It is an old adage that talent will only take you so far; after that you've got to practice, practice, practice. This is true, the best athlete in the entire world cannot try a sport he or she has never played before, and beat a good member of that sport first time out. With this being the case, it does seem strange that skills can only go up to 6; it seems that the developers are saying talent is alot more important than good training and longtime experience. If working from the base human 6 stat 6 skill, it works fine. But we know from the getgo that other races will have higher traits, and we know that we can get augmentations to be better/faster/stronger. So logically, you should also be able to boost your skills up to (human trait max 9, skill max of 9, which the max is). But outside of adepts, I believe there is only the one bioware skill booster, and it only gives you +1 to your skill.

So it seems relatively balanced between stat and skill, if there was a way to augment your skills up to 9, without magic. (There might be, and I'm forgetting it.) As for 6 not being "high" enough, the same arguement can be made for Mr. Average and Mr. Example of Human Perfection in traits. If you build your character to be the best, then he should be the best. Where do the best go? They either stay the best, or they fall down. You can't be the "bestest." Our character's aren't 1st level characters, they are (potentially) the James Bonds, Snipers, and Excorsists of the world. Or they are gangers and street trash trying to scrape themselves out of a hole. But that is up to the GM and players to decide.

(Incidently, I give starting reputation points to characters for 5's and 6's that they have. They are world class, so unless they are somehow kung fu masters from inside Tibet, there should be some rep attached to high skills.)

I commented on this recently in another thread. Not only has the descriptive text not been updated to take into account changes to the chart, it blatantly contradicts the chart.

However, in the grand sceme of things... it is irrelevant... they both function as a Edit 2 Program... all those successes aside, there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE in the programs... My opinion would be if you want more "options" then program a more intricate program (raise the rating of the program)... Programs of equal rating are identical in all respects...



I never argued that Fastjack was not a better programmer, what I said was that equal program ratings indicate equal capabilities and functions... Sure, Fastjack is a better programmer... in that regard he could program a Rating 8 Edit Program in the same time that Joe Average programs the Rating 2 Program... However, equal ratings are equal in function (I do not pay more for a Rating 2 Edit Program made by Fastjack than I would from Joe Average Programmer, assuming that both of succeeded in actually programming the program)... so whether or not the programmer received 1 net success or 100 net successes is completely IRRELEVANT to the function of the program itself...



I never said that it equaled Bad Roleplaying, I indicated that the need was not truly there, it was an illusion. With the SR4 System, dice results have become more random, which I view as a good thing. If you are trying to completely overwhelm the outcome of the dice resolving the drama, by piling on as many modifiers as you can, then you are denying yourself a story (probably a very good one) that cannot be completely controlled by the character. Always winning gets REAL boring after a while...

That's what I thought, thanks for the (second ) confirmation...

For the vast majority of things that you do in a shadowrun game, all you truly need to succeed is 1 Net Success (NEED being the operative word)... There is absolutely no mechanical benefit for me to accumulate 15 NET successes to program a Edit 3 Program, or create a Rating 6 Response Chip, or repair my vehicle... The only time that more successes generate a mechanical effect is in Combat... More hits = more damage... In any opposed test, outside of combat, 1 Net over your opponent is more than enough to SUCCEED... When is the last time that you actaully had a mechanical effect from gaining 15 net successes for programming a program? I would be willing to bet NEVER, as there ARE NO BENEFITs for such successes outside of combat...



See the above post...it only really matters IN COMBAT... Wide margins are irrelevant outside of combat...




So you are freely admitting that you take advantage of your GM because he cannot build characters as well as you do? How... Droll



Thanks for the assumption that I do not roleplay... You would be wrong... Many, if not all of my characters have "character," I just don't need 20+ dice to accomplish that... seems like it is acting as a crutch to the way you play your character if you cannot have that without the 20+ dice yourself...

You are right, numbers and roleplay are not enemies... but when the numbers take precedence over the roleplay, the Character suffers... You are right...a character does need his highs and lows, but you can accomplish those highs and lows with a range of 5-15 Dice(Low to High) rather than what seems to be your opinion of 8-20+ (Low to High)...

