I like the Karma system better. Straight forward it is what it is.

You get a much rounder character.

The BP system calls for way too much min maxing.

The BP system is a lot better if have say an extra 20 karma to buy a few specializations with.

Prevalent enough to keep Dumpshock in arguments for years. Prevalent enough so that things often boil down to spotlight time being assigned based on how well a player can maximize his character, instead of on things like roleplay skill.


In convention games, I see a lot of maxed characters. In every home game that I've played in, there's at least one player who's better at maxing his character than others. Trying to blame this on individual GM's is disingenuous at best.

One of our group's former players* (notably for The Other Game) was a min-maxer.
Min: survivability, sanity
Max: damage

The most recent glass cannon of his that I recall was a character who was "hunting a bounty on his last character" (and were also distant cousins, too?) was some kind of monk that could blow a 200 damage load in one round. I don't think any of his characters lasted more than three sessions.

*And our only president who was ever deported.

Not once did I blame it on Individual GM's... all I said was that I tend see this in Conventions (during the 2nd and 3rd Edition Eras) and not at tables that I play at, your experience may indeed be different, but as I have not really experienced this phenomenon, I don't really see it as a problem...

Big Difference...

Keep the Faith

That isn't unique to SR4, though. It's an open, point build system. From first edition and onwards you had players who figured out how to create characters far tougher than the example archetypes, or their fellow players. There are things that work very well, and things that work very poorly.

But personally, I think someone who has put the effort into learning the system should be able to outperform a new player. And the new player should not expect to immediately be as good at any aspect of the game, including character creation, as the more experienced player.

Yes, you have players who powergame to overshadow the other characters. But you also have whiners, who complain because their perfectly serviceable character, who has plenty of things to do in the game, isn't as "good" as another player's character. I think the GM should provide spotlight time to everyone (or at least offer it - not everyone wants spotlight time). I think people should help new players with character creation, to keep them from the pitfalls of an open build system (you can be unfocused, overly generalized, or too hyper-specialized). But it is unrealistic to expect characters in an open build system to all be equally powerful. To me, it is more important to have a group that meshes together.

Just because you haven't experienced the swine flu, doesn't mean it's not a problem.


You're right that differences in player ability isn't unique to SR4.5.

Thing is, I don't think ability to max a system is as important a contribution as ability to add to a game. They're not mutually distinct, but a robust system helps keep the differences in check. In a point-based, wide-open build system, you have to watch out more. Using the old priority system, you could create characters that were more effective than others, but not to the same degree that you can now. It was also easier to see the best paths to take. Since I don't want to get into a SR3/4.5 flamewar, I'll use D&D 3.X as an example. Under 3.X, it was better to have fewer, maxed-out skills than it was to spread your points around-- this was really easy to see, for even new players. Comparing that to SR4.5, there's a lot more to pick from, and so one might think that a lot of low-level skills is a good path to effectiveness. It isn't.

I know a gamer who's extremely good at min/maxing. He memorizes rules very quickly, and can often act as an instant rules source. He's usually very helpful, and is perfectly willing to help other players build their characters. This is an important contribution to the game. His issues include showboating, arguing, whining, and rules-lawyering, to the point where he's been booted from many tables. So, we have someone who can be a good player, but doesn't contribute overall, and often causes major disruptions to the game. His ability to make good characters and help others doesn't offset that fact, and he shouldn't be rewarded for his bad behaviors.

Granted, we can have gamers who are extremely good at min/maxing *and* contribute to a game. And those players should be rewarded. But I don't think that extreme skill at min/maxing alone should be something we should encourage. I think ability to min/max is its own reward, and that other things should be focused on.

I totally Agree with that

with a +1 Dance
Medicineman

Guys, just to remind you Min-Maxing is about Minimizing disadvantages and maximizing advantages.

It does NOT mean you maximize some stats and minimize others. Min-Maxing is not the same as "munchkinism" or even power-gaming.

Now some examples you describe as Min-Maxing is rather examples of poor attempts at powergaming or deliberate attempts to create "one-trick-ponies."

A true Min-Maxer in SR would probably do his best do get as high dice pool as possible in those areas he expects to use alot, while letting dice pools in areas he considers will never combat suffer instead. Since there are so many useful areas in SR, and so much a single character can do, properly Min-Maxed characters would actually have many different strengths.

One of the things I like about Shadowrun is that there are so many different ways to min-max. It is a delicate art, though. You can hyperspecialize to the point that you are bored a lot of the time (when your specialty is not in play), or you can overgeneralize to the point that you have most areas covered, but do none of them very well. But it is very possible to make a character with dice pools in the high teens in one area, who still has a good mix of secondary specialties.

