Sphynx
Full Version: Pimped Beginning characters
Actually, ignore that last post or this thread is going to go off on another wild tangent. One I don't feel like discussing.
Sphynx
Sphynx
You'll find 800 different definitions of munchkin out there and let's not discuss them here. The closest to an official definition you're going to get is from Steve Jackson (warning, PDF). The company has a card game, RPG, and a Munchkin's guide. I found a PDF of it on the website, and to quote the intro:
| QUOTE (Munchkin's Guide to Power Gaming) |
| What is a munchkin? Well, we're not referring to the cute little fellows from The Wizard of Oz (though even they might eb capable of munchkinism after reading this book). We're talking about power-gamers, mini-maxers, twinks, gun-bunnies, combat-wombats, and purveyors of ultra-violence. Those guys who demolish your average GM's intricately developed plots by killing everything in sight and somehow jumping straight to the end of your story without passing through the middle. They're the ones that you know have to be cheating with their dice when they claim to have three maximum stat rolls in a row; then, when you check, they roll it again. They're that strange combination of luck, cheek, and aggression that most people seem to think is the bane of roleplaying today. |
I hope that forstalls anyone else trying to define it
And you can check here for a more complex explination.
| QUOTE |
| Yes, I encourage all the cyberware and number crunching at character creation. As a matter of fact, I get annoyed at my players if they don't. Don't turn a weak character to me and then try to explain how he's a ShadowRunner. This isn't a job for a 17 year old kid, it's a job for someone who's "been there". Maybe not universally, but in my games, definitely. |
Now this is something that I have to disagree with. You do not jump into the Shadows with everyone knowing how bad ass and tough you are.
| QUOTE |
| But anyhows, our games are seemingly alot different than yours. We've spent maybe 10 games total in Corps, never hit an AA, and have more experience dealing with Insect Spirits, Mercenary Work (we're primarily yucatan/aztlan type of 'runners'), toxics, etc. Corp running is not campaign level, if you stick to running shadows, you'll not love the game like we do, as it gets boring after awhile. At least in a Merc environment, you pick what you're gonna hit (no Johnson), and you have large goals (admittedly, often more like terrorists, but just as fun as running) |
I really don';t follow your logic on this statement at all. The Shadowrun universe has hammered the point that "you are your reputation" into the ground so thoughly, that I really don't think they've left any wiggle room. AAA's are not gonna hire some people with no reptuation and no clout on the streets. Or, if they do, they hire them as cannon fodder while the more experianced team goes and does the real job. (also something they have constantly reinforced in the cannon) And to be honest, my group hasn't even touched Corp work yet (unless you count the one player who decided to go an assassinate a corp suit, who was in the Shaiwaise towers...by himself. Needless to say he didn't live long.), we are currently on a Mafia sponsored run, and are JUST getting to that point where their street reputation has reached the point where the big players are starting to notice they exist.
And I will admit I have some personal bias here. I lothe min/maxing and number crunching. I firmly belive you can have a powerful, kick ass, and thoughly INTERESTING character without having to pull those kind of antics. It's almost like there's no sence of restraint in RPG's anymore. Everyone is looking to make the 'best" characters, and invitably min/max to the point it makes me sick. Well, I'm not looking for the best characters, I'm looking for the right ones. The ones who can do their job with reasonable amounts of skill, but still be interesting at the same time.
| QUOTE (Dax) |
| And I will admit I have some personal bias here. I lothe min/maxing and number crunching. I firmly belive you can have a powerful, kick ass, and thoughly INTERESTING character without having to pull those kind of antics. |
And I firmly believe that these "antics" have nothing at all to do with a thoroughly interesting character one way or another. All it is, is a level of power that the player wants to play. Some people want to play epic style games where their actions shake the Corperate Court itself, others want to scrape by sloppy soy to sloppy soy, just trying to live one more day in the Barrens.
Neither side is intrinsicly wrong for wanting it one way or another. If everyone is having fun, there is no problem.
Heh, though as an aside, the term "Munchkin" was around before RPG's (and Steve Jackson by extension. though SJ has some serious issues with what is, and what isn't the correct way to roleplay).
First used as a term for the little brothers who mimiced their older brothers who were into wargaming by setting up the miniatures and played with effectively no rules.
"This guy lets out the Ultra mega beam of doom! and destroys that guy! " says one little brother, to which the other kid replies: "Well, well, my guy shoots the ULTRA-ultra mega beam of doom and kills that guy!"
The older brothers saw this, and cried foul over them not playing the game the "right" way (and as they wereprobably a little possessive over their miniatures, used the term to keep them from playing with the older brothers), and began labeling them "munchkins" because they were usually short, being younger and all.
The term has mutated over the years and was borrowed over into the RPG vernacular into the morass of connotations as a catch-all derogatory term for anyone who doesn't play "correctly".
I'd probably have to agree with TinkerGnome that you seem to be more of a power gamer.
A bad roleplayer that just doesn't to anything well is a bad roleplayer. A bad roleplayer that min/maxes and crunches the numbers and only plays the number game to go in and kill everything/conjure force 20 spirits/hack into the orbital bank with ease/etc is a munchkin.
A good roleplayer that does everything good is a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer that has a tendency to play the number game really well and min/maxes every character as much as possible is a power gamer.
In brief I think that sums up how I see things. Maybe we should start a thread to come up with some common definitions to all these terms for all of us to use around here to avoid some confusion!
Also in my last post, I didn't nessecarily mean handing the two example players pre-made characters. Just that for all intents and purposes their character sheets were the same as far as the numbers and such went.
