Demonseed Elite
May 27 2009, 11:50 AM
I might perhaps be crazy, but I've never made an either deliberately gimped or particularly optimized character. I like my characters to be fairly typical with your usual (meta)human flaws.
Stahlseele
May 27 2009, 12:02 PM
Yes, you are crazy.
But not for that reason ^^
I don't really TRY to optimize all my characters and i TRY to give them some versatility and a semblance of life/personality.
but the optimizing seems to come naturally to me somehow ^^
Zaranthan
May 27 2009, 01:54 PM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 27 2009, 08:02 AM)
but the optimizing seems to come naturally to me somehow ^^
It comes naturally to everyone. It's called adaptation and survival. It's how every animal since we first collected a bunch of amoebas into one creature lived long enough to make some offspring.
Situation: You're stalking through the forest, gathering berries to eat. You hear a rustling sound in the bushes nearby.
Response A: Investigate the sound.
Response B: Assume it's a predator, run for your life.
Those who chose B have optimized. Those who chose A have been eaten by leopards. Those who argue against choosing to make optimized characters are arguing against evolution itself.
And we all know how well THAT works.
Demonseed Elite
May 27 2009, 02:22 PM
Character creation isn't an evolutionary process. Characters are built and designed, they don't evolve. We're the Intelligent Designer!
Stahlseele
May 27 2009, 02:32 PM
We COULD argue about Intelligent Design. Especially, the Intelligent part *snickers*
Wesley Street
May 27 2009, 02:39 PM
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite @ May 27 2009, 07:50 AM)
I might perhaps be crazy, but I've never made an either deliberately gimped or particularly optimized character. I like my characters to be fairly typical with your usual (meta)human flaws.
I think this is the typical attitude of most gamers who are as interested in story possibilities as they are defeating some sort of fictional objective.
It's natural for many gamers to want to play some sort of (anti)heroic ideal and tailor their characters to fit that mold. And to use only the "movie cool" flaws like a mild addiction to booze. But I'm more impressed by players who push the curve when it comes to the possibilities. Like the SR player who built a character based on contacts and charisma skills and used NPCs as his eyes, ears and hands. I think playing a wheel-chair bound hacker or mystic character would be fascinating and I have a quadriplegic hacker on stand-by for whenever I can actually play a game. I can also envision an aging fire-support specialist in a heavily modified Evo Orderly.
Creative approaches to gaming and character development should always be encouraged. Just because a PC isn't a mini-gun toting troll bad ass doesn't mean he's useless. And viewing him as such simply because one type of gamer wants to treat RPGing as something that one "wins" is outside the spirit and completely misses the point.
I come from the school of writer/storyteller/world builder who uses games as his medium rather than a gamer who gets hung up on beating the statistical odds. If I wanted to do that I'd play a game in which I could win money. Like professional sports or poker... or
Magic the Gathering.
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
Character creation isn't an evolutionary process. Characters are built and designed, they don't evolve. We're the Intelligent Designer!
Apologies if I'm arguing semantics but traditional character
generation isn't evolutionary but long-term character creation definitely is. PCs typically evolve over time as the player adapts to the world the GM presents. Arguably it could also be considered evolution when, through trial-and-error, a player decides he doesn't like the path a character is headed down and tries a new approach.
Malachi
May 27 2009, 02:55 PM
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ May 27 2009, 08:39 AM)
Creative approaches to gaming and character development should always be encouraged. Just because a PC isn't a mini-gun toting troll bad ass doesn't mean he's useless. And viewing him as such simply because one type of gamer wants to treat RPGing as something that one "wins" is outside the spirit and completely misses the point.
I come from the school of writer/storyteller/world builder who uses games as his medium rather than a gamer who gets hung up on beating the statistical odds. If I wanted to do that I'd play a game in which I could win money. Like professional sports or poker... or Magic the Gathering.
QFT.
I couldn't have put my thoughts any better. My current group is made up of a bunch of Warhammer 40k players and I have been extremely pleased at the dynamic it creates. When we sit down to play SR, there's none of the stuff that I usually seen born from a mentality to "win" the game. I think my players get all of that "I want to win" stuff out when they play 40k which, unlike RPGs, is actually designed and intended for "power-builds" and "I win" scenarios.