But the art of min-maxing should always include a healthy dose of metagaming. Not in the bad sense, of having a character using OOC knowledge in an inappropriate way. But in the good sense, of taking the GM's quirks and the table's play style into account. If the game is one where social skills are hand-waved and most runs are guns blazing, you might want to only put a few token points into social skills and stealth. If the game is one where shots are rarely fired and the opposition tends to be weak, then a pistols dice pool of 12 that would get you killed in the first game might be plenty - while a higher dice pool might do nothing but attract negative attention from the GM.

a one-Trick-Pony is the Opposite of a Powergamer
a Powergamer likes To create a Figure(I don't wanna write Character) thats only there to spoil the other fellow Gamers
Fun (A Mage that is also a better Hacker and better Fighter than the other Hacker and Sam Chars so that he can "steal"
the Spotlight from others)
Min-Maxing is about Minimizing disadvantages and maximizing advantages.
but also about Maximising your Pool
Min/Maxer are also good for testing the Game,so Devs and GMs should be happy to have Min/Maxers testing out the Rules

I confess I'm a Min/Maxer
but I'll never be a Power Gamer

HougH!
Medicineman

So from what I've gathered from all this talk of min/maxers, power gamers, and rules lawyers is that your style of play is no where near as important as how you contribute to the table.

I hate to say this, makes me sound like a school athletic coach, its about good sportsmanship boyo.

I have an intense distaste for hyper-specialization, for me its about the numbers on my sheet. Not that they are in any way more important than the character's persona, its more a preference and most closely relates to OCD tendencies. I just dislike having a bunch of 1's on my sheet even if there are a few high skill scores. So I end up making a character that's spread all over the place, yet not spread to thin. Even though Defaulting Penalties are easily ignored. I don't see a problem with my character....

Until I get to the table, and I'm playing with overspecialized pure archetypical characters. (No offense to any of the excellent gamers whom I've played with) Quickly, and I do mean faster than you can say "I saw Dunklezombie at the Stuffer Shack.", I'm tossed out of the shine. I can remember a few incidents where I began Channeling after being ambushed, or else I would have been prepared, and before I finished all the goons were down. May not seem so bad, however I was playing a game with only two(could be wrong, been awhile) players. The difference in power was just unbearable; my character only came into the spotlight to negotiate our pay, which the other players could have easily done had they been anything other than apathetic towards the campaign. I'm done whining now.

So I ask, is there something wrong with characters that aren't hyper-specialized? Or is playing a character that isn't kthulu reincarnated in SR just a bad idea? Do/have these types of characters put a strain on your campaign/s or group fun? If I'm not mistaken the general opposition, referring to security, in SR is to be avoided and at best is the average augmented human. Or again, Did I somehow miss the memo on what SR is about?

I think it depends on the group. A good shadowrunning team covers all their bases (stealth, social, combat, magic, matrix). Overspecialized many times also get a curve where it does not matter anymore. Having 12 dice and having 20 dice in combat doesn't mean that much when you are fighting most security. At a certain point you are hitting and taking down opponents anyway. Same with stealth, etc. What hyperspecialization does allow is for taking on bigger runs. The problem of taking on bigger runs is you tend to need more skills to get there. You have to cover all of your bases with high skills, you have to have a good plan, good equipment, and you have to have enough player (not character) experience to pull it off.

The problem with the BP system is if you don't min/max it costs a lot more to do the "big runs" after the game starts. If the difference is 40-50 karma that is not a big deal. If it requires all the players to have 200 more karma then without min/maxing you are behind the power curve. With the karma system you all have equal levels so a 200 karma post creation mission means everyone is at the same level. Under the BP characters may fluctuate between 200 karma to 400 karma difference before they can run.

One trick pony is, as I said, a failure. It's not the same as power gaming, but it's not the opposite either.

You definition of a Powergamer seems awfully narrow - how many players are out there deliberately wants to spoil the fun for everyone else by making broken characters? I've never met a single one.

I've played with Power Gamers though. They need to be kept in check, but as long as they are they can contribute to a fun game just like everyone else. I've also played with the opposite, players who deliberately tries to make the weakest characters possible in a game system.. one had a character at 6th level in D&D with 0 Base attack bonusvand only 1st level spells. A fun experiment, but really unbalanced in the opposite way.

Many Power Games Min-Max, but the goal of the Power Gamer is mainly to make his character as powerful as possible, usually at the expense of common sense, background, personality and whatever else makes the character more than a cardboard cut-out.

