Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Flawed characters vs Perfect skill/gear sets
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
MortVent
I see a lot of people make their characters to be perfect, with all the right skills and gear when created.

Now I understand the logic, and do it myself at times. If the concept fits.

But how many will sit down and come up with a concept, then set up the character to fit it. Even if the character is not the perfect adept/gun bunneh/ hacker/ spell slinger/etc that they could be.

I've had characters with skills that fit, but actually do nothing for the 'role' they have in the group (a good example was a hacker with artisan(singing) 2(4) that always wanted to be a singer and was decent at it...but never got a chance to do more than amateur nights at the local clubs)

But I have seen a lot of posted characters on websites where it's "so and so was a corporate brat, and after the corp did such and such to mom and dad they ran" as a background. With a skill set that was more "So and so was trained from birth to be a company man with advanced skills in hacking, firearms, and equipped with the best gear money can buy before they went rogue"

Yerameyahu
So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' smile.gif This'll end well…
Ol' Scratch
That's pretty much the only way I make characters, and have for years and years now. My profile here has a few of their concepts jotted down.

I don't get the people who create exercises in number crunching, either. I mean, I'm no louse at building strong characters myself, but the ones I usually see posted are so damn boring. Even their Knowledge Skills -- the easiest place to slip some fun into a character -- are completely uninspired and matter-of-fact. It's really disappointing.

There are some areas where you have to put aside your concept in order to make the character playable. A character with a Body and Willpower of 1 isn't going to survive long at all, for instance, nor is one who completely lacks any Perception or Dodge skill. Fortunately, this can be accounted for by the fact that these characters aren't "1st level;" it's assumed they've done enough to build a small reputation and gain contacts in the shadows before the game even begins. This allows you to work in some of those vital game mechanics without ruining your core concept.

But, in my opinion anyway, you still need an interesting concept to make a character a character, and not just a bunch of numbers so you can "win" the game.
3278
QUOTE (MortVent @ Nov 18 2011, 01:35 AM) *
But how many will sit down and come up with a concept, then set up the character to fit it.

I don't make any other kind of character. My characters could all be a lot more "effective" in an objective way, but their background precludes it. But "power," or "efficacy" isn't what wins you props at our table, it's:

1. Thinking of a character, a "real" person who would exist in the game world,
2. Accurately rendering that character into stats, within the limitations the GM and players have established, and
3. Accurately portraying that character at the table.

Bonus points are given for being able to kick ass and get shit done, but it's not what earns respect. Anybody can make a character that kills people a bunch; we give praise to those who act accurately. Sometimes this means making decisions that the character would make that you wouldn't, even sometimes unto getting everyone else killed. That's cool. The ideal, though, is that you master both the game and the metagame, that you make characters who get shit done while still being charmingly flawed, that you play someone interestingly without impeding the progress of both the GM's game and the other stories being told by the other players with their characters. Roleplaying gets priority, but we give mad props when someone manages to fulfill the dictates of both.
stevebugge
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 17 2011, 04:48 PM) *
So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' smile.gif This'll end well…


Quite unfortunately we've seen this debate a few times and it usually isn't pretty. I come down in the camp of build interesting characters with sub-optimal builds and interesting personalities and quirks
MortVent
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 17 2011, 07:48 PM) *
So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' smile.gif This'll end well…


not exactly.

there is no cheating/metagaming issue or concern.

I'm more interested in knowing how people go about creating their characters.


I've played in games where we didn't do the character sheets, the GM and other players sat down and hashed them out based on our character premise and ideas. I've played in games where all the characters were 600bp prime runners with a bonus of 40 BP for fluff skills (to split between knowledge and active skills with a minimum of 16BP to each type). I've also done the make the best character at generation and then go from there games (filling in the background as we went with them being seasoned runners)

Yerameyahu
If the character's crunch is disconnected from their fluff (especially in the sense of optimized-vs.-'real'), that's what it means. Isn't that the definition of bad roleplaying and metagaming?