You have continuously stated that you cannot have an effective character with main skills less than 20+ dice pools, and at this I cry Foul... You can have very effective and successful characters with dice pools averaging 8-12... it is all in your opposition... if you have dice pools of 20+, then your opposition MUST have dice pools that are equal or superior... so now what do you do when your opposition now throws 30+ dice to oppose you?

When my Primary Enemies begin throwing 12-14 dice, I dont sweat it a much as if they started throwing those 20+ dice that you are so fond of... If I DID encounter such an opponent, I would probably run to fight another day, and confront him at a later time with a bigger stick than I had to start with (probably in the form of numbers or maybe some superior tech)... it would not make me want to all of a sudden have 20+ dice of my own in my primary skills... for the record, I HAVE NO CHARACTER with combat stats in the 20+ Range, and they have all played quite well, in spite of your supposition that they should be inept wanks...

Different style than you are apparently used to...

I still contend that you DO NOT NEED DP's at the 20+ range to be competent or successful... sure, Larger dice pools may well add additional; successes, but I have not been in any game where it was absolutely a MUST HAVE to compete...

With Inflation, My 1 Centm Hope that I did not Bore anyone...
Thanks for letting me rant a little...

Maybe... But the Flair you (or the GM) inject into the character's actions are independant of the Mechanics of the system... again, multiplle net successes only have a mechanic attached in combat...




And if the GM Chooses to limit you to a reasonable dice pool? What then? Do you go along with Cain's suggestion that you just get another GM?




The Don't complain when you have no where to improve when you start as on of the best in the world... That is the price that you pay to be the best...

As for Soaring with the gods, I do quite well with the characters that I choose to play, thank you very much... as I have said before...it becomes QUITE boring when you are not ever challenged by anything... If I wanted that I would go play SCION or something...

I prefer the challenge of a well written story to always winning...

My Two Cents

So you are freely admitting you judge your GM by how well he builds his NPCs? Afterall, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no? A GM's skill is not determined only by how well he builds his characters. Rather by how well he challenges you or how much fun you are getting from his game. It does not matter if he throw 1 million Grunts at you or he sends 1 cyberzombie, or he can just drop you into a Background 4+ zone for Awakened characters.

The SR rules allow the GM a far greater amount of resources to build your Primary Enemies - Superior/Superhuman/etc. As a reminder, these Prime Runner NPCs scale with you, which means you will be outclassed since for every 1 karma you get, these guys get 1+ karma. Your GM can choose to challenge you with anything he deems fit. He does not need to challenge you with 1 guy with a dice pool of 20+. He can challenge you with 10 guys with a dice pool no greater than yours. But you are doing yourself no favors by keeping your own dice pool at a level lower than that necessary to gain a critical success since you gain brief narrative control over your PC. At all other times, narrative control lies with the GM.


I did not see anyone make any assumption that you do not roleplay. I see however that you are assuming that someone is assuming you are not roleplaying. Your claim that you roleplay means nothing in any case, no one usually will willingly admit that they do not roleplay, on the contrary, many people claim to roleplay. In fact, far more people with little interest in game mechanics claim to "roleplay" than those who put effort into creating a mechanically viable character. In fact, there are "roleplayers" that I have seen "roleplay" nothing but a pain in the ass.

I have no complaints about the way our campaign is run... I do not judge by how well NPC's are built, I judge by how much fun is involved, as this is a hobby that is supposed to be FUN for everyone involved...



I have no complaints about this... Narrative control is the purview of the GM, when Narration is warranted...at all other times it is a collaborative endeavor... as it should be... otherwise you are just an observer in someone else's novel...




Cain as much as said it, please re-read his post and you will see... And you are right, many people have a very different definition of roleplay, even amongst themselves... but this is not the problem... when numbers trump the essence of the character, it becomes a problem, and that was my point... "Mechanically Viable" is in the the eye of the campaign...

I have yet to see a campaign where it is required that to be mechanically viable you need dice pools in the 20+ range... that is just... ludicrous to me, when in my experience, the 10-12 dice range has functioned quite well in all regards that have been brought up...

And for the record, I do agree with your "pain in the ass" analogy...
Thanks for letting me rant though...