As for the Min-Maxing: Maximizing dice pool should not make the character too lacking in other areas, at least those not easily covered by other party members.

My latest character was Min-Maxed, and turned out to be the most well-rounded SR character I've ever made. Basically he turned out to be a Street Samurai special forces secret agent party face with various technical skills. The only thing he couldn't do was Magic. Still, if anyone had made a specialist in any of those areas he could easily surpass my sammie in dice pool, but with 15-18 DP in various combat skills it was usually enough (and with some edge, enough to fight Horrors). He wasn't particularily strong against spells, but then again who is except mages with counterspelling or adepts with magic resistance?

Well, it depends. Gaming systems tend to reward specialization. Powers that have prerequisites, or only become effective if you invest heavily in them, that sort of thing. SR isn't nearly as bad as some.. Class/Level-based game we all know and...

It also depends heavily on the GM. I've played in a D&D campaign where the BBEGs didn't stay in their own neat homes, but responded to distress calls by minions. We were nowhere near powerful enough to confront them (at first), so we all spent a lot of time hiding and sneaking, making hit and run strikes. That means suddenly everyone needs stealth skills, rather than just the scout/backstabber.

So how does it depend on the GM? I think a lot of obstacles should require all party members to succeed at their skill tests to bypass them. Such as sneaking in, or infiltrating a party with Etiquette and Con. If PCs can't just redirect any challenge to the specialist, all of them need to have some more general skills.

Mind, some specialization is good; but generalism needs to be rewarded too. This requires some more planning and ingenuity from the GM though.

You definition of a Powergamer seems awfully narrow - how many players are out there deliberately wants to spoil the fun for everyone else by making broken characters? I've never met a single one.
Fortunately only a Few,but they exist.
During a Convention in Bonn (Feencon 2007 IIRC ,one of the bigger P&P Cons in Germany, est. 1000 + Roleplayers)
while we played Starwars D20 we had one such Powergamers .He even fudged the Dice Roll to have a better Initiative than everybody else.Later the GM had to Kick him out of the Game because he behaved like a spoiled Brat (he was maybe 28 or 30 Years old )

with a "personal Experience Dance"
Medicineman

I fail to see how "being the best at (mostly) everything" is the same as "intentionally spoiling other players fun".

To clarify: There might be some correlation, because it has the potential of spoiling the fun of others, but I don't think it is (usually) intentional.

I thought those people (the intentionally spoiling fun people) only exist in online video games.


IMHO MinMaxing (which I understand as maximum effect with minimal cost, though maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages also works for me) is Powergaming (which I understand as the pragmatic approach of making a mechanically powerful character, where background considerations and similar influences have minimal or no bearing on the creation of the character), while One-Trick Pony is more of a negative descriptor for a character that is helpless in most situations, because of overspecialization.

Bye
Thanee

Yes and no. Powergamers Min-Max but not all Min-Maxers are Powergamers. Min-Maxing is about using the system to create effective characters. Almost all players do this to some degree. A Street Samurai that picks Wired Reflexes and smartlink and makes sure he has good combat skills and defenses is Min-Maxing. A player who think he can't play with less than 30 dice pool is probably a Powergamer. So basically, powering up his character is the ultimate goal of the Powergamer, and is usually obsessed with winning the game. Too bad it's an RPG though, you can't "win" over the other players.

Also, min maxing does not exclude taking into account background and character concept, although in many cases the background is made on the basis of a mechanically sound character.

However there is an opposite of all this.. Fluffgaming! Here things are upside down. Game mechanics are mostly ignored, and qualities, skills etc. are taken on the basis of whether they "sound cool" according to a concept often arrived at without a single thought if it is feasible in the rules. For some system this actually works to some degree, but in most it's often better to consider the actual performance of the character rather than just jumbling together fancy abilities, talents, quailties etc. Or if taken to the extreme, deliberate nerfing of the character in order to prove ones superior roleplaying skill.

"I got a Mage with Magic 2 that means I'm a roleplayer" ...

Now of course the best way is probably to go the moderate one - do a bit of both. I've found that wether you build your character based on background or make your background as you build your character, you could probably get to the same point eventually. For me the latter is easier, and when number crunching a bit It can actually help inspire a decent background. But we all need to start with a concept.

Exactly
I could'nt have said/postet it better(specially not in English)

Too bad it's an RPG though, you can't "win" over the other players.
Thats why this Guy at the convention wanted to win Initiative

"I got a Mage with Magic 2 that means I'm a roleplayer" ...