Wesley Street
May 27 2009, 03:06 PM
Spot on! Warhammer 40K and men with gray beards re-enacting the Battle of Gettysburg with pewter minis are exactly what I have in mind for an "I win" style of play. It's a very old-school miniature war-gaming mentality. I know that modern RPGs evolved out of the mini-based war-gaming and I respect that. But it's long past time to leave that nest behind.
GreyBrother
May 27 2009, 06:15 PM
But, there are people who still enjoy it. (Myself not included, i'm with Wesley street on the storyteller front)
Wesley Street
May 27 2009, 08:01 PM
Before anyone gets the wrong impression I do like mini-based war gaming. I think it's really fun. And though the two can certainly overlap it's a different beast from strict war-gaming and strict RPGing.
tsuyoshikentsu
May 27 2009, 09:32 PM
You're just not getting it, are you?
All I'm saying is that people who deliberately choose to make their characters weaker -- regardless of whether the characters are created by story or by rules -- are by necessity hurting the party. I very much disagree with a lot of what you're saying, as I feel it attempts to demonstrate a relationship between combat and optimization where there is none, but all that's entirely beside the point.
Critias
May 27 2009, 09:41 PM
So what counts as "weaker" in your book? How "optimized" does someone have to be in order to remain an asset to their group? Do they need to be one of the ridiculous 20+ dice Pornomancers to be a successful Face-type, for instance?
tsuyoshikentsu
May 27 2009, 09:49 PM
I don't care if someone's playing a pornomancer or an archetype out of the book, I'ma yell at them if they take an Addiction to something they're Allergic to.
Glyph
May 28 2009, 01:51 AM
I don't see why any character should not be optimized. I think people think "optimized" and envision a typical Dumpshock dice-pool exercise. But if you make a character with weak but broad skills and lots of flaws in a game where that is the play style, then your character is optimized - for that game.
Characters should be designed for success within the context of the game that they will be played in. If most of the characters have dice pools of 12, then a combat character with a dice pool of 15 will be a powerhouse, but a dice pool of 22 might be overkill; you have wasted resources that could have been spent elsewhere, and furthermore, the GM might go out of his way to target your character. Anyone can max something out - it's harder to know where the sweet spot is. Metagaming is not always bad! Don't just fiddle with numbers and gear - ask yourself questions such as "If I take the dependent flaw, will it get my character some spotlight time and roleplaying karma, or will this NPC wind up being kidnapped by my enemies every other session?"
When you don't know what kind of game it is, though, tsuyoshikentsu's approach (make a competent character who could plausibly do the dangerous work that he does for a living) is closer to "default" Shadowrun than someone who is intentionally gimped (and to me, there is a difference between not-quite-optimal, and gimped). Something that could be a compelling flaw in some games can get your character flatlined in the first session in other games.
tsuyoshikentsu
May 28 2009, 02:05 AM
I couldn't agree with Glyph more.
Critias
May 28 2009, 03:45 AM
QUOTE (Glyph @ May 27 2009, 09:51 PM)
I think people think "optimized" and envision a typical Dumpshock dice-pool exercise.
Well, that's because that's what "optimized" means, by default. It means "to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible," according to my old buddy Webster.
So when I see people insisting every character is either "optimized" or "gimped," I can't
help but picture the ridiculous dice pool exercises, because by definition that's what optimized means. The crazy Mr Luckys and Pornomancers of the world, the 20+ dice pistol Adepts, the Trolls that are impossible to kill with physical damage, etc, etc, etc. And to me that's not an optimized character, because that's not a character at all. And when folks insist you're either "optimized" like that, or you're a willful and purposeful liability to your Shadowrunning group, well...it's easy to want to argue against that.
If you mean, rather, that any given character should be optimized
for that game and gaming table, then that's flat out what I said already so I'm not sure why it feels like we're in disagreement about anything.
Ancient History
May 28 2009, 04:00 AM
QUOTE (tsuyoshikentsu @ May 27 2009, 09:49 PM)
I don't care if someone's playing a pornomancer or an archetype out of the book, I'ma yell at them if they take an Addiction to something they're Allergic to.