In any case, the obvious answer is that people don't (intentionally) do that. Everyone at least wants to pretend their character sheet matches their character concept, and that their concept is a good, 3D, non-boring-powerbuild one. smile.gif
Daylen
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 18 2011, 01:48 AM) *
So you're asking, 'do people roleplay, instead of cheating (=metagaming)?' smile.gif This'll end well…

It sounds more like "do people build a character around a back story or a back story around a character?"
Daylen
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 18 2011, 02:30 AM) *
If the character's crunch is disconnected from their fluff (especially in the sense of optimized-vs.-'real'), that's what it means. Isn't that the definition of bad roleplaying and metagaming?

In any case, the obvious answer is that people don't (intentionally) do that. Everyone at least wants to pretend their character sheet matches their character concept, and that their concept is a good, 3D, non-boring-powerbuild one. smile.gif

Its the sign of someone who doesn't really want to write a back ground.
Yerameyahu
I must have misread, then. I thought he said the backstory (the character) didn't *fit* the crunch (the character sheet). smile.gif

If it's just the simpler question of 'interesting character versus strong character', that's a different (and equally fraught, old) debate. The order doesn't matter, if your concept is 'perfect soldier'. (Just to be crystal clear, I *am* saying that it's a false dichotomy between 'roleplay' and 'power'; I think everyone knows this to be false, but I don't wanna get angry letters.)
Christian Lafay
Honestly I don't think it matters if you have the story or the stats first. As long as there is a good story eventually. Every the "I've abused Trust Fund and Advanced Lifestyles" character had a story to explain him. Metagaming and roleplay aren't binary.
Faraday
QUOTE (Christian Lafay @ Nov 17 2011, 05:49 PM) *
Honestly I don't think it matters if you have the story or the stats first. As long as there is a good story eventually. Every the "I've abused Trust Fund and Advanced Lifestyles" character had a story to explain him. Metagaming and roleplay aren't binary.

Basically this. I tend to look at what role(s) I want to be solid at and build numbers there. Then I flavor the character with additional skills/qualities/contacts as desired. Then, when all the numbers are down, I look at any holes in the story I've left, and try to fill them as needed or even leave them to be explained later. It makes for a fairly effective character that is fun to roleplay with a decent amount of wiggle room for working with the campaign's and other characters' stories.
Christian Lafay
Another thing, my GM has this great thing where every character has to take at least one active skill that has no foreseeable benefit for runs. My Trust Fund character has gotten quiet good at golf. Eventually had to buy a permit to drive balls off of his penthouse balcony.
Glyph
I like making characters with interesting personality quirks and an organic feel to their stats, but I generally start out with a concept, rough out what it needs, and then tweak it as needed as I detail the background out more. I don't think a flawed character is necessarily synonymous with good roleplaying - I do think that characters should make sense within the game universe. They should have skills that would be useful within a group of corporate espionage specialists, but they should also be characters who could have conceivably survived on their own before meeting the group. Skills should come in clusters of things that logically go together, without omissions that make no sense. That is, unless you are deliberately making the character limited in some way (a fighting machine who is manipulated by his fixer and others because he is naive, etc.).

Characters should match their concept, stat-wise. This is true of weak characters as well. An in-book example of a weak character that doesn't match its concept is the weapons specialist. The character in question is not a "literal martial artist". The flavor text would fit her better if she was described as an armorer who likes to play with her toys. Similarly, if your character is only rolling 11 dice for pistols after adding in his muscle toner and smartlink, that's cool, but don't describe him like he's an awesome gunslinger (unless it's from his POV and he overrates himself - that could actually be pretty interesting to see it play out).

I think cookie cutter characters are less interesting (although they can be useful the same way the archetypes can - for quick pickup games). But I still think character creation should involve lots of metagaming - not just for making an effective character, but for making a character that won't be too strong, too weak, or otherwise disruptive for the specific table. Characters are not freeform creative writing assignments. They are more focused creations. They are made not only to function within the parameters of the game world, but to function in conjunction with the creations of the other players.
Jet
Personally I like to do the backstory first then make up the character with BP. I have never used the Karma build system, but I heard it makes a slightly more organic character. In any case I like to make up my story then use the BP to bring the story to life. Sometimes I am too ambitious and have to prune away some things I originally wanted or adjust things, but generally I am able to get in the ballpark of what I was going for. My backstory keeps me on the path rather than looking for "effecient" combinations of skill and or gear. If it doesn't make sense for my guy to have something I think it is better to stay true to your backstory than compromise in favor of some extra dice.