My Two Cents

You gain a tangible benefit in the form of a Critical Success.

You forgot Conjuring, which is a big-time opposed test. Yes, one net "succeeds", but there is a tangible benefit to having more successes. In social combat, the more net successes the better you do, such as when you're negotiating. More successes = more money. Those were the first two that popped up; I'm sure there's plenty of other opposed tests where the more successes you roll, the better you do.

So, that means extra successes help in most social, magical, and combat tests. I think that covers most of the tests you make in a game.


Generally, I am the GM. I don't play the arms race game, either. I assume you are also the GM, which is why you complain about the arms race?


That's a player problem, not a character-building one. It's the player who will focus on the numbers, and ignore the personality. This would happen no matter what you put on the character sheet. Some players will always do certain things, regardless of what they're playing or how munched-out they are.


Really? Quote me.

You will not find a single quote from me saying you cannot have an effective character with a dice pool of less than 20+. I did say that the point of "coolness" comes with a dice pool of 16-20, where you can simply buy critical successes. As you pointed out, if you're only outscoring the opposition by one or two successes, there's not much difference... but if you're outscoring him by four or more, your stuff is noticeably better.


Not in SR4. In a game like Wushu, you have a great deal of shared narrative control. In a game like SR4 (and, to counter the charges of SR4-bashing, GURPS and D&D), the player has minimal control over the narrative. That's just the way the game is written. In SR4, the only time the player takes a starring narrative role is when he scores a Critical Success, allowing him to distinguish his actions from the ordinary.

In the case of our program, Fastjack's program could come with a smaller memory requirement, a slicker interface, smoother operations, and a flashier icon. Mr. Incompetent's would just be plain vanilla.

About all of this challenging PC's with bigger die pools-who said challenge has to come in the form of combat, anyway? Also, put a 24 die pool sword dude against 6 10 DP guards with a mix of light guns with stick n shock and see what happens. I'm willing to bet he comes out of that very, very groggy and in handcuffs.

I have a good friend who played in a campaign for a long time(I was only a sporadic member due to my schedule), that a friend of ours GM'd. They had a blast in it(and I did, too.)

He said some of the biggest challenges were A. All optional-they weren't forced into things, B. He never got the feeling that it was ''Them against Him'', and C. Some of the greatest challenges were the moral dilemmas and the like that didn't even use dice.

Sure, there were tough combats-but again, the toughest? Optional. And the main characters were extreeemely competent.

In my current campaign, we tend to win our combats not due to enormous die pools(nice, but not excessive), but due to a lot of planning and tactics. I have a feeling, though, that the biggest challenges are going to come from other things not combat related. The problem with combat related challenges is that they can escelate without even having huge pools. If the PCs feel that they are coming too damn close for comfort, they may use Karma to increase the combat related stuff, and the GM can fire back. But why always challenge with combat? Why are opposed tests the only way to challenge people? IMO, the stuff that doesn't take dice is the most challenging, because you can't rely on huge pools to get the job done. You have to rely on your own decisions.

Again, our die pools are not 20+. They're between 13-17 for most combat situations(and the 17 is only for one particular situation.) Even with those solid mid teens, though, we do need to think.

It's worth mentioning, though, that most SR4 planning and tactics involves getting bonuses to your dice pool and/or minimizing the dice pool of the other side. So, it still comes down to dice pool size, you're just not doing it through character creation.


Even those with 20+ dice pools need to think. Despite what TJ asserted, a dice pool of 20+ is not a living god, merely very, very good at what he does.

I think that it is also worth mentioning that while the players are tactical geniuses, their PCs aren't likely to be(unless they have the appropriate knowledge skills, which leads us again to dice pools).

But I agree, 20+ dice pool is that damned good, but nowhere near god yet. A god pool is somewhere just that little bit more than what a pre-SR4A pornomancer would have.

I'm not a tactical genius, but I do know How to Not Be Seen.
("Mr. Bradshaw, would you please stand up?")

When all you need is one... big deal...