Lemme get this straight: you basically disapprove if a player takes
any negative quality for their character, or just ones that you feel are inconvenient to other characters?
tsuyoshikentsu
May 28 2009, 04:06 AM
QUOTE (Ancient History @ May 27 2009, 09:00 PM)
Lemme get this straight: you basically disapprove if a player takes any negative quality for their character, or just ones that you feel are inconvenient to other characters?
Actually, I encourage taking as many negative qualities as is possible, because you can do a lot of stuff with 35 BP.
But when a party member is selecting his negative qualities and chooses to put himself at a near-constant penalty for no reason other than "I want to make a flawed character" in a game that's not set up around that, I get upset. I mean, I'd PREFER it if everyone took Addiction (Betel), Day Job, etc., because those kinds of qualities hurt the group the least (and can even be a bonus), but I won't tell someone they're wrong until they deliberately start making bad choices for -- frankly -- no good reason.
Bert
May 28 2009, 04:54 AM
-Edit-
Sorry. Didn't mean to post. I need to stop drinking...
Fuchs
May 28 2009, 07:18 AM
QUOTE (tsuyoshikentsu @ May 28 2009, 06:06 AM)
Actually, I encourage taking as many negative qualities as is possible, because you can do a lot of stuff with 35 BP.
But when a party member is selecting his negative qualities and chooses to put himself at a near-constant penalty for no reason other than "I want to make a flawed character" in a game that's not set up around that, I get upset. I mean, I'd PREFER it if everyone took Addiction (Betel), Day Job, etc., because those kinds of qualities hurt the group the least (and can even be a bonus), but I won't tell someone they're wrong until they deliberately start making bad choices for -- frankly -- no good reason.
When does "I want to have fun" start being a good reason? Is it ok not to take a specialisation, for example, and be 2 dice worse than one could be?
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 07:44 AM
Having fun is allways a good Reason. If it'S not to the detriment of the fun of others at least.
Where is ALLWAYS being 2 Dice less than you could be any fun? Either you suffer -2 Dice from being in Withdrawl, or you suffer from -2 Dice because you frigging injected yourself with a Poison that you are frigging addicted to. How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?
WyldKnight
May 28 2009, 08:01 AM
All I think tsuyoshikentsu is saying is that its fine to make any character, any ideal, any concept, as long as it doesn't hurt the group or the story itself. I may be new to the whole thing, I have only played in a few games, but even I see the reason in this. Having fun is the golden rule of almost every pass time in existence but one person’s idea of fun can quickly become another’s nightmare if they aren't made for the game at hand. If I was playing in a game that was heavy on role play and social abilities (perhaps a game where instead of runners you were negotiators or diplomats) then someone coming to the table with a tricked out cyber adept street sam would rub me the wrong way. The same could be said for someone being a pacifist hippie in a straight up "I win" scenario type of game since, and be honest with yourselves, sometimes you just wanna blow crap up.
Mäx
May 28 2009, 08:24 AM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 10:44 AM)
How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?
By first being addicted and then getting allergic to the stuff.
Fuchs
May 28 2009, 08:33 AM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 09:44 AM)
Having fun is allways a good Reason. If it'S not to the detriment of the fun of others at least.
Where is ALLWAYS being 2 Dice less than you could be any fun? Either you suffer -2 Dice from being in Withdrawl, or you suffer from -2 Dice because you frigging injected yourself with a Poison that you are frigging addicted to. How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?
By your logic playing a face that is not a pornomancer, and therefore has
always 10+ dice less than would be possible is no fun.
If you're arguing numbers then it doesn't matter if you always have a negative modifer of -2, or if you always lack a positive modifier of +2 you could have taken.
tsuyoshikentsu
May 28 2009, 08:35 AM
....Annnnnd I suddenly feel really awkward, as I just realized that other people in the group in question read this board.
But at least they agree with me!
GreyBrother
May 28 2009, 10:17 AM
QUOTE (Fuchs @ May 28 2009, 10:33 AM)
By your logic playing a face that is not a pornomancer, and therefore has always 10+ dice less than would be possible is no fun
Sadly, i believe that is what he really believes and where Stahlseele and i will always have an argument which mirrors the Joke about the Atheist, the Agnostic and the Believers encounter with a burning bush.
But that's how his group rolls and i'm glad i don't have to participate.
