SR char gen has issues with people who are multi-faceted. You can do better with karma gen, but it still doesn't work so well. Franks char gen rules do more allow this, as does the GM just allowing cool character designs irrespective of points as long as they were not game breakers.

Actually, my ganger has the big phatty Initiative of 9...when he's got Wired 2 fired up. And with the removal of multiple passes in our game...yeah.

I've also specifically not taken Perception as a skill because it's not in his character concept. He's the traditional "blunt force object". Think of a cross between DMX and Marv from Sin City sans the torture. If it's not money, bitches, or drugs, he could give a damn.

I've tried it that way and what invariably happens is you get players who wind up with more powerful characters than the player next to them.

You then have to explain to said player why one person has a more powerful character than they do - and telling them that their concept was less awesome than someone else's tends to breed resentment.

Next thing you know, they're fudging karma totals on their sheet because they feel justified doing so.

IMHO - its best to avoid that.

- J.

Indeed. Allowing concept based character generation often is simply a matter of escalation. After all, once Cool Concept A raises the bar on the game balance, what is stopping Cooler Concept B from further raising it just a little bit more and Even Cooler Concept C to raise the bar yet again? Until all concepts reach the cool but not broken threshold in the GM's mind? Or worse yet since the bar wasn't raised by a lot each time, you'd get the "frog in boiling kettle" syndrome.

Ok, so you're gimped on purpose, in a game with special house rules? I think you do NOT qualify to give people build advice, on that basis. Tactical advice for others has to assume that a) they don't want to gimp themselves and b) are playing more or less by RAW.

I made this mistake a long, long time ago in a Vampire campaign. Over a 3 month period one player fudged his experience totals. It came to light when he got overly greedy and when I called him on it he didn't feel a shred of remorse of it. He felt it was justified given the power difference between the two characters.

Granted I could have done a lot to mitigate the situation but when all was said and done, I canned the campaign, took a 12 month hiatus from roleplaying and found a new group to game with and never gamed with them again.

I learned a lot from the whole experience. Bottom line - everyone should be treated equally. No ifs or buts.

- J.

SR is the wrong game to play then.

Concept and cleverness is key to building effective characters. And choosing characters that can do stuff that other characters simply never ever can.

Sami says "How do I silently take someone down who is inside the armored booth? I can see him, right? Maybe I can infitrate up to it, pick the lock, disarm the security system and then take him down with a knife. Would that work?"

Mage says "While he's working on that that I cast control thoughts. F4, 3 successes. I'll have the guard turn off all the alarms and open the gate, then have him open the door and give the sami his keys and the access codes to all the other doors."

Sami says "We know the gangers and the girl are holed up somewhere in that abandoned apartment building. Wow, it's 12 stories and has a bunch of squatters with guns in there too. How will we ever find them in the hour we have without starting a shootout? Maybe we could disguise ourselves as gang members and infitrate the building, then use microdrones to search each room and have the face try to talk our way out is someone spots us?"

Mage says: "While they are doing that I'll call up a force 5 spirit with search and have it find her. That should take about 10 minutes, and he'll do it all astrally so there isn't any way they will notice."

KZT, I believe The Jake's point wasn't about characters doing or not doing things that other characters can, but about starting point levels. The Street Samurai is going to be built to kill with plenty of implants, while the Mage is going to focus on, well, magic things. Giving the Samurai 500 BP and the Mage 400 BP doesn't change the focus, but it does change the starting power levels. Most games offer very different roles to play, but it is assumed that each game system balances starting characters, regardless of the differences in focus. Another example is the Technomancer and the Mage. Each can do things that the other can never do, but they start out with relatively equal power level options. Giving one more BP options will seem unfair to the one receiving less. There are players out there who can handle this, but for the most part, it really isn't fair.

Your cleverness is key to building effective characters in most games I have played. Character concept has generally nothing to do with in-game effectiveness most of the time though. You need to shape the numbers you have to fit the concept, sometimes if you are clever you can fit the concept well with the limited resources on hand. It does not mean the concept is a ticket for you to wave to the GM to give you more resources than your fellow players.

Yep. That's what I meant. Well said.

- J.

So...by playing one character by concept rather than "your idea of badass maximization" (and the 'Dog isn't exactly a pushover since he tosses 13 DP with his Combat Axe by RAW before adding possible Reach and tosses 12 RAW DP with smartlinked Firearms) I'm somehow not able to give character gen advice? Well, I guess my Covert Ops/Street Sammy who is an absolute deathmachine with maximum badboy tweaks and karma/scrilla expenditure efficiency is somehow a non-qualifier? Gimme a flippin' break!
You seem to be forgetting that "Ambush (insert direction here)!" or "Take Cover!" from another PC is a Free Action so it's not as big a deal as you think, what with our resident percept-o-tron rarely getting caught off guard with plenty of other possible backups. Dropping Prone is also a free action if there isn't any immediate cover, after all.