I also recomment talking with your GM and other players to find a baseline for the game. A character that fits into the group and the world will be easier to write up if you know what you are looking for and at. It may save your GM some headaches later on by making sure that he doesn't have a bunch of square pegs for round holes.
Faraday
QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 17 2011, 07:05 PM) *
They are made not only to function within the parameters of the game world, but to function in conjunction with the creations of the other players.

This here. This is important right here.

It takes teamwork (between everyone involved) both in game and out of game to make for a good shadowrun. Without good communication, there can be no teamwork. Without teamwork, there can be no good outcome to ANY roleplaying game.
Tech_Rat
I've always found my fully optimized charcacters to be rather dull and flat. That said, I will build my character to be about 80% optimized. Pick a PQ that is hit or miss, and an NQ that hurts the character in a noticeable way. Maybe not severely, but noticeable. Picking about half of my knowskills to be completely random and fluffy, and one or two good actives[useful or not in the game], and play with them. I really like to break from the couch and table, roleplaying the character. That's where the fun is to be had.
Tech_Rat
Double Post. I blame the mages.
Irion
There are reasons standart Karma-Gen characters are always described as "more of a character" than BP based...

So well, if you use BP you will need to finde a compromise between character and playable.
You have to think about giving your Sam the influance group on 1 or some thing like that. Because if you do so, you start bleeding points fast.
Same thing with for example a mage or a hacker. It might fit to increase strength from 1 to 2 or get the athletic group at least at one.
But are already 20BP (For actually just 20 Karma...)
Compare that to increasing willpower from 4 to 5 and getting the summoning group from 3 to 4. It is probably more usefull and would have cost 45 Karma..
Faraday
Yeah, I really like karmagen. Optimizing in that system usually makes for pretty organic characters. Lots of skills at 1-2, several at 3-4. Attributes can look like something other than a bubbleheaded sex machine/mindless killing machine/idiot savant.
Daylen
I don't always start with a back story, or stats. What I start with is usually up to what is being played and what others make. Either way I will optimize my character 100% for what I want. I don't do unused stats "just for character". If I give a character max points in active skill singing, then I have a plan for how to make it useful either in prep for a run, during the run or somewhere else. If the outcome will never matter in game and its all fluff, then I WILL NOT put points in such an active skill, but I will use background skills for such fluff; that's what background skills are for. However, I do not usually make one trick ponies; that's an easy way to get a third of the pay I'm due and miss out on at least half the run. The guy who usually plays the face tries to scam the rest of the party out of most of the pay, so for those who can't keep up on face stuff or at least keep an eye out for such activities will loose out.
3278
QUOTE (Jet @ Nov 18 2011, 05:13 AM) *
In any case I like to make up my story then use the BP to bring the story to life. Sometimes I am too ambitious and have to prune away some things I originally wanted or adjust things, but generally I am able to get in the ballpark of what I was going for.

I think this process is a lot of fun. I use character generators, so I can easily flip things around, so it's trivial to design the character in my head, then just throw the numbers that fit that onto the sheet, and then see where I stand. If I have points left over, maybe I change the idea to add some new points expense [although sometimes I don't; usually I have some points left over when play starts]; if I've been over-ambitious, then I prune and whittle until I can fit within the table limits. Sometimes I'll spent 20 or 40 hours or more tweaking and adjusting, trying to serve the GM, the other players, myself, and the character, all as best I can.


QUOTE (Tech_Rat @ Nov 18 2011, 06:53 AM) *
Pick a PQ that is hit or miss, and an NQ that hurts the character in a noticeable way.

I often use Qualities as inspiration for character ideas - so I start there - but when I don't, I'll just go through the books one Quality at a time, and take any of those that apply to my character concept. Sometimes I end up with -80/+35 or something, but I have a very understanding GM who doesn't really concern himself deeply with "balance," at least partially because we work hard to make sure he doesn't have to.
The Jopp
I usually base a character from a concept. The concept can be Gear or Ability or Background.