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 10:37 AM
QUOTE (GreyBrother @ May 28 2009, 12:17 PM)
Sadly, i believe that is what he really believes and where Stahlseele and i will always have an argument which mirrors the Joke about the Atheist, the Agnostic and the Believers encounter with a burning bush.
But that's how his group rolls and i'm glad i don't have to participate.
Heck no, even i consider the Pornomancer too over the top extreme.
But things like the -2 from Allergy, -2 from Addiction. .THAT is dumb.
Fuchs
May 28 2009, 10:46 AM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 12:37 PM)
Heck no, even i consider the Pornomancer too over the top extreme.
But things like the -2 from Allergy, -2 from Addiction. .THAT is dumb.
Even if the points gotten from this are used in a way to compensate, even overcompensate?
What do you consider dumber, the near-pornomancer with the alergy/addiction, or the face that never got into double digit DPs?
Bob Lord of Evil
May 28 2009, 11:11 AM
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ May 27 2009, 03:06 PM)
Spot on! Warhammer 40K and men with gray beards re-enacting the Battle of Gettysburg with pewter minis are exactly what I have in mind for an "I win" style of play. It's a very old-school miniature war-gaming mentality. I know that modern RPGs evolved out of the mini-based war-gaming and I respect that. But it's long past time to leave that nest behind.
I like how that "respect" is sandwiched between "gray beards" and "leave that nest behind."
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 11:26 AM
QUOTE (Fuchs @ May 28 2009, 12:46 PM)
Even if the points gotten from this are used in a way to compensate, even overcompensate?
What do you consider dumber, the near-pornomancer with the alergy/addiction, or the face that never got into double digit DPs?
Dumbest is the allergy/addiction.
Dicepool of 15 to 25 is not really Mancer in any kind or way, as all aspects can get such dice pools.
Mancing is dice pools of 30+ in my eyes. Pornomancer can get 40 to 50 dice.
Fuchs
May 28 2009, 11:48 AM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 01:26 PM)
Dumbest is the allergy/addiction.
Dicepool of 15 to 25 is not really Mancer in any kind or way, as all aspects can get such dice pools.
Mancing is dice pools of 30+ in my eyes. Pornomancer can get 40 to 50 dice.
So you'd consider the character with 30 dp and allergy/addiction dumb while the one who did not even reach double digits in his DP ok? Why do you think the former hurts his group while the latter doesn't?
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 12:58 PM
If both is combined, it's still dumb.
if only allergy/addiction with small dicepool? frigging unbelieveable dumb.
if high DP without something? dumb mancer
ravensmuse
May 28 2009, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (Bob Lord of Evil @ May 28 2009, 07:11 AM)
I like how that "respect" is sandwiched between "gray beards" and "leave that nest behind."
I think you're taking the quote out of context.
What Wes is saying (and pardon me if I'm putting words in his mouth) but what he means is that roleplaying games, while having evolved from a miniature war background, have become their own thing and gamers have to stop adopting the "us-vs-them" / "we need to win the game!" mentality.
It's not a backwards slap against people's other hobbies. IIRC, Wes plays Warhammer (or Warmachine) himself.
Fuchs
May 28 2009, 01:30 PM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 02:58 PM)
If both is combined, it's still dumb.
if only allergy/addiction with small dicepool? frigging unbelieveable dumb.
if high DP without something? dumb mancer
What then do you consider a "not dumb" face?
Wesley Street
May 28 2009, 05:09 PM
QUOTE (ravensmuse @ May 28 2009, 08:26 AM)
IIRC, Wes plays Warhammer (or Warmachine) himself.
After years of dragging my feet as my friends yanked my arms, I'm starting to (slowly) learn
Warhammer 40K. It's nifty in its way...
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 05:25 PM
QUOTE (Fuchs @ May 28 2009, 03:30 PM)
What then do you consider a "not dumb" face?
15 to 25 Dice in his main shtick, a reasonable skill-set to compliment his main shtick and to keep him alive if his main shtick does not work.
nothing that costs him 2 dice in EVERYTHING he does.
DireRadiant
May 28 2009, 06:19 PM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 12:25 PM)
15 to 25 Dice in his main shtick, a reasonable skill-set to compliment his main shtick and to keep him alive if his main shtick does not work.
nothing that costs him 2 dice in EVERYTHING he does.