We call this Bauergaming(.....Redneckgaming ? ) as contrary to Powergamning

with a german Dance
Medicineman

Wait, could he cast those spells? (Int/Wis/Cha of 11 or higher)

A friend of mine ran into a paladin on D&DOnline who couldn't cast spells when buffed because he had a 6 Wisdom.

Yeah, but I wouldn't really call that MinMaxing. That's reserved for the more extreme cases.

Bye
Thanee

I will says that you want the individual PCs to be effective and specialized enough to complement each other.

They need to be more than the sum of their parts and if they are Hell on Wheels together then all the better.

That will keep the group together until they have enough shared history and common enemies that they don't have a choice


I have one player with really bad dice. He also doesn't like to min max so when his dice go south it hurts.

For SR4 I told him to max his Edge and it has made the game much more enjoyable for him.
He is the one the group goes to if they need some one to take the long shot.

My making sure he had a high edge has really improved my game.

But since I have never experienced it, I don't really care... and that really is the point. I acknowledge that it might indeed be a problem, but since I do not expereince that problem, it has little to no impact with the games that I play in...

Keep the Faith

There's an interesting distinction being made between power-gaming and min/maxing, one that I'd like to explore.

Basically, the trick with SR4.5 is that it encourages min/maxing. Which isn't such a big deal, since most other systems do this to some degree. The issue is that the range of min/maxing possible is so huge, it also encourages power-gaming. Hyper-specialization is definitely the way to go, since you can easily have a character with huge dice pools in one area, and have decent ones in most other areas. Both Mr. Lucky and the Pornomancer are viable characters, in that their sheets aren't loaded with 1's and easily-exploitable weaknesses. They can function in many areas, and don't really have a "weak spot" unless it's deliberately designed into the character. For example, Mr. Lucky has Incompetence in both Hardware and Software, meaning he's weak at technical stuff. You could swap those out for any number of things, however, so it's a deliberate choice and not an inherent flaw.

I agree that all power-gamers min/max, but not all min/maxers are powergamers. A powergamer is all about the power. They seldom, IME, set out to ruin the game for other players, but they often do so in the quest for ultimate effectiveness. The player I mentioned before? He simply cannot grasp why his characters never get along with the party. He rotates through characters frequently, thinking that the roleplay or other character aspect is what's causing the problem. He doesn't realize that it's because his character is often so much more powerful than the rest of the party, combined with his need to show off said power, that causes the problems.

Yup yup yup. Not caring about a potential pandemic that can kill millions of people is definitely the way to go.

Back onto the subject of Shadowrun, I've never encountered a pornomancer in play. That doesn't mean I won't help others who might encounter one in how to cope. Helping out your fellow player is what Dumpshock is all about. I've never experienced your game, but I care enough to help you with any technical or world aspects you might have questions on. It's nice to know that feeling is reciprocated.

Thh point is that I cannot prevent the pandemic, so I do not waste time worrying about whether it will wipe out humanity or not... it is a waste of resources and energy...



Don't get me wrong, I do understand you, but when I hear someone telling me that they are ineffective unless they can roll 30+ Dice, I just have to turn away. There is nothing that I can say that will alter their perception of how they want to play a game. In the past, I have discoursed with you about that very thing, and nothing was ever solved, and we eventually agreed to disagree on the subject...

The funny thing is, I actually believe in the system, to a great degree... and believe in building characters according to the rules, both in Fluff and Function (witness my many posts about the relevance of the Skill Descriptions)... but there are individuals that disagree with me in that regard, as they apparently want a "higher" powered game than the system puts forth... in the end, If help is warranted, I generally provide it, but not when it comes to making characters that tend to break the system... As for assistance in World or game issues, Sure, I have a thing to say from time to time, and hopefully, it is mostly beneficial... but I am sure that it isn't always so...

You and I have had a few amiable discussions over the last 10 months or so, and I do not see that changing, but if the question is how to break the system by using the most advantageous character generation method, then I have very little to assist in beyond the few contributions made in this topic, as I think that the BP system is sufficient for almost any character you can imagine...

But I have probably blathered enough...

Keep the Faith

As a GM I think it is not the hyperspecialized characters that bother me, but lack of diversity or incompatible characters. Somethings I nix just because it does not make sense or does not allow one to function. Mostly this falls under Attributes. I do not allow any character to have an attribute of 1. This is even more true for mental stats as such a person could not cope in society. As for skills because you can default on most skills this does not bother me. You don't have to be great, but you can function in life.

At the end of the day as GM you are free to put certain requirements for characters. You are free to nix metavariants, certain positive and negative qualities, etc. As a player your requirement is to be compatible with the group. It is everyone's job to encourage and have fun.