Besides, this is character gen which we do by RAW, not actual play. As a former GURPS player of many a year (with specific emphasis on Special Ops with it's insane skills lists and old skool attribute spending caps), I can say that I'm at least as qualified in regards to points maximization advice as you are.

Just goes to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Of course, the mage probably doesn't know about the proximity sensor on the guard's belt or the alarm that beeps inside the main security office every time the side door of the shack opens to make sure that a guard isn't slacking off in his car or something. If mage had just waited a few minutes, he'd get that info from the Sammy before he goes and tosses the run sideways with the "easy way".

Well, your advice was based on your anectodal experience of not being able to use Dodge in the first place, in part because you had no Perception. If the reason you can't use Dodge is because you have no Perception, that's an invalid reason to tell others who DO have perception that they won't get any use out of Dodge. Maybe you're qualified to give advice, but you're still giving really bad advice based on a particular character who is not optimal by any stretch of the imagination.



No matter how you slice it, it's better not to be surprised in the first place. Someone telling you that you're being ambushed does not remove your surprise, you still can't do anything against the guys that surprised you, including make defense tests. Dropping prone is allowed, but if they have any skill at all they will still shoot you. Your anecdotal report of surviving for a while without Dodge or Perception is not evidence that neither is important or necessary. It is only evidence that in your particular group setup, with your particular mix of skills, facing the particular enemies you faced, you have managed to get by without either. The fact stands that, per the system, both are HIGHLY important, and no combat character would go without either if they were trying to make an optimized build. And this guy doesn't even have the assets of your non-perceptive Ork in the first place. He's not strong, and he's not tough. Your guy might be too busy killing to Dodge, which might work because he can take some hits. But the OP's character needs to put defense ahead of offense, because he won't survive with decent attacks coming his way.

I'm sure you know how to make an optimized character. And when you give someone build advice, you should be telling them how they can make their current character more optimal. Anything else, and you're doing them a huge disservice. You assume that the OP left out Dodge on purpose because he didn't want it, and then you defend that choice. I think that is the wrong approach. Assume that if something looks like a mistake, then it is. Point it out, and say "look, this skill is really really important. I wouldn't leave chargen without it." Then, if the OP did it on purpose, he can say "nah, it's no big deal to me." Leave it up to the OP to explain why he did something non-optimal -- chances are, it's a mistake and he'll want to fix it, but if it's not a mistake then he can disregard the advice. Telling him what he's doing is great, because someone else did it once in a completely different game, is not helpful to the OP. The best you can do is nothing, because he already knows what he's doing and doesn't need to hear from you. And the worst thing you can do is convince him to keep a really shitty character the way it is, thus ruining his fun because he expected to be a little more useful in combat. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, I want to help them make the best character they can, on the assumption that most people like to have good characters. If the OP doesn't care about having a good character, he can disregard my advice, and there's no chance it will harm him -- either he makes a better character, or nothing happens. That is much preferable to your strategy, which either makes nothing happen, or kills someone's good time by convincing them to make a bad choice that they regret.

Ok, man. You got me there!

*Note to self* If you disagree with Larme on character gen, you're going to just end up with a lousy character.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You and I both know that it's safer to have dodge and perception on a combat character. And yet, you're telling someone not to have it based on an anecdotal experience with a non-optimal character you made. The chances of this going wrong are high, the chances of it working just as well for him as it did for you are low. Therefore, if you have any regard for the OP having a fun and useful character, you'll give him general advice, and not tell him that his mistakes are actually good ideas.

Well, I think the short version can say:

I look at someone's character. I notice they don't have Perception, Dodge, or Etiquette.

I point this out.

They say it's all part of the character.

It's all good.

That's about it. I mean, if someone puts a character up for critique, I do feel like I should point out some important things-there have been times where I've reminded someone of something and they were happy. But if they had it planned, they let me know, and that's cool; folks can build characters how they like.

Perception, Dodge, and typically an Etiquette skill of sorts are the big 3 I see pointed out if they are forgotten; other occupations have other skills(for example, someone pointing out that someone's technomancer was missing the Tasking group wouldn't go unnoticed.)

wow, i wish i couldve gotten in on this discussion from the outset sadly i was stuck in baghdad for two days waiting for a sand storm to blow over.

Careful, Blindfox, or you might find yourself statted here. Definitely some Gunnery, spiced up with a mix of knowledge skills like RPG (Shadowrun) and Baby Wipes (Desert Uses).