When creating the character I never do number crunching to see how good they are at hitting things for example or a specific dicepool. I DO however numbercrunch Essence/Cash/Magic rating when combining Cyberware and such things to get an optimal build that is as close to my vision as possible.

I also like to add the odd skill somewhere that is related to their background.

For example, my exbaptist preacher turned Ghoul hve the knowledge skill "Rabble Rousing - Biblical" and a leader ship skill of "Leadership/Persuade" at 1/3.

It didnt stop me from giving him a signature tri-barreled shotgun with a plethora of awakened hunting ammunition and giving a damage equal to a panther assault cannon at times.
Patrick Goodman
I've never made an optimized, min-max character. Okay, I haven't since junior high. They're boring, and real people...at least the interesting ones...are flawed and not optimized. The characters you'll get from me (with the exception of Martin de Vries, and I did what I could with him) won't be number-crunched to within an inch of their lives.
Daylen
QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Nov 18 2011, 04:32 PM) *
I've never made an optimized, min-max character. Okay, I haven't since junior high. They're boring, and real people...at least the interesting ones...are flawed and not optimized. The characters you'll get from me (with the exception of Martin de Vries, and I did what I could with him) won't be number-crunched to within an inch of their lives.

...by flawed I are you referring to taking flaws for more BP? Those are usually fun.
thorya
I'm a min-maxer to the core. It's just so much fun to optimize things to the most possible. I will work out statistics, probabilities etc. But I realize that it does not make sense for most characters to be maxed and makes the game less fun for many people. So I try optimizing none optimal things. It makes for some very fun characters. In the other game, I had a character that had a 90 ft move speed, without flight or spells, a climb speed, and the ability to move through any terrain at full speed at level 8. Because I optimized to be able to move rather than doing damage. It can be really fun to optimize none optimal things. I've considered doing the same thing with Survival, Shadowing, and Tracking, just to see if I can. When your character is not just, "I can do the most damage mathematically possible" or "I can soak more damage than any weapon is capable of doing.", the backstory writes itself.
Fortinbras
The first thing I do when making a new character is try to make the most optimized, min-maxed character availibile. I scour as many books as I can, try to find rules loop-holes and roll some dice based on those numbers to make sure I have the most bad-ass, min-maxed optimized character possible.

I then put this character in a drawer and never use it.

Once I've gotten that out of my system, the knowledge that I can make a super bad-ass character, I rarely feel the need to anymore, and can then make whomever I want. For Shadowrun, I like use minors characters from the fiction. One of my favorites is Cal Reynolds, the ten year old from the beginning of Renraku Archology Shutdown.
Now I know that making that hacker character an adept hacker is the most optimal, but it doesn't fit that character at all, so I skip it. I don't need to make the world's best hacker, because I already have made the worlds best hacker. Time to see what else I can do. Time to see if I'm a good enough player to play a non-optimized character.
Sure, any schmuck can infiltrate an MCT Zero-Zone with a 800 BP min-maxer, but it takes someone really clever to be able to do it with a sample character from the book. Challenge makes the game fun. Being able to make an optimized character is a challenge. Playing one is not.

Besides, if I optimize my character to have 3 more dice, it only means the GM is going to make antagonists with 3 more dice, so optimizing is a zero sum game anyway; at least when it comes to actual play.
Most optimization is an exercise in theory and rarely makes it far on the game table. Either the game gets boring after a few sessions of shooting things and killing things(there are better games for this than Shadowrun) or they are characters that will never make it to the game table made by folks who pour over Shadowrun, but never actually play it.


In any event, the most interesting character in the game I run is one made from the "Occult Investigator" template from the base book. His lack of specialization forces him to come up with much more creative solutions to problems and in the last game, he's the only one who didn't get knocked or die.
Not dying is as optimal as it gets.
Irion
@thorya
I do not think minmaxing is the right word. Minmaxing in my opinion was always about getting those 10% more.
In the BP System it can be about getting 100%, 200% more.
Thats what kind of disturbs me.
Reminds me of vampire...
Yes, this dicipline on max level (be it 3, 5 or cool.gif is because I imagine my character like that... Oh, it is worth almost 5 times the points compared to splitting? Who would have thought that?

