Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hardened Armor - Drones & Spirits
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 2 2011, 03:50 PM) *
If he's got no magic, but buys up appropriate knowledge skills, why is that cheating? It works out exactly the same either way. The difference is that he'll be more effective, and thus fun to play, than a deliberately gimped character.


There you go again. There is nothing Gimped about playing a Concept. nyahnyah.gif
Yerameyahu
Cain, if he didn't burn out, he's not a burnout. Someone who had Magic (has an Awakened quality) and loses it is fundamentally different. If this example is no good for you, we can change the example. The point is that there are concepts that are inherently suboptimal. Another common example is 'Mr. No Augmentations, Drugs, or Magic'. (You also reiterated that 'more effective' = 'more fun', which is wrong.)

Draco18s, um, what? biggrin.gif Did you just say that a character bringing "only" 'contacts, knowledge, various skills, and anything else' to the table will raise eyebrows? You just described all characters.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 2 2011, 06:37 PM) *
Draco18s, um, what? biggrin.gif Did you just say that a character bringing "only" 'contacts, knowledge, various skills, and anything else' to the table will raise eyebrows? You just described all characters.


Minus the "other stuff" sarcastic.gif
Cain
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 2 2011, 01:57 PM) *
There you go again. There is nothing Gimped about playing a Concept. nyahnyah.gif

But there's nothing fun about it either, especially if the character turns into nothing but a dramacopter that drags everyone else down. Humans tend to define themselves by what they do; if someone asks the character: "What do you do?" and the truthful answer is: "Not much", how is that an interesting character to play?

QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 2 2011, 03:37 PM) *
Cain, if he didn't burn out, he's not a burnout. Someone who had Magic (has an Awakened quality) and loses it is fundamentally different. If this example is no good for you, we can change the example. The point is that there are concepts that are inherently suboptimal. Another common example is 'Mr. No Augmentations, Drugs, or Magic'. (You also reiterated that 'more effective' = 'more fun', which is wrong.)

You can lose Magic through addiction test failures, at the GM's discretion. If the character burned out because of drug abuse, you can reflect that in the starting stats and backstory. You know, *gasp* via roleplay? Your Mr. Nothing also isn't even a concept-- he's a stat block. A character concept is a combination of abilities and personality, and if he's got no abilities worth mentioning, how can that be fun?

Here's a game for you. Name any Shadowrun character concept (personality and abilities) and I'll show you how optimization will not only improve the character, but make it more fun to roleplay.
Yerameyahu
I know *how* you can burn out. I'm saying fluffing the fact that you used to have magic is cheating and lying if you *didn't* use to have magic. That's the whole point of the example: *burnout*.

I didn't say 'no abilities worth mentioning'. On the contrary, my whole point is that you can have abilities worth mentioning without being 'optimized'. And you continue to wrongly say that more numbers means more fun to play. There is no connection (positive or negative) between better numbers and more fun.

My point was never that you can't (partially) optimize any given character, but that some concepts (fun ones) are inherently suboptimal. Valuing 'survival' or 'usefulness' above everything else precludes many fun characters for no reason.

I don't understand why you keep ignoring what people say and just making up things they didn't say instead. No one is suggesting 'worthless' characters that 'drag everyone down'. We're talking about sub-optimal, but perfectly normal, real, and valid, characters.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 2 2011, 11:39 PM) *
But there's nothing fun about it either, especially if the character turns into nothing but a dramacopter that drags everyone else down. Humans tend to define themselves by what they do; if someone asks the character: "What do you do?" and the truthful answer is: "Not much", how is that an interesting character to play?


You must not play concepts very often then. I play them all the time, and I gave great fun. Ask any of my characters what they do and they can give you an answer. Since I NEVER couch it in DP's (in game), the mecahnics become irrelevant. It is a descriptive, and that is what I give you. Characters are not aware of their DP's. And I rarely tell the other players my DP either. Actions speak way more than DP's do. I have great fun with my characters.

QUOTE
You can lose Magic through addiction test failures, at the GM's discretion. If the character burned out because of drug abuse, you can reflect that in the starting stats and backstory. You know, *gasp* via roleplay? Your Mr. Nothing also isn't even a concept-- he's a stat block. A character concept is a combination of abilities and personality, and if he's got no abilities worth mentioning, how can that be fun?


Except that if you do not have the requisite, actual, background and active skills to reinforce your backstory, well, then you are not truly playing a burnout, are you? You are, in effect, cheating. You are obviously no longer playing a concept, but a collection of favorable numbers that you attempt to get to the highest point you can, backstory be damnned. If you are incapable of coming up with a concept, and then actually following through with it, why are you even asking if it is fun. If backstory, personality, and abilities do not mesh, how can the concept even work?

QUOTE
Here's a game for you. Name any Shadowrun character concept (personality and abilities) and I'll show you how optimization will not only improve the character, but make it more fun to roleplay.


So, now you know what kind of Fun I like too? Wow, you are truly amazing; and highly arrogant. Who are you to tell me what kind of fun I like? And believe me, I can improve my character's just fine, without having to optimize or hyper-specialize. Just amazing...
KarmaInferno
There is, in fact, a difference between "useless", "adequate", and "hyperoptimized"

It's not like there's a binary switch that flips between only "can't accomplish anything" and "super-min-maxed demigod".




-k

who actually plays super min-maxed demigods much of the time, but appreciates other play styles
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Nov 3 2011, 08:43 AM) *
There is, in fact, a difference between "useless", "adequate", and "hyperoptimized"

It's not like there's a binary switch that flips between only "can't accomplish anything" and "super-min-maxed demigod".

-k


QUOTE (Yerameyahu)
No one is suggesting 'worthless' characters that 'drag everyone down'. We're talking about sub-optimal, but perfectly normal, real, and valid, characters.



Thank You KarmaInferno and Yerameyahu. This cannot be said often enough...
Cain
QUOTE
I know *how* you can burn out. I'm saying fluffing the fact that you used to have magic is cheating and lying if you *didn't* use to have magic. That's the whole point of the example: *burnout*.

Is it cheating when a character says "I used to be a cop" when he's starting out? I mean, technically he never was a cop; the character only really existed at the start of the game. cyber.gif It all amount to the same thing: Backstory and roleplay. If you had magic, but lost it during your backstory, it's just color and direction.

