character unconscious is sufficient enough for death. The players know they could be dead and always seem relieved when they make it to play another day.

I hate rolling dice. Normally I print out pages of random numbers and just go down the line and use those results. When I do roll dice, I like to fudge the outcomes in favor of telling the story or adding stress to the scenario.

I like to tailor adventures, singling out each of the players. This keeps the spotlight moving and gets everyone ready for some "shine time".

I like the players to direct the show, sometimes to the detriment of the gaming session. I will let the players self-destruct before I bring them all back the the game and move them along.

As a Player:

I love handicapping my characters. Although, the GMs I usually play with, being their min/maxing selves, always find in-game ways to "improve" my character...even when I tell them I don't want help.

I like all my dice in front of me with the highest number on top.

I don't let anyone else roll or touch my dice (and in DnD, I have a d20 that I've been playing with for 15+ years, in fact it rolled four 20s in my last session...its enchanted!).

I tend to choose a character after everyone else has set theirs so I can fulfill a missing role.

Ugh. I'm guilty of that as well. Though in my defense I only do it if I want the game to JUST END ALREADY SO I CAN GO HOME!!!

We call it ''dice training'' at our table.

And I have to admit, this is new for me, believe it or not:



I know people hate elves(usually claiming them too 'special' for whatever reasons), and orks/trolls(usually claiming them overpowered with their high Bodies or the latter just not being able to fit anywhere), and plenty of folks who dislike the metatypes/weirdo stuff, but I think this is the first time I've ever heard hate for the little guy. It just proves there's something for everyone in the game...and sometimes not. (I personally have no dislike/hatred for any of them, even the special stuff, thinking they all have their place. I believe there is a time and a place for the REALLY strange stuff, but even then it can fit sometimes.)

When I see someone doing that, I tell them it's aversion therapy. The dice will get tired of having that side up.

Kinda like when someone rolls a lot of sixes on an unimportant roll, and they say, "it's good practice," I'll reply, "use 'em up!"

I'm just contrary that way.

I must say I do find the elf-hate curious. If you strip out the poncy Tolkein and D&D themes and look at the original mythology from the Norse and proto-Germans, yeah, they are like a human in every single way except better. They were believed to be a race of eternally youthful nature and fertility gods. As a fan of myth and storytelling, I think that's kind of cool. Who wouldn't want to be one or bang one? And now that I think about it, every fictional race is "just like a human except better" in some way. Hobbits are just like humans except quicker and more playful. And cuter. Dwarves are just like humans except more comical and mysterious. And beardy. As for vampires, hell, who doesn't want to live forever and look beautiful in satin? It's unfortunate that Anne Rice and immature drama queens and man-children Cam members have made the modern vampire into an effiminate mockery but there's nothing wrong with the flawed but eternal beautiful theme conceptually. And how is that any different from being a benevolent ork? Tolkein created "orqui" as demons made flesh, not just big dummies with green skin, bad teeth and pointy ears.

Oh well, I guess that's why we're talking about quirks, right?

Aren't shadowrunners in general "just like a human except better"?

I often create characters and write their stories, and end up never using them. Still, it's fun.

I also min/max, though I try not to overdo it. And I tend to stick to magical characters.

Relevant, me thinks.

I find that view to be rather dour but it makes sense as anthropological theory.

I've always loved that about elves in SR: you take the almost mystical elves of Tolkein etc, stick them in the 6th World and suddenly they're strippers, hookers and gangers with needles in their arms. SR turns the mythology beautifully on it's head: the romance is stripped away.

- I lay my dice out in patterns. Generally fives and sixes, but after a dice roll I generally try putting it in a pattern at times.

- When in combat I try to squeeze whatever I can into those complex, simple, and free actions. I feel like I'm cheating if I can't use them all for each and every IP.

Just thought of another one: all of the RPG manuals on my bookshelf are grouped by system and placed in order by product number.

My little non-secret is this: The second-worst GM I ever played under was myself. This is why I'm so sensitive to what bad GM's can do. I like to think I've become better-- hell, looking back, I can't see how I could have done worse-- but I still know I have far to go.

That's about, why I have no problem with elves in SR. Known stereotypes about the fantasy race are deliberately and completely subverted. Dwarves on the other hand seem to be right at home in SR with all their clichés. Except maybe for the thick scottish accent, every dwarf in fantasy seems to have

well, in a world that's dominated by the markets demands, why should a race of good workers not fit in?

First I should remind the crowd, that I ,infact am a human, and thus judge everything from that perspective.

Now, with that proviso in place, I find different races compelling based upon how they compare to the human experience. And one the things I find most compelling about being a human is that we are flawed, imperfect creatures (well at least I am). How then do other race concepts relate to this experience? Orks and Trolls despite being physically the most different from humans, are actually often closest in experience to us. Their physical advantages come at a price of both their looks and their mental assets. They are, as humans, built from the ground up as fundamentaly flawed creatures, arguably even more flawed then humans in some depictions. Thus I can find their stories compelling. Dwarves likewise have their flaws as characters, while they may be stouter, sturdier, and a stronger than a human, but they pay for that with an asset precious to us humans, height. As a flawed being, I can relate to the dwarven or orkish or trollish experience.

Elves however, as you point out, are designed to be without flaws. Or at least very minimal ones. As I said before, they are just like humans in every way, except, you know, better. Maybe this kind of escapism appeals to you. But it grates on me (obviously). Being flawed, imperfect, is the core of the human experience. Maybe because without flaws, there is no room for improvement or development in ones character. There is no room for growth, no drive to become better. Indeed this point is very evident in many fantasy depictions of elves who are said to already have achieved this perfection. If you remove the flaws, the drive for growth and improvement from a race, can it truly said to be human any more? I believe it can not.

And maybe it grates on me because elves are presented as humanish, but better. They are presented as a race of what man might be like, if he was perfect. They are present as a race that we should be able to empathize with, as something we should be able to compare ourselves with. But IMO elves ultimately are not. As I said, man without his flaws, ceases to be human. It goes against my human experience of what man could become, perfection might be our goal, but it will never be our result, we will always have room for improvement.

And yeah, I think the escapism present in elves is immature. It is healthy to desire something greater or better than you currently are. But I think it is more mature to recognize that no matter how great you might become, to be human, you must still have your flaws, your drawbacks, your... quirks .

--

As for vampires, yeah the winy drama kings/queens kind of spoiled that for me. As their are aspects of the concept I like.

However I do have to say as a human, I find the concept of another race that feeds on my blood for its substinance, rather distasteful. I don't seek escapism in that flavor. I don't empithise very will with the concept of 'lossing ones humanity' or seeing other humans as prey. Being human (maybe a different flavor of human, but human none the less) is what it is all about for me.

--

Oh, and if it helps you understand me better, I hate characters like Superman to.