So optimizing can be fun, I will grant you that. But I have to say it is only fun for me, if there are no to obvious shortcuts...
Patrick Goodman
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 18 2011, 09:41 AM) *
QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Nov 18 2011, 09:32 AM) *

I've never made an optimized, min-max character. Okay, I haven't since junior high. They're boring, and real people...at least the interesting ones...are flawed and not optimized. The characters you'll get from me (with the exception of Martin de Vries, and I did what I could with him) won't be number-crunched to within an inch of their lives.

...by flawed I are you referring to taking flaws for more BP? Those are usually fun.

Occasionally. I usually try to balance any positive qualities with negative ones, at least partially, to regain some of those points, but that's not a guarantee either. It's just a quirk of mine.

By flawed, I mean not the best in the world at something even though, with a little tweaking, he could be. I'll spend knowledge skill points on "Soap Operas" or "Chick Flick Trids" even though it's utterly useless in-game, because the character in question likes a good two-box-of-tissues tearjerker...even though she can kick your ass with an overcast lightning spell and comes across, most of the time, as tough as nails.

It's not about statistical advantage for me, it's about coming up with a character who seems real, has some verisimilitude (which I seem to always misspell, so...).
Paul
I've always felt the rules are meant to serve the story, not the other way around. Obviously everyone's mileage will vary but at my table I like a good story. As I more often than not GM it's pretty easy for me to pull off. I'm flexible with my players-perhaps more so than I should be, but I'm a sucker for a good back story, plot hook or cool concept.

I like to give them what they want. You want a nuclear hand grenade? Go ahead, get one-as soon as you give me a reason why. How did come across it? Who did it come from? When did you get it? Do you realize you can't throw it further than it can kill you? It's a funny example I know, but a well thought out character concept is welcome to bend or break some rules at character creation. As long as it contributes to the fun.

People who think that "maxing out" (A hilarious, and definitely arbitrary term in my book.) their combat build would help them at my table are quickly dissuaded of that idea-because I guarantee I can play the opposition in a legitimate, and internally consistent fashion that will end up with you dead if I want it that way. This isn't a Tupac album, and the me against the world mentality-at my table-is counter productive in my opinion to everyone's fun. The good news is I don't want you dead. The game is no fun that way. I also rarely have that sort of problem. Most of my players have stories, ideas and concepts they want to explore.

Daylen
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Nov 18 2011, 04:30 PM) *
The first thing I do when making a new character is try to make the most optimized, min-maxed character availibile. I scour as many books as I can, try to find rules loop-holes and roll some dice based on those numbers to make sure I have the most bad-ass, min-maxed optimized character possible.

I then put this character in a drawer and never use it.

Once I've gotten that out of my system, the knowledge that I can make a super bad-ass character, I rarely feel the need to anymore, and can then make whomever I want. For Shadowrun, I like use minors characters from the fiction. One of my favorites is Cal Reynolds, the ten year old from the beginning of Renraku Archology Shutdown.
Now I know that making that hacker character an adept hacker is the most optimal, but it doesn't fit that character at all, so I skip it. I don't need to make the world's best hacker, because I already have made the worlds best hacker. Time to see what else I can do. Time to see if I'm a good enough player to play a non-optimized character.
Sure, any schmuck can infiltrate an MCT Zero-Zone with a 800 BP min-maxer, but it takes someone really clever to be able to do it with a sample character from the book. Challenge makes the game fun. Being able to make an optimized character is a challenge. Playing one is not.

Besides, if I optimize my character to have 3 more dice, it only means the GM is going to make antagonists with 3 more dice, so optimizing is a zero sum game anyway; at least when it comes to actual play.
Most optimization is an exercise in theory and rarely makes it far on the game table. Either the game gets boring after a few sessions of shooting things and killing things(there are better games for this than Shadowrun) or they are characters that will never make it to the game table made by folks who pour over Shadowrun, but never actually play it.