As a reformed rules lawyer I found I used the rules to hide behind because I didn't have faith in the GM. As I have become older I began to realize if I had a problem with the GM I needed to fill that role or find another group.

Most systems I agree with the no stat of one or whatever the equivalent is in that system. But on a 1-6 scale even a 1 is somewhat functional IMO. Especially with SR4s TN of 5, heck the difference between a 1 and 3 is barely noticeable in game stats. Okay the last part is a joke, but still I just don't think a 1-6 provides enough of a range for someone to say a 1 is so feeble you can't get by in society.

Edit to add: This is just how I view the stats in SR, 1 is total weaksauce but still functional in society, if others view it different that is fine.

Just as some of Shadowrun's rules encourage min-maxing, one of the culprits for fluffgaming is the descriptions given for the various skill levels. SR4 skills are a narrow range to represent the breadth of metahuman skill, and the descriptions for the highest levels, in particular, are a bit hyperbolic. Some people seem to read these descriptions very stringently, and instead of picking the skills that are best for their character, they will agonize over things like getting a skill of 3. "A skill of 3 is a veteran - is my character really a veteran? Maybe I should only give him a skill of 2". Personally, I think some people get too hung up on it. Shadowrunners tend, by vocation, to be highly skilled in their fields, and there are all kinds of ways to justify one having a skill of 4 or better.

The issue is that there is a serious disconnect between the SR4.5 fluff and rules. Seven dice is supposed to represent the "best in the world", but the rules do not support that. Instead, the mechanics support a "the more, the better" approach to character building. Throwing 30 dice, if done without sacrificing the rest of the character, is rewarded by the mechanics. The fact is, we each play at different levels. Some like it "gritty", while others like it high-flying. While the SR4.5 fluff says it's supposed to be street level, having a six-armed troll tank with 20+ dice in his primary areas is what we get as "effective".



While I agree with your general point, I disagree with the specific example. An attribute of 1 is not a problem for me, either as a player or a GM. Mr Lucky doesn't have any attributes at 1, and I don't recall seeing any on the pornomancer. (Although I may be wrong on that point.) An attribute of 1 simply means the character has a flaw, which if played out right, can be a lot of fun for everyone. It's the spirit of power-gaming, more than any specific build layout, that ruins a game.

There is a Disconnect only if the GM allows there to be a Disconnect... when a GM allows the characters with 20+ Dice Pools, then the Fluff breaks down, and you have discrepencies. You and I have gone round and round about this in the past, and we apparently have differing opinions on this part of the fluff/mechanics. However, if you enforce the descriptions, there is no longer any need for those 20+ Dice Pools and the world works as described in the fluff...

Can you get more dice than suggested by the fluff, sure, but I do not necessarily think that it is a good thing at that point... Differing tables have differing opinions though, and neither is actually doing anything wrong... WE include a fairly high level of action, and yet, the skills are relevant to the Fluff... the highest dice pool is an 18 (with the +4 for the Tacnet, though I think that the Technomancer could probably reliably break the 20+ Dice Pool Cap if he really wanted to do so with very little effort/trouble on his part) and yet I feel that we are constantly challenged...

Frankly, all that a higher dice pool does is remove the randomness of the dice... the more dice that you have in the dice pool, the less likely that the character is to fail the roll, whatever it may be... It has been my experience that players who do not want the chance of failure go for those higher dice pools... I just do not think that it is all that necessary, as characters tend to learn more from failure than success (much like real life I suppose)...

It's all good though...

Keep the Faith

I don't want to get into an argument about 20+ dice especially since I am happy with 8+ for most skills and 12ish in your specialty,so I think we agree on game style quite a bit. But can you honestly say a GM can stop the disconnect in fluff between a 3 skill and a 6 skill. Do you really think 1 success on average really fluff wise shows the difference between an average professional and the best of the rest? Heck do you think the 2 successes on average show the difference between a beginner and the best in the world?

IMO the rules beat the fluff to death with a sledgehammer no matter what the GM allows. The players can close there eyes and plug there ears to it, but it seems impossible to ignore.

High dice pools don't really break the fluff for me, because you don't get them by skill alone. You get them by things such as ultra high-tech gear, physical augmentations, and magical ability - and someone who has advantages like that should be superhuman.

I do think that dice ranges from 8-12 is optimal for the game, personally...