Again... you may be right in that more can provide som ebenefit, BUT YOU STILL ONLY NEED QA SIBGLE SUCCESS to SUCCEED... Yes, More successes oon spirits means a few more services, negotiation success may indeed benefit you (as could intimidation)... However, the examples you give still by default only need a sngle net TO SUCCEED...




NO, I am not the GM (though I could be If I so chose to do so), I complain about the arms race of dice pools because it quickly becomes BORING for those who either Don't want to play the arms race (Me) or those who do not desire the Arms Race (Some others I know, who would NEVER even consider such a thing because it does not fit with the way that the rules are written)... Note that I said Don't... we are all capable of maximizing a character to ridiculous levels, as you have so obviously demonstrated, however, it is my contention that it is not necessary if you keep the guidelines of the Skill Level Descriptions and the fluff of the Game World as written by RAW... Can you Obtain obscene dice pools ... SURE... Should You... NO...

Just my opinion, but one I generally stick to...




Yes, Some players do this regardless of the circumstances, but I would submit that it is your duty as a GM (or senior player) to help develop these players into players that would not do such things... not everyone is a skilled roleplayer right out of the box...



Here is your quote: Emphasis is Mine...


I submit that this is not accurate... and greatly implies that if you are not playing characters with exceedingly high dice pools that you are a freak... and is, frankly, very insulting to those who believe that min/maxing for crazy dice pools is a violation of the spirit of the game...

There is a fine line when discussing min/maxing characters... Some of that is encouraged in character creation (one stat at 6, one skill at 6 (or two at 5))... however, when that is taken that to the whole different level that you seem to espouse, it becomes somewhat ludicrous (for example, the so called Pornomancer that I have heard about on these forums)...



I submit that this is also wrong... if you are not contributing to the "narrative" then you are missing out on strong character development opportunities. Yes, it is true that the G< copntrols the story arc, but it is the characters that control the character arcs (or it should be) which is where the collaboration comes in... If you, as a GM, do not allow this, than i think that we have found the problem with our discussion... in our campaign, we are encouraged to develop our characters through the narrative (nboth ours and the GM's)... Is this not the case in your game?



Counter to your examples:
1. Memory requirement is irrelevant, no points there...
2. Interface may be more interesting, but it has not mechanical effect so... No points there.. You want a better interface that means something, program a better program (higher rating or additional options)
3. Smoother operations... see Above... Same Response...
4. Flashier Icon... See Above... Same Response...
5. Plain Vanilla functions JUST like Critical Success boy... No MECHANICAL Difference...

Counter example... I always describe my programs (that I write) as haveing various "tweaks" tot eh way it looks, however, I never expect for my software to have mechanical benefits... and the descriptive text for the programs that I write in game are just that, descriptive... You will always know what my programs look like in the matrix, regardless of the program variation. that is how it works... BUT, Descriptive text is a result of the roleplaying aspects of the character, not a mechanic of how many successes that I achieved over the rewuired minimum number fo successes to succeed. If i even asked for "additional" effects (cosmetic or not), that I did not include in the program at coding, the GM would look at me and wonder exactly why I was trying to gamne the system... You want in game benefits in your software, then program them into the software (through options or rating increases). Description of the outcome is how you gain the "flair" that you are talking about...

Just because you wish to describe your results as Plain Vanilla for success does nto mean that everyone does so as well... Success is Success after all...

SR4 is a degree-of-success game. There is usually a tangible benefit in more successes, even if it's just flavor. If you'e constantly getting only one net success, the GM is free to describe your actions as "barely scraping by"-- and, in fact, is encouraged to do so. Versus the guy who not only gets 4+ services out of that huge spirit, but earns extra descriptive lavishment through the rules.

Besides which, you're ignoring the point. In most social, magical, and combat tests, there is a mechanical benefit to earning extra successes. Therefore, you are rewarded for having a huge dice pool. That is just the way the system works.


Then I'd quit being insulting to GM's. Also, I'd quit assuming that a good GM is forced into an arms race. You don't GM, you don't know.

That still has nothing to do with what's on the character sheet. A good player can take just about anything, and turn it into an interesting and fun personality. Characters really *are* just numbers on a sheet. What springs forth from those numbers depends on the player, and not the numbers.