QUOTE
I didn't say 'no abilities worth mentioning'. On the contrary, my whole point is that you can have abilities worth mentioning without being 'optimized'. And you continue to wrongly say that more numbers means more fun to play. There is no connection (positive or negative) between better numbers and more fun.

You're missing my point. By fixing your concepts, I'm not making them hyper-optimized. But I am 'optimizing' them, so they do something well. If you can't do anything well (not optimized), then it's not fun to play. If you can do something well, you're min/maxed and optimized to some degree. There is nothing wrong with optimizing a character-- in fact, since it involves a greater player investment, min.maxed characters are often more fun to play.

Now, hyperoptimized one-trick-ponies? Those can get annoying. But that depends on the game.

QUOTE
My point was never that you can't (partially) optimize any given character, but that some concepts (fun ones) are inherently suboptimal.

Name a few, then. Burnout mage is disproven, see below. Mr. No-nothing? That's not a concept, that's a stat block, give me something to work with. (Although I can see a starting character who not only hates magic and augmentation, but doesn't even realize he's an initiated adept. That would actually be more fun.)

QUOTE
You must not play concepts very often then.

In fact, I never play concepts. I play *characters*. Fully fleshed-out and realized concepts, who take on a life of their own and are fun for everybody.

QUOTE
Except that if you do not have the requisite, actual, background and active skills to reinforce your backstory, well, then you are not truly playing a burnout, are you? You are, in effect, cheating. You are obviously no longer playing a concept, but a collection of favorable numbers that you attempt to get to the highest point you can, backstory be damnned. If you are incapable of coming up with a concept, and then actually following through with it, why are you even asking if it is fun. If backstory, personality, and abilities do not mesh, how can the concept even work?

Who says I don't? Given that you can't take any active Awakened skills unless you have Magic, you can't start a burnout with any of those skills... but you could invest heavily in magical Knowledge skills. You could also have a ton of magical contacts (representing people who trained you magically, and take pity on you) and otherwise gear yourself up as a burnout. Making a burnout with magical Active skills *is* cheating.

See? Not only does backstory, personality, and abilities mesh, you've now got more points for abilities, making him more capable and fun to play with.
Yerameyahu
A cop is totally different from an Awakened character, and a burnout. For one thing, cops don't know anything to start with. wink.gif

Mr.-Pure isn't my concept (and I didn't say it was a complete character), but it's an aspect of character concepts I've seen here before.

… How could a character not know he's an initiated adept? Crazy.

QUOTE
"If you can't do anything well (not optimized), then it's not fun to play." "… making him more capable and fun to play with."
Nope. Fun has nothing to do with 'usefulness'. However, I still don't understand why you're mentioning this at all. I already said, "My point was never that you can't (partially) optimize any given character". There's no question at all of 'fixing', 'hyper-optimizing', or anything even vaguely like that. My point is that some character concepts are inherently less powerful than others, which has zero bearing on being fun. T

Let's re-refocus:
QUOTE (Yera)
My position is that, no, survival and usefulness are *not* reasons (not primary ones, anyway).
That's the only thing I'm talking about. They asked 'why would you ever play a character who's not super-powerful?' That's not even 'the best version of himself', it's 'why isn't everyone a pornomancer [or other 'super build']?'
Cain
QUOTE
My point is that some character concepts are inherently less powerful than others, which has zero bearing on being fun.

No, but it's easier. If you hand the players characters without strong points and weak points, there's much less to build a personality on. You need those strong and weak points, because every human has them. Shadowrunners, being somewhat larger than life, need bigger ones. At any event, if your character isn't strong enough at something to be useful to a Shadowrun team, why are they there?

QUOTE
That's the only thing I'm talking about. They asked 'why would you ever play a character who's not super-powerful?' That's not even 'the best version of himself', it's 'why isn't everyone a pornomancer [or other 'super build']?'

Please note, you're the one discussing super-builds. I'm talking about strong builds, not "leaping over a tall building in a single bound" builds. And strong builds are inherently more fun that weak ones, because they can do more and accomplish their goals. Even suboptimal "concepts" can be made into strong builds, as my twist on the burnout mage shows. Or Mr. Nothing; if he hates magic and swears to hunt down everything magical and destroy it, while unknowingly being an initiated adept with masking, *that*'s a fun concept.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 3 2011, 04:04 PM) *
Please note, you're the one discussing super-builds. I'm talking about strong builds, not "leaping over a tall building in a single bound" builds. And strong builds are inherently more fun that weak ones, because they can do more and accomplish their goals. Even suboptimal "concepts" can be made into strong builds, as my twist on the burnout mage shows. Or Mr. Nothing; if he hates magic and swears to hunt down everything magical and destroy it, while unknowingly being an initiated adept with masking, *that*'s a fun concept.


You cannot "unknowingly" initiate... It takes focus and effort, which does not coincide with the "unknowingly" that you posit.
And nope, NOT a fun concept. Not for me anyways... smile.gif
Cain
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 3 2011, 03:07 PM) *
You cannot "unknowingly" initiate... It takes focus and effort, which does not coincide with the "unknowlingly" that you posit.
And nope, NOT a fun concept. Not for me anyways... smile.gif

Oh yes you can. First recorded instance was in Shadowbeat, an athlete who turned out to have multiple initiate grades without knowing it.

And it's only not fun if your into sour grapes. A magic-hater who doesn't know he's magical? Fun on a bun..cool.gif
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 3 2011, 03:38 PM) *
Oh yes you can. First recorded instance was in Shadowbeat, an athlete who turned out to have multiple initiate grades without knowing it.

And it's only not fun if your into sour grapes. A magic-hater who doesn't know he's magical? Fun on a bun..cool.gif


From what I know, that is the Only recorded Instance. Could be more, maybe, but not likely. And my guess is he tells people that to divert them. See, even you believed it. smile.gif

It has nothing to do with sour grapes. I do not like the concept, so it would be no fun for me. See how that works. You cannot dictate what is fun for others. wobble.gif
Yerameyahu
Cain, that's the question I was responding to all along. If it's not what you're talking about, then you're not talking to me. smile.gif Draco18s and Neraph asked 'why play if you're not powerful?' or possibly 'why not be powerful (given you can)?'.