In any event, the most interesting character in the game I run is one made from the "Occult Investigator" template from the base book. His lack of specialization forces him to come up with much more creative solutions to problems and in the last game, he's the only one who didn't get knocked or die.
Not dying is as optimal as it gets.


You roll actual dice to min/max? Real Min/Maxers roll digital dice at least a million times to get a statistical curve of what will happen.

sorry, couldn't resist...
Daylen
If everyone builds characters that are just as powerful then yes having the best character at something yields no benefit, on the other hand if you are the only one that sucks, well its not the best. About the only way I've gotten away with having the suckiest char in the group is when playing with those who are not very good at tactics or finding the smartest solution.
Paul
Often as not the dope behind the weapon is the problem, not the dope on the weapon.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 18 2011, 04:25 PM) *
You roll actual dice to min/max? Real Min/Maxers roll digital dice at least a million times to get a statistical curve of what will happen.

sorry, couldn't resist...

Digital dice are inaccurate, as they tell little in the way in which I roll the dice.(i.e. how my hand curves, at which point I release, etc.)
All of these skew a proper statistical sampling of how a character will work for me as opposed to how it will work out mathematically, which is what statistical formulas are for. Rolling digital dice is just the lazy man's form of learning, and then calculating, a formula.
Paul
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Nov 18 2011, 11:30 AM) *
Besides, if I optimize my character to have 3 more dice, it only means the GM is going to make antagonists with 3 more dice, so optimizing is a zero sum game anyway; at least when it comes to actual play.

Most optimization is an exercise in theory and rarely makes it far on the game table. Either the game gets boring after a few sessions of shooting things and killing things(there are better games for this than Shadowrun) or they are characters that will never make it to the game table made by folks who pour over Shadowrun, but never actually play it.


If you're ever in town, you're welcome at my table.
Christian Lafay
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Nov 18 2011, 09:41 PM) *
Digital dice are inaccurate, as they tell little in the way in which I roll the dice.(i.e. how my hand curves, at which point I release, etc.)

As long as you don't "break the dam" with dice. Roll one die of your twenty die pool, and it gets a one. Take your second die and throw it at the first to get a better roll. Yes, I've seen it done.
Daylen
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Nov 18 2011, 09:41 PM) *
Digital dice are inaccurate, as they tell little in the way in which I roll the dice.(i.e. how my hand curves, at which point I release, etc.)
All of these skew a proper statistical sampling of how a character will work for me as opposed to how it will work out mathematically, which is what statistical formulas are for. Rolling digital dice is just the lazy man's form of learning, and then calculating, a formula.

It doesn't matter how YOU roll the dice, using a computer to do the dice yields a way to compare builds; plus if you are cheating its easy to correctly weight the simulation. Using Monte Carlo methods to create a model is one of the most used in modeling and will give the best results, engineers and scientists use these methods for a darn good reason, it works and its better than by hand.
thorya
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 18 2011, 04:12 PM) *
It doesn't matter how YOU roll the dice, using a computer to do the dice yields a way to compare builds; plus if you are cheating its easy to correctly weight the simulation. Using Monte Carlo methods to create a model is one of the most used in modeling and will give the best results, engineers and scientists use these methods for a darn good reason, it works and its better than by hand.


This might be true for some very complex systems, but Shadowrun is just a simple binomial distribution. It's not complicated to accurately calculate the probabilities for success for any combination of dice pools. I've got a couple excel sheets that I did this in when I first got into shadowrun. I don't really see the need for a Monte Carlo approach.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 18 2011, 05:12 PM) *
It doesn't matter how YOU roll the dice, using a computer to do the dice yields a way to compare builds; plus if you are cheating its easy to correctly weight the simulation. Using Monte Carlo methods to create a model is one of the most used in modeling and will give the best results, engineers and scientists use these methods for a darn good reason, it works and its better than by hand.