In other words, I'd rather see a "god" character in the hands of a good roleplayer, than a "well-balanced" one in the hands of a munchkin. I think you'll discover most Dumpshockers have had similar experiences.


And it does not say what you stated it does. I did not say you need 20+ dice to have an effective character.

SR4 is a game of crazy dice pools. The BBB street samurai, which is not a min/maxed monstrosity, throws 17 dice for Automatics.

The Pornomancer throws 51 dice. That's a far cry above what I've been pointing out as the point of "coolness", where you can buy routine critical successes.

According to the SR4 rules (and the rules of most traditional games) you cannot contribute to the narrative, only your own character's actions. SR4 has one exception, in the form of the Critical Success rules. If you really want to debate this, go to the Forge and read a couple of essays on GNS theory, so we're on the same page. Otherwise, this argument is going to go nowhere.

/support Cain

I constantly seem to agree with him, but I've got no further input to this particular debate.

I am pretty sure that I have not insulted GM's in genreal...

Also, I have been a GM for close on 20 Years... I just choose not to run SR4 currently (I am running way to many other games right now... I want to PLAY Shadowrun, not run it)... Quit making baseless assumptions on capability here...

I would rather see a balanced character, and provide assistance to those who have issues with unlimited/hyper-excessive power (and why it is bad for the game world), helping them come to the realization that there are other alternatives that may be more fulfilling...



1. It does say that... the term Gimped is used, which implies incompetence... You blatantly stated that unless you are throwing a minimum of 16-20 Dice you are just barely capable of survival... Also, just as a side note... just becasue you have 16-20 dice does not guarantee a critical success upon using the autosuccess rule... you get 4-5 autosuccesses, your opponent who does the same thing generates 2-4 (or so successes, assuming that you are better than he) nets you 1-2 NET successes... at that point we are back to my definition of Net Success = Success...

2. 17 Dice in a single skill is not accurate according to my BBB... 5/7 Stat, 5 Skill and Smartlink = 14... There are no specialties evident and nothing else that I can see that will provide the missing 3 dice (which is possible, as I do not have the erratta handy)...

3. That example of 51 Dice is completely Ludicrous and I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of SR GM's would not allow it in their games EVER (I know that I would not, even if you could prove that it was within the RAW)... It breaks the spirit of the game and violates Verisimilitude (I would say Rapes and Tortures it) in more ways than one...

Quick Note...Take a look at the characters in the BBB their high end dice pools fall in the 12-14 area for 1 or 2 skills, the rest are in the 4-12 range with a concentration in the 6-10 range... that alone tells me that the developers intent is to not have characters with abusively massive dice pools that stretch believability to the snapping point...



Boy, you must be a riot to game with... it seems like what you are saying is that "characteriztion be damned, it is my story and you will comform with no regards to your wishes"... Are you telling me that your players never take the story in a direction that you have never anticipated? Ever? This I do find hard to believe... in the last 23 years of my gaming carreer, I have seen it countless times, in more game systems than I care to remember...

Seems pretty counter to the idea of a roleplaying game where a group of friends comes together to tell a story that THEY CREATE TOGETHER... why don't you just go write novels instead?

BTW, What traditional games are you referring to may I ask?

1. D&D - Traditionally is not that story intensive, yet if you are willing to put the work in, is extremely satisfying when the characters and thje GM collaborate to tell the story...

2. World of Darkness (Old and New, All game Lines) - STORYTELLING SYSTEM... what more need be said... you get together to tell a story collaboratively...

3. Feng Shui - Same Argument

4. Dangerous Journeys (pretty Obscure) - Same Argument

5. Shadowrun - I woiuld use the same argument for this system as well...

Etc, Etc, Etc...

When players realize that they have absolutely NO input into the way the world works, well then they tend to lose interest...

Yes, there may be some systems that discourage this approach, but if so, I would not play those systems, nor would I run them... However, in my experience, these systems would be few and far between, and with a little effort you could overcome this small obstacle to the system in question.

IF you are willing to put forth the effort into collaboration, and if you can leave ego behind, then collaborative efforts lead to Phenomenal game sessions that people talk about for years... I know this because I have both played and GM'd these types of games...