That's a *different* fun concept, which is fine (AFAIK, though, you can't *currently* initiate accidentally, but I don't particularly care either way smile.gif ). As I said, there are lots of powerful (fun) concepts, and lots of not-powerful (fun) concepts.
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 3 2011, 05:41 PM) *
Cain, that's the question I was responding to all along. If it's not what you're talking about, then you're not talking to me. smile.gif Draco18s and Neraph asked 'why play if you're not powerful?' or possibly 'why not be powerful (given you can)?'.

That's a *different* fun concept, which is fine (AFAIK, though, you can't *currently* initiate accidentally, but I don't particularly care either way smile.gif ). As I said, there are lots of powerful (fun) concepts, and lots of not-powerful (fun) concepts.

You're talking super-builds, they're talking powerful builds. There's a huge difference there. You can be an effective Face without being a Pornomancer, for example. And before we start quibbling over what counts as "powerful" and what counts as "super", the point is that a Shadowrun character needs to be good at something. If he's not effective somewhere, without anything worth contributing to the team, it's no fun for anyone.

Even your "non-powerful" concepts can be more fun if they can actually accomplish something, which means they're capable in some area.

Also: there's at least two cases of people initiating without knowing it from SR1: the guy I mentioned and Sam Verner. Additionally, all SR4.5 says is that it requires preparation and karma expenditure, not deliberate magical effort. Things like building your own sword, going on a walkabout, crafting your own lucky charm/religious icon, and so on, can all count. You can even do an Ordeal "accidentally", the magic-hunter "Mr. Nothing" might take on a hive of bug spirits, and earn a Deed. Even though TJ wouldn't play the concept, he has to admit it's interesting, and therefore fun for the right player. The only difference is, it's not deliberately gimped, and much more fun with a more interesting hook for the GM.
Yerameyahu
That's not the case. Draco18s said 'why would you ever play someone who can summon F3 spirits when you could just make one who can summon F6 all day long?'. Neraph said "it's fairly easy to build a character with 400 BP that matches or exceeds the capabilities of some of the most powerful NPCs depicted in the setting," and followed with the assertion that you therefore *should*. That's them talking 'super', not me. I'm not even talking powerful.

I lost count how many times I've said this about non-optimal characters: they *are* good for something. They *are* effective somewhere. They *are* contributing something. They *are* capable in some area. What they're *not* is 'optimal'.

It's a fine concept, if irrelevant. smile.gif I was just surprised by the idea that they wouldn't be aware.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 3 2011, 10:57 PM) *
Neraph said "it's fairly easy to build a character with 400 BP that matches or exceeds the capabilities of some of the most powerful NPCs depicted in the setting,"


If by "easy" you mean "accidentally" then yes.

From my understanding, it's actually really hard to build a 400 BP character to be "less effective/useful/whatever" than a setting NPC.
Yerameyahu
*shrug*. When he says "the most powerful NPCs depicted in the setting", I give him the benefit of the doubt that's meant to be something relatively powerful. If he actually meant, 'all NPCs are crap', then I don't understand his statement at all.

Your sentiment seemed clear, as well: 'why be okay at magic (F3 spirits are very handy) when you could instead be awesome?' If I'm mis-stating your position, tell me. The way I read it (along with your following comments), you were saying that F3 spirits (or any character of that power level) is useless (by vice of not being optimal).

My constant point has simply been that F3-spirit-summoner (or equivalent) is not worthless, unfun, dragging the team down, etc., especially given that there are different power levels, amounts of combat, or other group/table variations. Cain distracted me into the subpoint that power is totally unrelated to fun, but it's really all the same. smile.gif
3278
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 4 2011, 04:52 AM) *
...the point is that a Shadowrun character needs to be good at something. If he's not effective somewhere, without anything worth contributing to the team, it's no fun for anyone.

It's no fun for you, and perhaps no fun for persons of your acquaintance. There are other people, however, who enjoy things which differ from the things you enjoy; for those people, it's possible to play a non-optimal, sub-optimal, or even downright useless character, and enjoy it as much or more than a more "effective" character. In fact, many players find it's the incapabilities, or "flaws," of a character which make it interesting or memorable. One of my most popular characters was the the Street Kid contact; I daresay he was less-than optimal, and he was fun for myself and the others at my table. The very fact that there are people in this thread saying, "I play sub-optimal characters and they're just as fun," should indicate that not everyone's experiences match your own; or are you under the impression you know what's fun for them better than they do?

Shadowrun's a big game, and it's played by an incredibly wide variety of people. It's great that you share your experiences at the table with other people; that's the reason forums like this exist. But it's a lot less helpful, and often completely unreasonable, to make absolutist statements like, "it's no fun for anyone," because while it might not be fun for you, or for persons in your experience, it's important to remember that the world is broader than our own experiences. Indeed, that's the purpose for sharing them at all.
Cain
QUOTE (3278 @ Nov 3 2011, 09:26 PM) *
It's no fun for you, and perhaps no fun for persons of your acquaintance. There are other people, however, who enjoy things which differ from the things you enjoy; for those people, it's possible to play a non-optimal, sub-optimal, or even downright useless character, and enjoy it as much or more than a more "effective" character. In fact, many players find it's the incapabilities, or "flaws," of a character which make it interesting or memorable. One of my most popular characters was the the Street Kid contact; I daresay he was less-than optimal, and he was fun for myself and the others at my table. The very fact that there are people in this thread saying, "I play sub-optimal characters and they're just as fun," should indicate that not everyone's experiences match your own; or are you under the impression you know what's fun for them better than they do?

Shadowrun's a big game, and it's played by an incredibly wide variety of people. It's great that you share your experiences at the table with other people; that's the reason forums like this exist. But it's a lot less helpful, and often completely unreasonable, to make absolutist statements like, "it's no fun for anyone," because while it might not be fun for you, or for persons in your experience, it's important to remember that the world is broader than our own experiences. Indeed, that's the purpose for sharing them at all.

I have yet to see someone who played a truly "suboptimal" character that wasn't also a dramacopter. All the character/player could do was drown the others into their personal drama, which might *sound* like fun, but really blows chunks in the long run.