And yes, I do think that if you use the guidelines that the fluff imposes for skill ratings, you can indeed obtain a fairly useful standard for the game play. Just because you are using the skill ratings to determine relative competenc, it does not stop you from adding the odd couple of dice for equipment or specialization (or possibly both)... having played a character for the better part of 300 karma, with skills ranging in the 3 range (Professional), and having a siongle 4 and 2 skills at 5, I generally have absolutely no problems succeeding in almost anything that I attempt, even with my "Crappy" dice pols of 8-12 or thereabouts.

As soon as you throw those guidelines out, and state that only high rated skills make a character competent, that is where the game begins to break down... 9 skill levels are enough (Unaware to 7) to differentiate between the absolutly clueless to the most competent there is... that keeps the game grounded somewhat in reality, rather than going with the unlimited advancement of previous editions that ultimately became unbelieveable quite quickly (in my opinion at least)... there are many, many ways to provide exceptional advesaries without the need to resort to outrageous skill levels or dice pools...

I know that it is just my opinion, but I stand by it pretty adamantly. I Can't tell you in how many other game systems that I have played (and even in Previous Editions of Shadowrun) where the unlimited advancement of character skill levels led to some truly outrageous situations... afterall, the Fluff ONLY succumbs to the sledgehammer of rules if you let them do so... How many characters actually fail something at a skill rating of 6 and 3 in the stat? Statistically you are getting between 2 and 3 successes (without the Specialization bonuses or equipment bonuses available to someone of that caliber) vs. the Number of successes of a character with a Skill of 1 and Stat of 3 (statistically only a single success) and with a fairly larger chance of failure. Remember, fo r the most part, success is success in Shadowrun, unless opposed... here is another example: Extended rolls... SKill 6/Stat 3 specialization (11 Dice in the Pool), whereas teh skill1 Newbie with stat of 3 has 4 Dice... you tell me who is the more professional...

A true professional will have MULTIPLE skills, both Active and Knowledge Skills, at higher ratings than the non-professional who is just starting out, and I think that this can be fairly well modeled with the System as it is currently written.

My counter Question would actually go something like this:
Why is it necessary to have more skill levels than are already provided for the system to be more playable?

Keep the Faith

It means you cannot default in a skill. You basically have rainman or someone mentally retarded. Such people may exist in society, but for a game either the player does not play their stats or such characters have severe problems with being in a group. Physical stats are a bit better, but still unless you are playing an old man with arthritis I severely doubt body's of 1, agility of 1, reaction of 1 or strength of 1 fits into a shadowrun game.

Because, mechanically speaking, there is virtually no difference between Joe Average and Fastjack anymore.

Let's assume that Joe Average has a Computer skill of 1, and Fastjack 7. In a toe-to-toe matchup, Joe will average only two successes less than Fastjack. That's not enough for a critical success-- and that critical success is how the fluff states things should be. Joe Average playing hoops vs Michael Jordan in his prime should get stuffed rather quickly and easily, which is exactly what a critical success means. Slowly but surely grinding ahead in the long game is a sign of a medium difference in skills. Beating your opponent with a flourish each and every time, now that's superior skill.

Besides which, the dice pool allocation means skill doesn't matter so much anymore. You get so many dice from other areas that your actual skill level is just a source of dice, nothing more. The game encourages you to pile on the modifiers, so that you get the biggest dice pool possible. More dice = more critical successes, which in turn allows you more spotlight time. What's more, the "best in the world" guy with skill 6 and attribute 1 is just barely equal to the barely-trained guy with Attribute 6 and skill 1. Your skill does not equal how effective you are, it's the size of your dice pool that does it.

Saying that individual GM's let the rules beat the stuffing out of the fluff is clever, but ultimately insulting. The fact is, if the fluff says that you're the "best in the world" at something, the mechanics had better damn well back you up. While seven dice is a nice bonus to the pornomancer, you could drop his skill to 1 and still be tossing 40+ dice.

To me it just means you can't default to anything that requires a test and there are plenty of people in that range. If something requires 0 successes because its just a normal routine task they could still default to it. But I see your point. I guess I just visualize 1 stat as being not as shoddy as you do.

Not really. Someone with a Logic of 1 can still use a computer/commlink, someone with Charisma of 1 can still hold a pleasant conversation. Skill rolls are for difficult tasks. If you applied that to someone with Incompetence, I could see that, but not necessarily with a low attribute. I currently work with the developmentally disabled, and you might be surprised as to what they can accomplish. I used to know a man who had a low Logic (schizophrenia) but was an absolute math savant.

As for Strength 1, I know plenty of people who are on the weak side who can function in high-stress environments. I also don't see the quadriplegic/paraplegic characters as being necessarily left out of shadowrunning. My mage was a Japanese lady with a Strength of 1, which perfectly suited a woman who was 5'3", 98 lbs.