Can you choose to not do so and still have good games, ABSOLUTELY... can they be more fulfilling, YOU BETCHA

To each his own...

In an attempt to return to the Original Topic at hand, I do not think that the change to the Karma awards/expenditures has seriously altered the balance of the game, assuming that the game that you are playing is balanced to begin with... Though the system encourages some min/maxing at character generation, if controlled, then the newer Karma awards/expenditure costs will tend to keep everything in balance for the long run...

If your games are not balanced, then no alterations to the Karma Award/Expenditure has any hope of bringing balance to the game... Balance is something that the GM must enforce for the enjoyment of ALL his players... In a well balanced campaign (of which I think that Shadowrun System does a fair to good job of providing) everyone will have their strong points and weak points, and everyone should be having fun... if this is not the case, then changes ned to be made...

Can Any game system be broken... Yes, some with little effort and some with a lot of effort... the fact that a game CAN be broken, however, does not necessarily imply that the system is broken, or will be broken...

Hopefully we can return to the discussion as originally posited...

Thanks

My Two Cents

I'd rather have fun than lecture players who do not conform to my playstyle, and I'd imagine they feel the same.

"Excessive" is a relative term. You make it sound like you've never played an over-the-top game.

And I'm helping *you* come to the realization that there is no single one best way of gaming. Just because someone has a dicepool of 12+ doesn't mean you should start screaming: "MUNCHKIN! UNCLEAN!" The most fulfilling alternative is the one that meant you had a good time.


Quote me. Or quit lying about my statements.

Um, dude, 5 minus 1 = 4, not 1 or 2. You might like to recheck your meth.


It's practically a Dumpshock given that the BBB sample characters are poorly-done, poorly-optimized, and loaded with errors. It's taken them four years to fix the worst of the mistakes. If you want something better, I helped put together a Sample Character Archive in Community Projects. Those characters aren't dicepool monsters, but they can at least accomplish what they say they can do.


No, that is not what I am saying. Please perform the following steps:

1. Go to The Forge, or a similar site.
2. Read a few definitions on GNS theory.

By those definitions, a player in a SR4 game (and D&D, and GURPS) has almost no narrative control. Then try out a game like Wushu, where you have almost total narrative control. See the difference?

It has nothing to do with Lecturing, it has to do with showing that some choices are a bit... over the top... I do not lecture in game, I generally save that for the out of game discussions that abound... as you apparently do as well...

You are right... Excessive IS a relative term... As for over the top, I have indeed played such a game (Champions), but in that genre, it is excpected that you will be "over the top" as you are playing a superhero, whose characters are by definition "Over the Top"




Can't help you there... you refuse to acknowledge that the implications of your word choice were offensive... in that light, not much that I can do to help out there...



Umm Dude... reread the post... (4 to 5) minus (2 to 4) equals a net of (1 to 2)... my math is quite correct... how about yours?
Last time I checked 5-4=1 and 4-2 equaled 2... and for the extreme of my example 5-2=3... Nowhere is there a Critical Success there... Basic Math indeed.



There is that word again... "Optimized"... seesms that you cannot get past the idea of playable vs. overpowered... as for the "fixes" that you say took them over 4 years to correct, well, I still see no characters with more than 14-15 Dice in any given pool, and very few indeed even in that category.

As for the character archive that you helped to create, I have not looked at them yet, but if their dicepools are in line with the fluff that has been set forth in the Shadowrun Worldview, then I would probably not have any thing against them.. It really depends upon what your definition of Dice Pool Monsters is... and accomplishment is success in my book...



Though I am not interested in Definitions to limit my enjoyment of the game, I will investigate the information that you support so voiciferously.

What I am trying to show you is that you can get any game system to be collaborative, comparable to what you see and enjoy in Wushu... it just takes a little effort on your part... if you are not interested in that effort, then this discussion has no real purpose.

I, for one, actually put in the effort (whether I am a GM or a Player) in any game that I am involved with to ensure that the story is collaborative... is this a LOT of WORK... Indeed it is... I am happy to pay that price for the hobby that I truly enjoy... I know a LOT of people that do the same thing... This is what roleplaying is all about... Spending time with your group of friends engaged in collaborative storytelling...