I didn't add dodge because I never dodge. I've never had/remembered to. I guess that is an omission. Whoops. Maybe I should juggle some points and add athletics SG?

Good point. Find a place for the Athletics SG. Playing a deep infiltration counter-insurgency and insurgency specialist who sucks at long distance running, and can neither climb nor swim with any proficiency is pretty wacky.

How did he pass the selection test in the first place?

lol! the statting would be fun. in the beginning, i only took the ASVAB to quantify my skills i just might have to write me up on the NSRCG

Ah, but then we would be debating whether you were really you. Of course, if you were over-statted, and any insurgents logged on and saw what you could "really" do, they might stay out of your way. In fact, we could dominate the desert if we just over-statted your whole unit, printed flyers, and passed them out to all those gamers over there. Yeah ... okay, so I need to slow down on the margaritas tonight.

Just getting 3's and 4's in all the required skills for a well stated out Special Forces guy would eat up 300+ BP. Those guys are major skill monkeys IRL.

3&4
Firearms SG
Close Combat SG
Athletics SG
Stealth SG
Outdoors SG
Influence SG
Perception
Dodge
Instruction
Heavy Weapons
Gunnery
First Aid
Parachuting -or- Diving

1 or 2
Armorer
Demolitions
Pilot Ground
Pilot Air -or- Pilot Water (matched to Parachuting -or- Diving)
Electronics SG

Specialty
Sniper [Longarms 5+ w/ Sniper Rifle Specialty]
Medic [Biotech SG 4+]
Weapons [Heavy Weapons 5+ w/ Specialty, Armorer 4+ w/ Specialty]
CQC [Automatics 5+ w/ SMG Specialty -or- Longarms 5+ w/ Shotgun Specialty, Blades or Unarmed 5+ w/ Specialty]
Intel [Higher Social skills, lots of Knowledge skills]
EWO (Electronic Warfare Operator) [Electronics SG 4+, Cracking SG 4+]
Demo [Demolitons 5+ w/ Specialty]
etc etc etc

*Edit*
Forgot things like Escape Artist and Picking Locks, but we can ignore those I guess.

Actually the more I think about it, I think we should be doing this from the business end of things. Find out the average or likely Thresholds the character should be hitting for each of those skills. Then build the skills and attributes to meet those Thresholds.

They are likely cross trained, but not likely that each will reach a proficiency that the primary member can. In fact, I think many skills they are likely to be only 1 or 2 (avoid default penalty and maybe increase dice pool to reach a higher threshold if it is not too much effort). Primary skill set, secondary skill set and then everything else at 1 or 2. Avoid duplication of function with Athletics and Close Combat, drop Dodge. Maybe even dropping Perception to 1 and use Stealth in its place. Outdoors, maybe only 1 due to equipment giving bonus. Same for Influence.

toturi, i think the idea of backwards-planning the skill is probably the best way to do it, but some of the skills you would drop i have to disagree with. most notably perception. this is probably the most important skill in any asymmetrical battlefield and cannot be overstated. dropping dodge makes sense though. outdoors and influence, however are a must, and no operator will trust solely on equipment in these areas. any grunt can tell you that the first thing to go down are comms and batteries always fail, hence redundancies in these events. while not as important in influence, they are a must for outdoors. and influence is absolutely essential in any COIN operation. aside from that, these are team-oriented operators and will rely on their teammate's specialties for the most part but they are, as you noted, cross-trained, just not as well trained in those respective areas as the specialists.

Why is Perception so important? Stealth. Because Stealth is an opposed test. Who has more dice wins more of the time. Otherwise, Perception is just another fixed Threshold test.

You are bringing RL into SR, of course, you can. But that assumes that SR equipment fails as much as those in RL. Also you are not relying on just equipment to boost dice, although it is often the quicker and easier way. Magic can also help. The adept Improved Ability power can help. And as an ex-grunt, I'd say most of the time, my equipment failed because I screwed up and didn't secure it properly and mine worked while my buddies' didn't because I squared my stuff away while they were out Friday night. Don't assume just because each guy only has a small dice pool, the team has a small dice pool, teamwork works.

To the OP, I would STRONGLY recommend you read "SOG" by John Plaster, which you can get here: http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-...m/dp/0451195086

Not only is it the most visceral and disturbing Vietnam War memoir I've ever read, but it gives you an idea of the kinds of things that went horribly wrong on some SOG operations, and some of the things which occurred which really could ruin operator's minds.

Towards the beginning, for example, one SOG man became a destructive alcoholic because after the VC had managed to basically roll his unit, they started trying to detect any hiding survivors by torturing the wounded to death on the spot. The man had to hide and listen to the screams and never recovered from his extreme sense of guilt.