Agreed. Someone with no Perception and Intuition 1 is not deaf and blind. He can still see and hear. He can percieve things the GM deems immediately obvious. But in a firefight, at night or in situations that are highly stressful, he can't normally roll a success.

But the key is someone defaulting can still benefit from dice pool modifiers. For example, said Perc 0 Int 1 person can normally still obtain additional dice from gear, magic, etc.

Seconded.. erhhh... thirded?

Cha 1 does not equal Uncouth (which is a 20 BP flaw) nor incompetence is all social skills. It's probably a fairly normal guy with low self-esteem, maybe shy or crude. He'll probably function ok in his normal work, although he may not be generally liked except by family and close friends.

However if he attempts social engineering, deliberate con jobs, or attempt a stare-down, he'll probably fail except in beneficial circumstances (a stare down WITH an AK works much better than without)

I have a party where the hacker has the best social skill and charisma (which is still rather average), but it's the troll with his massive DP bonuses who actually does the Intimidation.

That said runners should usually not want to have 1s in multiple attributes, it will most often leave a too great a weakness. The difference between dice is actually greatest at the lower skill levels. 3 dice is ALOT better than 1 or two, much more than 30 dice is better than 27. Thus the character with charisma 2 etiquette 1 will prevent alot more faux-pas'es than the one with cha 1 etiquette 1.

Once you hit 0 DP however the rules fail as you suddenly become immune to glitching... I'd use a house rule that you still roll one die just to see if you critically glitch. More dice, more skill etc. should ALWAYS be an advantage!

You mean SR4A right ?
No its not 7 Dice
its a Skill of 7 (added up with a specialisation because someone who is the Best in the World surely is specialised and an Attribute which is above average) so a Skill of 7 would also be a Pool of 13+ Dice which means 3-4+ Successes.
And the Rules do Support that.
Let's assume that Joe Average has a Computer skill of 1, and Fastjack 7
Joe Average might have a LOG of 3 and a Comlink with average ATTR of 3 so he'll have a Pool of 4 Dice to Hack
FastJack, being Smart, (LOG 5-7) will have the best availiable Comlink with optimised Progs so his Pool will be 14-16 Dice
4x as much as Jo Average

Sometimes I think that you want to deliberately interpret the Rules in the wrong way so that you have something to "Grind about" (the right Word ?)

HokaHey
Medicineman

He does have a point though that dice pools is a better representative of ability than the Skill itself. Some guy with skill 6 and attribute 5 and +2 from gear isn't going to be nearly as good as a character optimized for the skill in question.

I Agree to that.
but the Skill is only part of the Pool and he claims that this is the only distinction between Newb and Pro and thats plain wrong !
The Pool is Skill&Attr&Modifiers
and someone who is Top of the World (Skill 7) also has Top equipment and very good Attributes (or he would`'t be Top of the World) thats all I'm saying.
You have to "see the whole Picture" not only Part of it

with a whole Dance
Medicineman

Yeah but the table he's referring to does not tell the whole picture. It is misleading at best. Check the "Professionalism" thread

I do not see that SR4A encourages Min/Maxing beyond a certain level. There are in fact certian rules that limit specialisation, so you maximal dice pool can not exceed 20 or natural skill + natural Attr (whatever is higher). So all builds with 30-40+ dice simply loose all dice above this value.

the pornomancer is even more screwed: In social tests, the positive dice pool modifiers are limited to natural Cha+Skill, so a character with Cha 3 and Skill 3 can only get +6 Bonus dice (whereever they come from), but as much negativ mods as fit.

So SR4A in constrast to SR4 punishs overspecialisation and extreme minmaxing.

cya
Tycho

Plus (IIRC) Skill is limited by your Language
so Yes a certain amount of Min/Maxing is supported (Starts with Smartlink that gives +2 Dice)
but there is a Limit to it

HokaHey
Medicineman

A major point where skilled professionals break away from the amateurs is in extended tests.
In those instances, the pro isn't just going to be throwing more successes, he'll be throwing x more successes for 3x longer.

So Jimmy Computer tosses four dice for his software test. He can write a "Hello World" program but that's about it. 4 dice on 4 days = 4 successes.

Meanwhile, Fastjack with his massive Logic skill, PuSHeD Protein Exchange, Programming Suite, Neocortical Neural Amplifiers and High level skill throws well more than 20 dice. But, if we cap it at 20, then he's throwing 20 dice on 20 days, scoring well over 100 successes.

Actually a 1 charisma the person cannot hold a pleasant conversation unless they have the influence skill.