AS I have said before... when Characters become secondary to the GM's marration, then the fun tends to fade as well...
No one wants to sit there and play second fiddle to narration; almost every one that I have gamed with prefers to be part of the story, making decisions that affect the world around them. it is the difference between "reading" a story amd "writing" a story...

By the way... Just looked at the GNS Theory that you tout so much... Can't see exactly how that suports your theory in any way at all, and in fact contradicts some of your stances... The definitions are rather less than helpful to say the least, and have no bearing on my stance as to what makes a game collaborative...

Anyway, We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, as I am sure that everyone is getting rather bored with the way this topic continues to be derailed...

Thanks for an interesting conversation.

You know, sometimes over the top games are the most fun. One of the best one shot over the top games I ever played was using the Palladium RPG. GM had us build a bunch of 12th level 'Evil' characters. In a system that only goes up to 15th level, six guys pushing 12 is nasty. Lets see, we had a Mage totally fascinated with raising undead (especially puppies), a Fire Warlock who tossed around massive burn'in'ation, a Diabolist who on the surface looked the weakest (me), a Priest of Darkness who summoned shades and death magic, a Assassin who could shapeshift and was *really* good with poison, and a Warrior who was a variable unstoppable juggernaut of destruction (he had more HP and SDC then everyone else combined).

Our job was to assassinate one guy and we pretty much destroyed a small city-state to do it. Just so you know, setting off six Maximized, Empowered, Greater Explosive Runes does a whole lot of damage. When I set them off, the GM actually stopped and said "You do HOW MUCH DAMAGE to HOW MUCH AREA?!". (Was 48d6 damage to a 240 yard radius each, with an average none combatant able to take 10 damage and an average combatant about to take 20~50.)

Not something I would want to play all the time, but sometimes it is nice to be able to just lay royal waste to everything as far as the eye can see.

And you know... in those circumstances, I have no problem with over the top characters, as the campaign is designed for them... I too have played in such games where you are some of the more powerful characters around (D&D, Champions, Palladium (Rifts, Heroes/Villains Unlimited, Ninja & Superspies))... They are indeed fun, but everyone is on the same page as well...

Where it is not fun is when one player can do it all, leaving the other players to just watch... been in a few of those as well... BORING...

Cain's words were not offensive by implication, they are however designed to make you uncomfortable. Which I think is precisely the point.


Boring for you, perhaps. Certainly it is fun for at least one participant. These sort of comments are simply symptoms of punishing people for being good. I do not punish people for being good. If one character can do it all without cheating, then it is possible for the other players to do the same, it is then a choice to "not do it all". Complaining about it is as fair as complaining Prince William is heir to a lot of money.

You may have a point there Toturi, however, some people are better at "optimization" than others are, and it would then be somewhat unfair to let that player run rampant upon all the others just because he can... I am addressing the purpose of the game here, which is to have fun... it is generally not a lot of Fun when you are left out in the cold...

And to forestall the inevitable response... I use to be the guy that would optimize the hell out of my characters because I could (in some cases it was because I was told that there was no way that I could design characters that would break the campaign... After smugly and completely destroying several campaigns with characters that I created (AS STARTING CHARACTERS), I started to think)... eventually, I realized that it was not a lot of fun for those around me when I could "do it all"... it removed the fun for the rest of the group around the table... as a result, I took a look at my motivations and eventually realized that the group's fun was what it was all about, and thus scaled back the craziness in my character creation...

Now I tend to build characters in line with the design intent of the game world in which I play... using those rules as guidelines, my characters have been just as interesting and deep, but now I am a contemporary with the other players, rather than being the overpowering character that did not need anyone else around...

That being said, I still design competant characters, I just do so with the design intent of the specific world that I am playing in...

Anyway... Thanks for the opportunity to let me explain my position...

Again, that's a player fault, not a character one. Just because you have a character that could theoretically break the game for everyone, doesn't mean that you will do so. Most Dumpshock characters could break a game without trying, the players simply choose to not do so. Heck, a bad player will break a game faster than a powerful character will.