What I see is people saying they play "suboptimal" characters when they really mean "not min/maxed to hell and back again". Those sort of characters can be fun. But a deliberately gimped character, not good for anything? Nope, sorry. There's nothing they can bring to the table except maybe roleplay, and that roleplay is only about themselves. The original "Mr. Nothing" concept is an example: no magic, no drugs, no augmentations, no nothing. In SR4.5, there's nothing he can do that someone else can't do a hell of a lot better. But if you bend the concept a little, you can both be effective and an interesting character.

I will acknowledge that a character's flaws are just as interesting as his strengths. Any good personality should have its highs and lows, that's part of what makes a character. But concept-wise, what's the difference between someone who can only summon Force 3 spirits, versus the guy who can summon force 6's? Without knowing anything else, the more powerful guy sure sounds a lot better, because that means he can do more. Now, there might be atradeoff somewhere, more effectiveness in some other area, but it's hard to say. There's nothing to be gained from gimping a character, and a whole lot to lose.
Yerameyahu
Ugh. So boring. Your personal experience is not evidence. Power does not equal fun; it doesn't even equal 'the ability to do more things'. I shouldn't have to tell you the character-concept difference between a mage that can summon F6 spirits 'all day long' and one who can only manage F3; those are totally different concepts, just by that interacting with the setting.

A character who *can* summon F6 'all day long' *is* "min/maxed to hell and back again". We *are* talking about 'super' being the only thing that's good enough… and you're on my side of that (original, central) argument. smile.gif

Even a 'deliberately useless' character (a weird edge case that other people brought up, I guess) is perfectly fine if it's fun for the group—this isn't impossible, unlikely, whatever. Bad roleplay is bad roleplay; it has nothing to with power. 'Drama' has nothing do to with power. Spotlight hogs are spotlight hogs, whether via mechanical power or 'just' roleplay.
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 3 2011, 09:25 PM) *
Ugh. So boring. Your personal experience is not evidence. Power does not equal fun; it doesn't even equal 'the ability to do more things'. I shouldn't have to tell you the character-concept difference between a mage that can summon F6 spirits 'all day long' and one who can only manage F3; those are totally different concepts, just by that interacting with the setting.

A character who *can* summon F6 'all day long' *is* "min/maxed to hell and back again". We *are* talking about 'super' being the only thing that's good enough… and you're on my side of that (original, central) argument. smile.gif

Even a 'deliberately useless' character (a weird edge case that other people brought up, I guess) is perfectly fine if it's fun for the group—this isn't impossible, unlikely, whatever. Bad roleplay is bad roleplay; it has nothing to with power. 'Drama' has nothing do to with power. Spotlight hogs are spotlight hogs, whether via mechanical power or 'just' roleplay.

Actually, the character that can summon Force 12 spirits all day long is min/maxed to hell and back again. Force 6 is powerful, but not game stopping. Force 12's? Insane, and I've seen it in enough different environments that I know it's not just me. Summoning a force 6 at little risk is easy to do, it doesn't require significant cheese. Force 12's, now.... nyahnyah.gif

Power does not equal fun, but the ability to accomplish your character's goals does. What's the fun in not being able to accomplish anything? And the ability to accomplish things is a form of power, although admittedly it's not the only one.

Deliberately gimped characters, however, are universally no fun. Not only can they not actually do anything, they tend to drag others down with them. It's not just that they're inept, (that can be comical) but that they can't be relied on for anything. Role-playing games are team play games; you always rely on the other characters. What's more, they might be "roleplay characters", but if they don't have the stats to back it up, *they're not even good at that*. A fast talking street waif with Charisma 1, Con 0, isn't going to be able to convince anyone to give him spare change, let alone be able to convince a guard he's harmless. The player is relying on roleplay cheese, using superior roleplay skills to get things he should have spent points on. That's at least as bad as relying on superior system mastery skills.
3278
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 4 2011, 04:55 AM) *
I have yet to see someone who played a truly "suboptimal" character that wasn't also a dramacopter.

Okay, sure, you have yet to see that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, right? I've never seen a black swan, but I hear they're real. Well, here's your black swan: several people in this thread have seen it, and while you can't see it for yourself until you play at our tables, surely the fact that several people are showing you pictures of their black swans means that you'll change your position from, "There are no black swans," to, "I've never personally seen a black swan, but I've heard they're real." Right?

QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 4 2011, 04:55 AM) *
Without knowing anything else, the more powerful guy sure sounds a lot better, because that means he can do more.

This, by the way, is the initial assumption from which you're operating that is incorrect, and on which your other incorrect views are based. You're taking as a given that everyone equates "can do more" with "better," and many, many groups and individuals don't agree with this initial assumption. It's totally cool if you feel this way - I think a lot of people do - but other people feel differently; you probably want to avoid assuming your own experiences are universal, as a general rule, in roleplaying as elsewhere.
Yerameyahu
Cain. The theoretical character *can* accomplish something. Read that again. Stop arguing that he can't, and therefore isn't fun.

The elf example is a character whose stats don't fit his concept, so he's automatically bad and disqualified. The same goes for characters whose stats are too *high* for their concept.

F12-summoner would be even worse (if it's even a possibility), but someone who can consistently never take drain from F6's is plenty super, and they're plenty game-breaking.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 4 2011, 12:25 AM) *
Ugh. So boring. Your personal experience is not evidence. Power does not equal fun; it doesn't even equal 'the ability to do more things'. I shouldn't have to tell you the character-concept difference between a mage that can summon F6 spirits 'all day long' and one who can only manage F3; those are totally different concepts, just by that interacting with the setting.


F3 spirits can be useful, but personally F4 is right at the cusp of risk/reward for the most part. They're sturdy enough to have in a fight, but low force enough to be summonable with multiple services and generally doable without supercheese.

But I've had a character that could realistically only get services out of a F3 or lower spirit and looked at the possibilities and gone, "Ehhh...can't really justify it for the benefit." Concealment is awesome. Concealment at F2 is not awesome when you're trying to hide the Not Stealthy people and the stealth monkey doesn't need it.