Darn I failed.
But how come I and my group are having so much fun when we are failing? Is something wrong with us?
Perhaps I should develop an allergy to this addiction I have to DS and SR and post anyway, but slightly less effectively.
Draco18s
May 28 2009, 07:32 PM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 02:44 AM)
How the hell does one get addicted to something that one is allergic to anyways?
I'm allergic to cashews. And I love the things. <3
Of course, the allergic reaction I have to cashews isn't as severe as a -2 DP would indicate.
paws2sky
May 28 2009, 07:36 PM
I could see a Media Junkie having fits (an allergic reaction) to certain news outlets, websites, etc.
Maybe that would be better handled as an Outspoken prejudice...?
-paws
Bob Lord of Evil
May 28 2009, 07:39 PM
QUOTE (ravensmuse @ May 28 2009, 02:26 PM)
I think you're taking the quote out of context.
What Wes is saying (and pardon me if I'm putting words in his mouth) but what he means is that roleplaying games, while having evolved from a miniature war background, have become their own thing and gamers have to stop adopting the "us-vs-them" / "we need to win the game!" mentality.
It's not a backwards slap against people's other hobbies. IIRC, Wes plays Warhammer (or Warmachine) himself.
I vote, doesn't mean that I respect all politicians.
You seem to be operating from the apparent viewpoint that there is a
correct way to play a roleplaying game. Now, the individual in question is just as strident as putting forth that he knows the
correct to play a RPG. Might I postulate that his way works for him and your way works for you? And that while you obviously both enjoy Shadowrun you enjoy it in different ways.
HappyDaze
May 28 2009, 10:52 PM
QUOTE
Heavens knows it's almost impossible to just "browse" that wiki for anything less than several hours in a sitting...
I guess I'm just different - after two minutes I closed it and decided I had no interest in going back to it. Popular culture and I don't really seem too into one another.
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 11:04 PM
QUOTE (Draco18s @ May 28 2009, 09:32 PM)
I'm allergic to cashews. And I love the things. <3
Of course, the allergic reaction I have to cashews isn't as severe as a -2 DP would indicate.
WHY? x.x
Only thing i can actually understand:
I have a friend who is allergic to CATS . . of all things . .
And of course she can't help but love them . . who can?
Draco18s
May 28 2009, 11:19 PM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 06:04 PM)
WHY? x.x
Because I don't feel bad eating them.
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 11:21 PM
But do you feel bad, AFTER?
Critias
May 28 2009, 11:22 PM
QUOTE (Draco18s @ May 28 2009, 07:19 PM)
Because I don't feel bad eating them.
I feel the same way about cats.
Err, wait, what are we talking about again?
Stahlseele
May 28 2009, 11:24 PM
*shin kick*
Hands off the keetums <.<
WyldKnight
May 28 2009, 11:31 PM
QUOTE (tsuyoshikentsu @ May 28 2009, 12:35 AM)
....Annnnnd I suddenly feel really awkward, as I just realized that other people in the group in question read this board.
But at least they agree with me!
Haha, isn't it great?
On the subject of cats though, they don't smell very good when you cook em so I tend to do it outside. Or maybe its just all the fat burning from the drop bear last week...
ravensmuse
May 29 2009, 01:41 AM
QUOTE (Bob Lord of Evil @ May 28 2009, 03:39 PM)
I vote, doesn't mean that I respect all politicians.
You seem to be operating from the apparent viewpoint that there is a correct way to play a roleplaying game. Now, the individual in question is just as strident as putting forth that he knows the correct to play a RPG. Might I postulate that his way works for him and your way works for you? And that while you obviously both enjoy Shadowrun you enjoy it in different ways.
Ah ha, so this is the game we're going to go at. No thanks.
Draco18s
May 29 2009, 02:16 AM
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ May 28 2009, 06:21 PM)
But do you feel bad, AFTER?
No.
All they do is weaken my muscles a bit for a little while. But I sit in a chair all the time anyway, so I'm not in the best physical condition anyway.
GreyBrother
May 29 2009, 05:21 AM
QUOTE (Critias @ May 29 2009, 01:22 AM)
I feel the same way about cats.
Err, wait, what are we talking about again?
Delicious and moist cats, mon ami. Delicious and moist...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.