Like I said before, I'd rather see a power munchkin than a drama queen in my games, even though the power munchkin has the more powerful character. He's less of a disruption than the drama queen.

Also, breaking the game has many meanings. It's very difficult, IMO, to make a character from the start who can break a game power-wise in EVERY possible situation.

I mean, Character A may be able to own all in combat with nary a scratch, but they probably won't be able to completely own at social, vehicle, technical, or stealth related skills(well, maybe Infiltration due to it's Agility link and stuff like Chameleon coating.) Likewise, uberface might be able to talk bullets out of the air, but they won't really be breaking the game for the combat characters.

I suppose if you really, really, tried and twinked your ass off you might be able to make a character that owns all hardcore in a couple of places, but there simply isn't enough points, even in 750 chargen, to make a character that's a god at everything right out of the gate.

I think that you miss my point, but that is okay...

Both extremes that you posit are problem characters, definitely...

The Powermonger can overshadow others without even meaning to do so, which is my point (no one else is generally given the chance to accomplish things)... The Drama Queen can detract from the game if they are too much of a Drama Queen... (GM having to pay too much attention to the character)...

And my point about the Power character (with the Dice Pools of whatever exotic level you choose to create) is that he may not mean to overshadow others, he just tends to do so without thinking about it...

Example... Whay would anyone EVER attempt to do anything social with your Pornomancer? EVER? In the most likely scenario, they would metagame and just let you take care of it, because you are SO much better at it than they are, even if they were the ones to come up with the idea for whatever social thing that is going on... It may not be that much of a problem for YOU in your game, but any new player coming along would be intimidated and would probably NEVER even put points into the skill set that you are so hyper powerful in... this is what I mean by it being a bad thing... you have just stifled someone without ever intending to do so...

It generates an immediate reaction to the character... and I contend that it tends to be a bad reaction... Maybe not always (you may get the "Cool, way to go" comment on occassion), but in my experience, these types of characters (unless that is the scope of the campaign) tend to draw negative attention...

Just my 2 cents again... Adjusted for inflation

You can deal with the powermonger much more easily, though. The rules can help you slow them down, and they don't tend to cause interpersonal conflicts. Drama Queens are much worse.


Why pick up a gun skill, if you've got a powerful street sammie in your group? Why pick up matrix abilities, when you have a skilled decker in your group? Heck, you don't need a pornomancer for your example, an ordinary Face means the same thing.

Shadowrun has always been about teams of specialists, working together. Cross-training is its own reward, regardless of rather you have a face or pornomancer in your party.

Granted... teams is where it is at... but if you never have the opportunity to use that skill that you just bought, then it is a waste of resources...

Just saying

My latest mage has yet to shoot anyone, despite the fact that she has the Pistols skill and always goes about armed. I wouldn't consider it a waste of resources, though. Just because the samurai has a combat dice pool of 20+ doesn't mean she can't contribute in a gunfight. Similarly, you can always help the Face out, even if you can't match his social skills; there might be more than one person who needs to be talked to.

Bottom line: huge dice pools only break the game if the player makes it a problem. If you've got good players-- or the patience to help people learn to become good players-- then it's not an issue.

I'm running a game 1250 karma gen. With a 'GMPC' for my amusement. My PC rolls 26-28 dice with his sniper rifle. The others are just as dangerus with one one persed Mage with atrbutes of around 15. Now my job is to both challenge and have the game fun. So far it's all be soicaly based but even in combat the teams job. It will be do able. One I'm running this gamefir the fun and for the roleplaying being know to be that good gives. I'm playing in a 250BP game as a free spirit his pools are 'GIMPED' rolling a max of 5. But again it's for the RP. I know my spirit will need luck and help to survive any thing. But both are play able. Ok is inherntly better as a charctor ability wise. One will challenge me RP wise. Both will be fun. It's a given that my sniper will have more flair. But personality isn't a obvious winner to be seen. One was a min/max one wasn't I'll leave it up to you to guess who. I'm with Cain on this one.

Uh, how do you get to roll 5 dice with 2 in every attribute and no skills?

35 BP form qualities.... and sorry its a 4 it was a 5 before but I lowered to pick up another skill.