Spirits have an exponential growth in power, so even being able to summon F4s over F3s is roughly "twice" as good, and doing that only takes tweaking.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 4 2011, 04:01 AM) *
Deliberately gimped characters, however, are universally no fun. Not only can they not actually do anything, they tend to drag others down with them. It's not just that they're inept, (that can be comical) but that they can't be relied on for anything. Role-playing games are team play games; you always rely on the other characters. What's more, they might be "roleplay characters", but if they don't have the stats to back it up, *they're not even good at that*. A fast talking street waif with Charisma 1, Con 0, isn't going to be able to convince anyone to give him spare change, let alone be able to convince a guard he's harmless. The player is relying on roleplay cheese, using superior roleplay skills to get things he should have spent points on. That's at least as bad as relying on superior system mastery skills.

Here's the problem, Cain.

Nobody on the other side of the argument is really talking about such completely useless characters.

The argument started off as "why would you not take maximum power on every character"?

The response was "Not every character needs to be Max Power, Joe Normal can be fun too."

No real mention was made about Bob Incompetent.


-k
Yerameyahu
Certainly. I don't think anyone's denying that higher force is a huge increase in power; in fact, my point *is* that Mr.-F6 (all day long) is so vastly above Mr.-F3. A person who can summon those F6 is a totally different character.

In (re-re-re-)summary:
• F3 spirits are useful (non-zero usefulness)
• a character who brings F3 spirits is therefore useful
• a character who brings F3 spirits is a different (but useful) character from Mr.-F6
• Mr.-F3 can't be replaced by an identical-but-more-powerful (an inherent contradiction) character, Mr.-F6
• both are fine, fun, fitting, etc., depending on the game/table/group

I honestly can't see why any of this would be controversial. Notice there's nothing about 'bad players being good', 'worthless characters (another inherent contradiction) being good', or 'winning'.
3278
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Nov 4 2011, 03:54 PM) *
Nobody on the other side of the argument is really talking about such completely useless characters.

Although in my experience, characters can still be comparatively pretty useless and still be pretty fun. For one thing, from a "winning" perspective, a good player can take a "man off the street" character - someone with all average attributes and no combat skills - and easily be as "powerful" as a bad player with a normal Shadowrun character.

That's not really my cup of tea, personally; I'm not really interested in "winning" with my characters. We recently started playing SR4 again after an extended break, and we made some really ineffective characters to start with. I really enjoyed playing them. Sometimes, we didn't succeed at things we intended to do; that was fun. Sometimes, we got injured when we didn't expect to; that was fun. Sometimes, things went horribly wrong and had long-term consequences for our characters; that was fun.

On a personal level, my character - a homeless, unemployed UCAS veteran whose shelter coordinator gets him "work" with a local fixer - is interesting to play, in large part because of the things he can't do. I didn't have to make a guy who lived on the streets; I could have taken some Allergy and given myself the points to give him an optimized lifestyle, and then he'd be able to do certain runs a lot more easily. But I'm not really interested in easy. There's not very much challenge in that, and the level of interesting human drama is much lower, as well. A character failing is compelling to me; a character just kicking ass and stopping briefly to pose heroically is not.

Ultimately, because the GM can tailor the challenge level to the capabilities of the characters, this is really a question about how challenging the game should be, isn't it? Or is it a question of relative "power level" within a group?
Yerameyahu
I'm saying that 'ineffective' or 'failing' characters are improperly labeled. If they're fun and animate (i.e., characters), they're not ineffective.
Cain
QUOTE
Nobody on the other side of the argument is really talking about such completely useless characters.

A character who can only summon Force 3 spirits is actually an impossibility without deliberate gimping. The best you could do is force 2 or 4, and force 2 spirits can't even have an optional power.

You guys are missing the point. You're complaining that super character's aren't any more fun than optimized characters, which may be the case. However, you're making the fallacy that this extends to all characters, which isn't. For example:

QUOTE
I'm saying that 'ineffective' or 'failing' characters are improperly labeled. If they're fun and animate (i.e., characters), they're not ineffective.


Is demonstratably untrue. Sure, such a character might seem fun at first, due to sheer force of personality; but the moment you rely on them for something, they can't come through. The street kid who says he knows everybody is a great concept; but when it turns out everybody he knows hates his guts, (lots of Notoriety, Enemies, Charisma 1 and no Contacts) is an unworkable character concept. Having a street kid who actually *does* know everybody (lots of low-level contacts, decent social skills) is a workable concept, and a street kid with solid social skills and lots of contacts might be a pretty decent face. In other words, as the character gets more powerful, it only gets better.

QUOTE
Although in my experience, characters can still be comparatively pretty useless and still be pretty fun. For one thing, from a "winning" perspective, a good player can take a "man off the street" character - someone with all average attributes and no combat skills - and easily be as "powerful" as a bad player with a normal Shadowrun character.

That depends on roleplay cheese. In some ways that's worse than stat cheese, because you can have both. Roleplay cheese is when someone uses roleplay so he doesn't have to face weaknesses in a character, or derive in-game benefits that other people had to pay for. I had a PC in my game with Uncouth and no Etiquette try and roleplay his way out of many situations with Japanese characters, using his personal knowledge of the culture and character background to carry him through. He got really upset when I made him roll at full penalties, or didn't let him roll at all. He thought that because he had written his backstory using his knowledge of "proper Japanese culture", he shouldn't be penalized for it... and he wouldn't have been, if he hadn't taken Uncouth on top of it. That character sheet eventually got completely rewritten for other reasons, but all boiling down to the fact that he was so ineffective, he was actually dragging down the other players with his frustration.
Paul
Nothing is more final on the internet than someone just saying "Not uh!"
3278
When several people are holding up pictures of black swans and dude's still saying they don't exist, I'm not really sure what to say.
Yerameyahu
Cain, what you posit as fact or inevitable truth makes no sense. First, I stipulated that the character is fun as part of the 'if' proposition… you can't say that the character I stipulated is fun isn't fun. smile.gif *If* the character is fun, *then* it's by definition not 'ineffective'.

'Deliberate gimping' is not at all the same thing as 'completely useless', so I don't understand why you're responding to the latter using the former. Even if it were true, just change the number to 2 or 4; same point. Your characterization of this 'street kid' concept is the same as the last straw man you set up: those stats don't match the concept, so you're not talking about the concept character at all. And then you repeat the other wrong idea that if 'decent kid' is good, then 'more powerful kid' is *better*. Illogical.