I view that as 2 rather than a 1 for said Lady. Our disabled man may have a low attribute, but a high skill. My point is to be functional in society for shadowrunning 1s do not make sense.

My 1 year old son probably has 1 in most of his stats except reaction, willpower, and perception. His agility is 1 because he falls on his face when he walks. Strength is 1 because he can move things just not anything heavy, Body 1 because he is 20 lbs. Then we have intelligence of 1 because he is learning, but has almost no life experience to call upon, 1 logic because he has almost no clue about consequences such as falling off a bed, 1 charisma because while he reacts to the world he cannot hold onto a conversation or interact meaningfully with people. Reaction 2 because he fends off the dogs and the spoon pretty easily. Perception 4 because he notices everything around him, and finally willpower of 2 because he is stubborn, but not as much as his parents. Yes, we have people with low stats, but that doesn't make them functional in the world of shadowrunning, nor does that make them an asset to the team. This is why I don't allow 1s at the table for mental stats and conditionally for 1s in physical stats.

That is my major problem with Min-maxers is there is a difference between optimizing points and abusing the system. Hey, in 2 sessions I get bump my attribute from a 1 to 2. My view is come back with a character who is a functional human being.

Well SR4a limits it a bit more than SR4, and SR4 only has a few caps at character creation. Most pornomancer builds were pre-SR4a, and remember the 20 dice cap is an optional rule...

Even so having 30 dice means you can pretty much always get the full 20 no matter the penalties. If you get a higher penalty than 10 it probably means the GM says it auto-fails ("I try to pick up the building").

Those social limits are not that good on the low end though.. mr super troll with minigun cannot intimidate people because he's got cha 1? Thus he only gets 1 bonus dice instead of the maybe 8 for circumstantial modifiers (physically imposing, wielding huge gun etc.). Having the skill+cha limit dice from ware/magic isn't a bad rule though.

But the reasons why SR is a good game for Min-Maxing is:
a: Everything is bought with Build Points (no rolling stats).
b: Costs for high stats/skills/contacts do not scale (4 1s cost the same as 1 at rating 4, thus you are encourages to take a few high ones and almost no low ones)
c: The karma system is different, thus you can get more out of your BPs if you Min-Max).
d: There are no levels in SR, you can start maxed out in skills if you want. Starting close to maxed out isn't even that expensive (buying a 5 for example).




Where in the rules does it say that you need to roll dice to have a pleasant conversation? The only thing needed to have such a conversation is some language skill. Convincing someone, lowerng prices through barter, or being an inspiration leader however, requires some skills/charisma.

Also I have a different view of having a stat of 2. In my book it's very common - most women and men probably have a str 2. A 3 is the average, which means basically that if you add the str scores of all the normal humans in the world (toddlers and paraphlegics not included), and divide by that same number you get ca. 3. Those with physical work probably have a 3. A 1 is reserved for those much weaker than the average - which means a weak woman or a child. And by child I mean one old enough to otherwise function normally... a 10 year old maybe. A toddler can't be represented by SR stats and would probably have a major flaw (that will slowly go away). A one year old is simply not comparable to adults, at least not Shadowrunners. Just think of all the Incompetence flaws . They simply need to take a level in "human."

If you don't want your players to make characters with 1s, challenge them in the areas they are weak. In no time they will improve their stats. Make sure str 1 characters can carry what they want. Have mr 1 charisma take etiquette tests in various situations. But really, nothing in the system itself says that having 1s means you can't function as a human or even a Shadowrunner. It only says you have 1 die less than having a 2.

Note the use of the word normal That means neither 1 nor 6 is freakish. They have even made a 7 that you need a quality to take. They probably didn't bother making anything below 1 because they assumed no player would want a person so weak that they can't function ok in normal life.

Actually a Cha 1 person can hold a pleasant conversation with some help even without any Influence skill.

I'd say your son has 0 in most of his stats and the Fragile weakness as well. Strength 1 means he can carry around 10kg of stuff without suffering encumbrance, if he can, he is probably as strong as I am. Said lady probably can carry her Louis Vutton handbag but she probably wouldn't want to lug her suitcase around. I think I have Strength 1, I am a skinny guy, I can't carry much more than 10kg without feeling the strain. But with training (in Athletics), I can swim and run long distances, with some effort (Edge), I can turn in a good score in pull-ups.

For an example of a stat at 0 refer to Running Wild. Your character is not a hamster, a lemur or a cockroach.

Agreed about what you posted.



Did you just insinuate that Omenowkl's 1 yead old son is a hamster, lemur, cockroach or something similar?