Using a computer model just gives me a statistical average, which is something I can do with pen and paper. I know my stat models, so I've no need of a random number generator.
It's less so in card counting, but in dice rolling it's numbers plugged into a formula. It's perfectly accurate on Earth at sea level, as it were, but I find I need a visceral comparison to dissuade doubt.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 18 2011, 04:48 PM) *
If you're ever in town, you're welcome at my table.

The same offer goes if you're ever in Fort Worth.
3278
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Nov 18 2011, 08:41 PM) *
Digital dice are inaccurate, as they tell little in the way in which I roll the dice.(i.e. how my hand curves, at which point I release, etc.)

You are making a joke here, right? Sometimes it's tough to tell.
toturi
I create characters from a core concept. It could be a game mechanic concept or a story concept.

Sometimes I read a set of rules that fills my powergaming soul with excitement, and I go about building a character using those rules. Some other times I get an character idea and off hand I can recall some rules that can make the character viable and then I go about building a character that is as close to the mental image I have of that character.

The first type of characters goes into my PC folder. The second goes into my NPC folder for when I GM.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (3278 @ Nov 18 2011, 09:09 PM) *
You are making a joke here, right? Sometimes it's tough to tell.

Yes. I'm being dryly facetious.
My point was that I try my absolute best(to the point of hilarious over-exertion) to make the most min/maxed character possible. I then never play that character, as creating it is a challenge. Playing it is boring.
It's a catharsis thing.
Falconer
I find it's hard to get away without doing some optimization. Also problematic is the disparities between the BP and karma system really punish you for trying to make a balanced character. (not doing things a certain way in chargen will result in heavy karma penalties later when you try and raise things). And when they wrote karmagen... they broke the system even worse.

This is doubly so because in shadowrun, it normally feels as if the characters barely have any room to develop themselves. They normally start at a high power level... and there isn't that much room for improvement. Lets face it, it's annoying to realize you're maxed out at say 7 ranks in unarmed (and only with MASSIVE BP expenditure on a oddball quality), while realizing that most mages can pull out a spirit with 8 without much hassle.

Unfortunately, the system heavily encourages you to be quite good in one specialization then spend your karma to round out the character afterwards. It's much easier to raise a low attribute later, or add/improve a low ranked skill with the small karma awards which are typical in the game. Using the suggested karma awards... you're looking at a good months worth of karma just to raise magic from 5->6 (and more if you need to initiate first).

As much as I dislike DnD, at least there is a feeling that your character is advancing materially in some way as the game progresses. (you gain access to higher level spells, feats, tricks...)
Paul
Not every one views advancement solely in terms of mechanical advancement. That said I agree that SR4 does lend itself to some of what you've described Falconer.
Glyph
There's a reason why my faces that I have actually played have a lot less dice than the pornomancer (which was basically a dice pool exercise rather than a character). It's not because I'm allergic to high dice pools; it's because I like for my characters to be good at more than one thing, for more fun. Tasha had a decent dice pool for a face - she was also a tough gunfighter, and a daredevil on her racing bike.

I think people who don't like hyperspecialists, instead of making a second-rate specialists, should make characters with multiple things they are really good, but not the absolute best, at. Concepts like noir detectives, savvy ex-mercs who fought in the Desert Wars, cat burglars, and such, rather than gunslingers, pro negotiators, or combat mages. And the former can be just as viable, from a purely powergaming perspective, as the latter.

Sometimes hyperspecialists can be fun, if you have a good story to go with them, and plan on playing up their weaknesses for just as much fun as their strengths. Game-wise, though, they can become a trap of boredom. Doing your specialty is no fun because you aren't challenged, and doing anything else is boring because you don't have any ability in those other areas.

I think generalists can flop because people spread them too thin, and don't take advantage of the same 'ware or magical boosts that the specialists do. It's better to be good at several things, rather than mediocre at a lot of things.
Ol' Scratch
Honestly, I kind of prefer games where there are no advancement options beyond the obvious such as acquiring gear and obtaining new contacts and the like. Raising things like attributes and skills should require years of work and effort, not something you can 'pump up' after a couple of weeks. And people -- especially around here -- obsess over character advancement options like mad when looking over other people's characters. Few things bother me more than comments such as "only take _____ at a rating of 1" or "don't take any specializations" because it's cheaper to raise/add them later. Oy

It's one thing to make sure a character can actually survive being a runner due to the way the game works (such as suggesting a minimal Body and Willpower score). It's another thing to purposely cripple their stats just because of some glitch in the way Karma and Build Points work.