No one is claiming this: "You're complaining that super character's aren't any more fun than optimized characters". I'm saying that super (optimal) aren't more fun than *any* playable character; 'optimized' isn't even a meaningful concept.

The last bit sounds like you're just projecting bad experiences (again), because I didn't see anything implying that 'man off the street' was metagaming, cheesing, abusing anything. He just said that a 'normal'-stat character isn't a lump of dirt, but instead a human being who can do all kinds of things… things that are fun in an RPG.
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 4 2011, 11:07 AM) *
Cain, what you posit as fact or inevitable truth makes no sense. First, I stipulated that the character is fun as part of the 'if' proposition… you can't say that the character I stipulated is fun isn't fun. smile.gif *If* the character is fun, *then* it's by definition not 'ineffective'.

'Deliberate gimping' is not at all the same thing as 'completely useless', so I don't understand why you're responding to the latter using the former. Even if it were true, just change the number to 2 or 4; same point. Your characterization of this 'street kid' concept is the same as the last straw man you set up: those stats don't match the concept, so you're not talking about the concept character at all. And then you repeat the other wrong idea that if 'decent kid' is good, then 'more powerful kid' is *better*. Illogical.

No one is claiming this: "You're complaining that super character's aren't any more fun than optimized characters". I'm saying that super (optimal) aren't more fun than *any* playable character; 'optimized' isn't even a meaningful concept.

The last bit sounds like you're just projecting bad experiences (again), because I didn't see anything implying that 'man off the street' was metagaming, cheesing, abusing anything. He just said that a 'normal'-stat character isn't a lump of dirt, but instead a human being who can do all kinds of things… things that are fun in an RPG.

Making a character who isn't effective is "deliberately gimping" it, as your Mr. Nothing demonstrates. By playing an "inherently suboptimal" concept, you're deliberately making a less-effective character. Now, you can have fun with a character that isn't hyper-optimized, that much is true. But if you've got a character who can't even do one role as well as the other characters. So, mechanically speaking, it is less fun, especially for the other characters who have to cover your weak spots.

So, what's the gain of the suboptimal character? Power, defined as the ability to accomplish things? He doesn't have that. Roleplay? That depends more on the player, and you can actually make the concept more interesting by making it more effective.
Yerameyahu
There *is* no character who isn't effective, (not my) Mr. Nothing isn't ineffective, and *again*, 'deliberately gimping' (an incredibly ugly phrase) is not the same as 'completely useless' or 'ineffective'.

And you're assuming the other characters are all better, though I've repeatedly said it depend on the group, game, and power level. There is no such thing as 'mechanically speaking less fun', especially if the other characters enjoy covering your weak spots.

Who said there was a gain? And no, there is absolutely no relationship between interesting and effective.

Though it's fully obvious, I'll point out anyway that these characters don't have to be extreme. Playing an over-the-hill version of (almost) any character is going to be 'weaker' than the 26 year old version of that character, but 26 is not an option, because the concept is an old guy. Changing the concept to 'old guy with cyber' is *changing the concept*, which shouldn't be done in service of a few +DP.

And this is completely commonplace and normal. Playing nearly anything that's blind is weaker than not doing that, and we know the BP gain is minor. Basically every Neg Qual is a 'mistake' (or cheesy loophole abuse), but if that's who the character is, that's who the character is. It doesn't make them less fun, or ineffective/useless/whatever. Taking away part of the finished character won't make them more fun.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 5 2011, 02:07 AM) *
mechanically speaking, it is less fun

This statement hurts my brain.



-k
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 4 2011, 10:10 PM) *
There *is* no character who isn't effective, (not my) Mr. Nothing isn't ineffective, and *again*, 'deliberately gimping' (an incredibly ugly phrase) is not the same as 'completely useless' or 'ineffective'.

And you're assuming the other characters are all better, though I've repeatedly said it depend on the group, game, and power level. There is no such thing as 'mechanically speaking less fun', especially if the other characters enjoy covering your weak spots.

Who said there was a gain? And no, there is absolutely no relationship between interesting and effective.

Though it's fully obvious, I'll point out anyway that these characters don't have to be extreme. Playing an over-the-hill version of (almost) any character is going to be 'weaker' than the 26 year old version of that character, but 26 is not an option, because the concept is an old guy. Changing the concept to 'old guy with cyber' is *changing the concept*, which shouldn't be done in service of a few +DP.

And this is completely commonplace and normal. Playing nearly anything that's blind is weaker than not doing that, and we know the BP gain is minor. Basically every Neg Qual is a 'mistake' (or cheesy loophole abuse), but if that's who the character is, that's who the character is. It doesn't make them less fun, or ineffective/useless/whatever. Taking away part of the finished character won't make them more fun.


Let me get this straight. If you have a character who can't actually do anything well, has no real ability to reach his goals, you find that *fun*? I really think you're mis-stating something.

Characters are comprised of two parts: roleplay and stats. Deficiencies in either make the character less fun. That's just a given. And relying on one to make up for the other is a form of cheating. The pornomancer who never roleplays out a scene, only rolling dice, is just as bad as the Uncouth character who delivers flowery speeches and demands circumstance bonuses (or worse, a free pass because his roleplay was good).
KarmaInferno
Again, Cain, where are you getting that anyone (besides you) is discussing completely useless characters?

Even in the post you quoted by Y, he opens with "and *again*, 'deliberately gimping' (an incredibly ugly phrase) is not the same as 'completely useless' or 'ineffective'."

The discussion was about "less optimal vs more optimal" not "useless vs useful".




-k
Yerameyahu
QUOTE
a character who can't actually do anything well, has no real ability to reach his goals
Nope, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly said the opposite of this.

You haven't only been saying that 'deficiencies in stats make the character less fun' (already false). You've been saying that better stats make the character more fun (also false).
3278
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 5 2011, 01:40 PM) *
Characters are comprised of two parts: roleplay and stats. Deficiencies in either make the character less fun. That's just a given.

It's not a given. You're assuming the part of the issue that's being questioned, and thus not grasping the fact that people have "fun" in different ways.
Irion
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Nov 5 2011, 03:07 PM) *
Again, Cain, where are you getting that anyone (besides you) is discussing completely useless characters?

Even in the post you quoted by Y, he opens with "and *again*, 'deliberately gimping' (an incredibly ugly phrase) is not the same as 'completely useless' or 'ineffective'."

The discussion was about "less optimal vs more optimal" not "useless vs useful".




-k

On a side note, it is quite hard to end up with a completly useless character in the first place. Using Karma-Gen I would go so far and tell you, that it is outright impossible unless intended badly.


I suspect Cain is along the line of Shadowrun-Diabolo, where the characters have to be skilled precicely to get the maximum synergie to survive in (I guess) combat.
The other extreme in video games would be Fallout 1/2. There going all combat helps you shit in the end. You still have a good chance of getting killed while the other guy just needs to make a simple negotiation test to get an even better effect. And in RPGs my impression is, that this is (having a good GM) even more that way.

I remember multible times where using one skill at the right moment was faster, easier and more rewarding than going into combat.

And with all the security equipment in shadowrun even the elven stripper with only muscle toner and low dicepools in firearms might easy get a job done, where the heavy cybered, special Agent Counterpart is failing.
Remembers me of the comic Order of the stick. Where the linear guild is shown as beeing the better "powergamers" but are still loosing all the time.
Paul
I think Cain just likes to argue and would rather have the moderators close this thread than just say, "Hey maybe you're right. Other people have fun in different ways than I do." But then that kind of makes him a lot like a lot of posters on this board. Which why these sorts of threads end up with 500 replies, and the threads asking for story ideas end up with 60 or so.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 5 2011, 07:40 AM) *
Let me get this straight. If you have a character who can't actually do anything well, has no real ability to reach his goals, you find that *fun*? I really think you're mis-stating something.


The problem is that your definition of "Can't actually do anything Well" is completely different than most, if not all, of Dumpshockers. It definitely is not the definition that I (or the tables that I have gamed at) currently use. I really think that you are OVERSTATING something. Maybe for you, 10 dice is incompetant and useless, but not for me, and I would bet not for a lot of others.

QUOTE
Characters are comprised of two parts: roleplay and stats. Deficiencies in either make the character less fun. That's just a given. And relying on one to make up for the other is a form of cheating. The pornomancer who never roleplays out a scene, only rolling dice, is just as bad as the Uncouth character who delivers flowery speeches and demands circumstance bonuses (or worse, a free pass because his roleplay was good).


Yes, they are, and if the Stats do not match the Concept, then something is wrong. If the character concept matches the stats given, how can you stand there (or sit there) and tell me the character is no fun. And no, obvisoulsy what you see as "Deficiencies" are not what others see. Stats do not equate to "Fun." It is how you translate the stats on the sheet into a living, breathing character that makes it fun. The mechanics have absolutely no say in how fun the character is. As others have said, the only one who has even mentioned "completely uselsess characters" is you.

Yes, A Magician (I will use this one as you have come back to it often enough) with a Magic of 3 is likely less powerful (note that I said powerful and not effective) than a Magician with a Magic of 6. This is common sense, and no one refutes that. However, I have often seen the Magic 3 magician as being MORE USEFUL (again, not more powerful, you will note) than the Magic 6 Magician. Why? Because the lower powered one must often be more devious. He does not have the reliance upon the OMG Spells that a Magic 6 Character often comes to rely upon. For me, the Magician with magic of 3 is going to be MORE FUN to play than the Magician with a Magic of 6. Why? Because I will have to actually think, rather than just rely upon the power that Magic 6 Brings (And I cannot tell you how many times I have seen powerful mages do just that, in numerous games).

Again, 10 Dice is more than competant in anything that you want to accomplish as set forth in the game world; I see that as useful, and able to carry your own weight. Is 16 dice "Better?" Maybe, but it depends upon what your definition of "Better" is. There is absolutely no doubt that Magic 6 is More Powerful than a Magic of 3... But you have admitted that you like games where characters have 20+ Dice in their primaries. In this case, The 10 Dice character will be much less useful. That is not MY problem, nor is it the PROBLEM of the Game System. That is a Local table condition that you have imposed. Please do not assume that we all like your level of play.

And here is the point everyone else seems to be making, that you seem to be missing. More Powerful does not necessarily equate to More Fun. At least not at their tables (nor mine). What constitutes fun, for me at least, is a well executed concept, with an adherence to backstroy and character development. I could care less about having DP's at twice the level of the standard NPC's in the game just becasue I can do so, and so I do not strive to approach that, especially at character creation. Everyone approaches the game differently, and you seem to be forgtetting that...

Anyways, No worries... smile.gif
Irion
@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE
And here is the point everyone else seems to be making, that you seem to be missing. More Powerful does not necessarily equate to More Fun.

Unless we are talking about some uber statistic like magic (or even Force or Edge with free spirits) it is not that obvious what "powerful" even means.

There are two extrems of running a game:
First: Dungeoncrawl style
Second: Adventure Style.
The Dungeoncrawl style is very common in some older computer games, which involve a party with which you run over the map. Every skill of every party member is usable all the time. So it is important to have some extreamly high skills for each character, some defancive skills and everything else would be a waste.

The Adventure style means that a certain character has to perform a certain action at a certain point.
Leading to a main field of expertice in one and low to medium knowledge in many.

For the mage the best example is a situation with BC.
If you are dealing with BC 6 it does not matter if you had magic 6, a spellcasting focus 5 and a powerfocus 4 or just magic 3. It is gone now.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 5 2011, 10:35 AM) *
@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Unless we are talking about some uber statistic like magic (or even Force or Edge with free spirits) it is not that obvious what "powerful" even means.

There are two extrems of running a game:
First: Dungeoncrawl style
Second: Adventure Style.
The Dungeoncrawl style is very common in some older computer games, which involve a party with which you run over the map. Every skill of every party member is usable all the time. So it is important to have some extreamly high skills for each character, some defancive skills and everything else would be a waste.

The Adventure style means that a certain character has to perform a certain action at a certain point.
Leading to a main field of expertice in one and low to medium knowledge in many.

For the mage the best example is a situation with BC.
If you are dealing with BC 6 it does not matter if you had magic 6, a spellcasting focus 5 and a powerfocus 4 or just magic 3. It is gone now.