Being a generalist or a specialist is another debate entirely as it's based on group dynamics rather than game mechanics. Either can be great or craptacular in and of themselves, and either can be appropriate to any given concept. Even a "gunslinger, pro negotiator, or combat mage" can be a generalist.
Midas
QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 19 2011, 03:54 AM) *
There's a reason why my faces that I have actually played have a lot less dice than the pornomancer (which was basically a dice pool exercise rather than a character). It's not because I'm allergic to high dice pools; it's because I like for my characters to be good at more than one thing, for more fun. Tasha had a decent dice pool for a face - she was also a tough gunfighter, and a daredevil on her racing bike.

I think people who don't like hyperspecialists, instead of making a second-rate specialists, should make characters with multiple things they are really good, but not the absolute best, at. Concepts like noir detectives, savvy ex-mercs who fought in the Desert Wars, cat burglars, and such, rather than gunslingers, pro negotiators, or combat mages. And the former can be just as viable, from a purely powergaming perspective, as the latter.

Sometimes hyperspecialists can be fun, if you have a good story to go with them, and plan on playing up their weaknesses for just as much fun as their strengths. Game-wise, though, they can become a trap of boredom. Doing your specialty is no fun because you aren't challenged, and doing anything else is boring because you don't have any ability in those other areas.

I think generalists can flop because people spread them too thin, and don't take advantage of the same 'ware or magical boosts that the specialists do. It's better to be good at several things, rather than mediocre at a lot of things.

Have a noir detective I was thinking of putting up on the site, will have to finish up his backstory and get to it. He's competent at a lot of things but not stand-out good at anything other than Perception (a detective's gotta be good at noticing stuff, right?). Sure the min-maxers will tear him to pieces, but hey ...

I like to look at what the runner used to do, then stat him out appropriately. For instance, me detective used to be an undercover cop who got railroaded out of the force when his BTL habit became a problem. Flavour qualities are Guts ('cos he ain't scared of noone) and Incompetent (Ettiquette) because of his tendency to get in peoples faces and his disregard of the social norm.
Cain
I go for a concept first. Stats comes second, and personality naturally emerges from there.

That said, I have just as much fun roleplaying a hyperspecialist as I do a weakling. Roleplay doesn't come from stats, it comes from players. In fact, what I despise roleplaying the most is the average Joe, the generalist-- there's no high or low points to hang a character on. So long as a character has good and bad points, it can be roleplayed.

I also don't get why people here think combat monsters can't have role play potential. In SR3, I had an extreme troll tank. His highest skill was actually Art History, and he would often refuse to do things that would damage particularly nice objects of art. I've also created SR4.5 characters with odd knowledge skills like Rodeos and Nascar Racing, to represent a cowboy/redneck. Those aren't "useful" skills, they're roleplay skills, meant to show he's got interests beyond shooting things in the face.

To be honest, I've seen characters that were less optimized, but had no hobby/interest skills at all. Those have less roleplay potential, because there's less indication about what the character does for fun. So, min/maxing and roleplay aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, sometimes they go together nicely.
Irion
QUOTE
That said, I have just as much fun roleplaying a hyperspecialist as I do a weakling. Roleplay doesn't come from stats, it comes from players. In fact, what I despise roleplaying the most is the average Joe, the generalist-- there's no high or low points to hang a character on. So long as a character has good and bad points, it can be roleplayed.

The point is, that Hyperspecialist often require a lot of metagaming.

So this really is not the same just fdifferent. I can build a "weakling" with karmagen which fits the image I have in mind perfectly.
But for the hypercpecialist you have to alter your image several times during the process. (Yeah, I know a lot of people will now deny it, but honestly we had this so often on this board alone. "I want to play an X" "The best way is to be an Y who is an X" "I do not want to be an Y" " Yeah, thats difficult now and won't be that good...")
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