Except that Cain contends that Power is synonomous with Fun, a stance that I do not hold to... If you Have issues with that, talk to Cain.
Cain
QUOTE
The problem is that your definition of "Can't actually do anything Well" is completely different than most, if not all, of Dumpshockers. It definitely is not the definition that I (or the tables that I have gamed at) currently use. I really think that you are OVERSTATING something. Maybe for you, 10 dice is incompetant and useless, but not for me, and I would bet not for a lot of others.

I actually haven't given a specific dice pool range. The problem is, however, that if 10 dice is average and you have no pool over 10-ish dice, then you're a completely average character. Which in turn means you've got what's the least fun concept to play: a character with no strengths or flaws, and has nothing mechanical to connect to roleplay. So while the exact value of average varies from table to table, a sub-average character is not much fun, and a completely average character is usually worse. that pretty much means the most fun will be with an above-average character. Place whatever dice pool value on that you like, but I see everyone doing that with their characters.

QUOTE
Yes, A Magician (I will use this one as you have come back to it often enough) with a Magic of 3 is likely less powerful (note that I said powerful and not effective) than a Magician with a Magic of 6. This is common sense, and no one refutes that. However, I have often seen the Magic 3 magician as being MORE USEFUL (again, not more powerful, you will note) than the Magic 6 Magician. Why? Because the lower powered one must often be more devious. He does not have the reliance upon the OMG Spells that a Magic 6 Character often comes to rely upon. For me, the Magician with magic of 3 is going to be MORE FUN to play than the Magician with a Magic of 6. Why? Because I will have to actually think, rather than just rely upon the power that Magic 6 Brings (And I cannot tell you how many times I have seen powerful mages do just that, in numerous games).

Never once seen it. In fact, quite the opposite: the low-Magic characters I've sween comes from low-experience players at Missions games, who tries to be more useful by generalizing out his skills. So, instead of being good at one thing, he's average at a lot of things. The Magic 6 character, using the SR4.5 system, can easily come out within a die or two in the other skill areas, and still be better at magic. This is true for all specialists: it's easy to give a character a focus, and not be gimped elsewhere. It's also easy to lose focus of a character, in an attempt to be useful.

Characters without focal points are definitely less fun to play. That's just a core concept of roleplaying.
QUOTE
And here is the point everyone else seems to be making, that you seem to be missing. More Powerful does not necessarily equate to More Fun. At least not at their tables (nor mine). What constitutes fun, for me at least, is a well executed concept, with an adherence to backstroy and character development. I could care less about having DP's at twice the level of the standard NPC's in the game just becasue I can do so, and so I do not strive to approach that, especially at character creation. Everyone approaches the game differently, and you seem to be forgtetting that...

I'm not saying that more powerful = more fun. I'm saying that deliberately weak = less fun. See the difference?

If you want to play a face, and you've got good social dice pools (whatever those might be for your table) that's fine. If you want to play a pornomancer, that can be fine as well, if your table can handle it. But if you want to play a face with Cha 1 and Uncouth, because it's a "role playing challenge", you're asking for a whole lot of no fun for everyone. Even less extreme, if you build a face who doesn't have noticeably better social dice pools than the rest of the party, you're still asking for no fun. (And despite what KarmaInferno says, it's all too easy to gimp a character like that, even under karmagen.)
Yerameyahu
QUOTE
a sub-average character is not much fun, and a completely average character is usually worse. that pretty much means the most fun will be with an above-average character.
This is mere opinion.
QUOTE
Characters without focal points are definitely less fun to play
'Focal points' doesn't equal 'powerful areas'.
QUOTE
I'm not saying that more powerful = more fun. I'm saying that deliberately weak = less fun. See the difference?
In fact, you specifically said more powerful was more fun several times.
QUOTE
But if you want to play a face with Cha 1 and Uncouth
Then you're not a face, and the mechanics don't fit the concept.
QUOTE
if you build a face who doesn't have noticeably better social dice pools than the rest of the party, you're still asking for no fun.
Again, that's your bare opinion. It doesn't logically follow from anything.
Irion
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 5 2011, 07:13 PM) *
Except that Cain contends that Power is synonomous with Fun, a stance that I do not hold to... If you Have issues with that, talk to Cain.

Depends on how you like the game.
If you like to go with a smart plan against a superior opposstion, beeing more powerful, compared to the game world would kind of ruin your day, I guess.
If you like to just kick NPCs well, more power is always better...

@Cain
QUOTE
But if you want to play a face with Cha 1 and Uncouth, because it's a "role playing challenge", you're asking for a whole lot of no fun for everyone.

Depends on the group. This character can be, if played the right way, be a lot of fun and contribute to an evening everybody will remember.

Going at something with low statistics only armed with a big pair of balls/ignorance is mostly just hilarious, if you are a good actor...
And if you make it through a luck roll it is even better...
A Rincewind character played by a "good" roleplayer. Hell, the group will probably need to be transported to the hosptial because of injuries sustained by extensive laughing
Cain
QUOTE
'Focal points' doesn't equal 'powerful areas'.

No, it can mean both. But if all you've got is weak areas and no fun/strong areas, you're deliberately gimping a character.
QUOTE
In fact, you specifically said more powerful was more fun several times.

I've also clearly said that super powerful != super fun. However, less powerful does equal less fun, especially to the degrees we're discussing.
QUOTE
Then you're not a face, and the mechanics don't fit the concept.

I've seen in often enough in many different games. Because the player knows he can deliver powerful speeches, he ignores or outright dumps social skills and instead relies entirely on roleplay. Heck, I just had it happen. It's not that it doesn't fit the concept, it's that it's cheese and cheating.
QUOTE
Depends on the group. This character can be, if played the right way, be a lot of fun and contribute to an evening everybody will remember.

Going at something with low statistics only armed with a big pair of balls/ignorance is mostly just hilarious, if you are a good actor...
And if you make it through a luck roll it is even better...
A Rincewind character played by a "good" roleplayer. Hell, the group will probably need to be transported to the hosptial because of injuries sustained by extensive laughing

More often it's a recipe for disaster. Deliberately playing up your weak spots can be fun, but an inability to deliver when needed isn't fun at all. Rincewind doesn't pretend he's actually good at anything but running, so he gets away with it. But to be fair, in SR4.5 terms Rincewind would have an Edge of 12 and a Magic of -200, so he would be utterly helpless at magic but great in the pinch.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012