A bad roleplayer that just doesn't to anything well is a bad roleplayer. A bad roleplayer that min/maxes and crunches the numbers and only plays the number game to go in and kill everything/conjure force 20 spirits/hack into the orbital bank with ease/etc is a munchkin.
A good roleplayer that does everything good is a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer that has a tendency to play the number game really well and min/maxes every character as much as possible is a power gamer.
In brief I think that sums up how I see things. Maybe we should start a thread to come up with some common definitions to all these terms for all of us to use around here to avoid some confusion!
Also in my last post, I didn't nessecarily mean handing the two example players pre-made characters. Just that for all intents and purposes their character sheets were the same as far as the numbers and such went.
Dax (and a vague nod to Sphynx, too);
You may not jump into the shadows with everyone knowing what a badass you are, but beginning characters are by no stretch of the imagination "first level"; look at the archetypes and what can easily be made out of character creation, you'll find that these are overwhelmingly characters who have survived and thrived in the shadows already, not "gutter trash" trying to claw their way up. They may not be legendary prime runners (which is a good thing), but they're a far sight better than most "undocumented assets", and probably worth your average J at least considering for the job.
Now, part of this is a cycle from SR's shitastic job of balancing starting characters and a spiraling cycle from there. ("Munchkins" can make super-characters by ignoring social and other background skills; NPC's need battle skills to challenge munchkins, "real roleplayers" need battle skills to handle the NPC's while still having social and background skills, which gives munchkins even more points, etc.) Part of it is probably a conscious decision to encourage more capable starting characters (since let's face it, first level fragility sucks).
And since the issue of power curve has come up here, may as well throw in on that...
One of the major differences between RPG's and movies is that movies can fall back on special effects to show how cool the character is. You or I can't do triple arial spin kicks, so watching a character in a movie do them is super-spiffy. RPG's often don't have such detailed descriptions, and even when they do, what real people can do is far less of a benchmark than what other characters can do; in a supers game, if everyone can fly and has at least one other shtick, *just* being able to fly isn't that great even though joe player can't. If a starting player can do it, it's standard. If most everyone in the game can do it, it's pretty bog-standard. So being able to advance past starting level, and have a clear grasp that you're going from starting to legendary, is pretty important to the game part of the RPG, as well as the long-running campaign part of it.
BTW, not that anyone asked me, but my ideal starting level would be "experienced in the shadows, has stood out from the teeming street hordes, and is finally getting a shot at real pro work". But that's just me.
You may not jump into the shadows with everyone knowing what a badass you are, but beginning characters are by no stretch of the imagination "first level"; look at the archetypes and what can easily be made out of character creation, you'll find that these are overwhelmingly characters who have survived and thrived in the shadows already, not "gutter trash" trying to claw their way up. They may not be legendary prime runners (which is a good thing), but they're a far sight better than most "undocumented assets", and probably worth your average J at least considering for the job.
Now, part of this is a cycle from SR's shitastic job of balancing starting characters and a spiraling cycle from there. ("Munchkins" can make super-characters by ignoring social and other background skills; NPC's need battle skills to challenge munchkins, "real roleplayers" need battle skills to handle the NPC's while still having social and background skills, which gives munchkins even more points, etc.) Part of it is probably a conscious decision to encourage more capable starting characters (since let's face it, first level fragility sucks).
And since the issue of power curve has come up here, may as well throw in on that...
One of the major differences between RPG's and movies is that movies can fall back on special effects to show how cool the character is. You or I can't do triple arial spin kicks, so watching a character in a movie do them is super-spiffy. RPG's often don't have such detailed descriptions, and even when they do, what real people can do is far less of a benchmark than what other characters can do; in a supers game, if everyone can fly and has at least one other shtick, *just* being able to fly isn't that great even though joe player can't. If a starting player can do it, it's standard. If most everyone in the game can do it, it's pretty bog-standard. So being able to advance past starting level, and have a clear grasp that you're going from starting to legendary, is pretty important to the game part of the RPG, as well as the long-running campaign part of it.
BTW, not that anyone asked me, but my ideal starting level would be "experienced in the shadows, has stood out from the teeming street hordes, and is finally getting a shot at real pro work". But that's just me.
Min-maxing != munchkinism. Min-maxing is a useful approach to building a character, and consists of minimizing a character's weaknesses as well as maximizing his ability to do his job. A true min-maxer won't make a sammie with 5 combat skills and no etiquette or stealth skills. They will realize that being unable to sneak around or function in social situations will handicap their character, so they will be sure to make him well-rounded enough in non-combat areas.
I don't see anything wrong with tweaking the numbers. Some people have the mistaken notion that min-maxing and making a decent character background are mutually incompatible. Actually, someone who meticulously allocates their points is probably more likely to craft an intelligent and well-thought-out background. Yes, there are people who tweak the numbers and turn in a cardboard-cutout character background, and drama queen "roleplayers" who turn in a frickin' novel about their character but barely understand the rules. But there are also lots of inept munchkins whose attempts at min-maxing have glaring weaknesses to them, as well as roleplayers who create tough, powerful characters.
For people who have a problem with certain players, min-maxing is not the problem, nor is power level. Get them to care about the game and care about the characters they are playing. Trying to limit Availability or starting power level is only treating the symptoms.
I don't see anything wrong with tweaking the numbers. Some people have the mistaken notion that min-maxing and making a decent character background are mutually incompatible. Actually, someone who meticulously allocates their points is probably more likely to craft an intelligent and well-thought-out background. Yes, there are people who tweak the numbers and turn in a cardboard-cutout character background, and drama queen "roleplayers" who turn in a frickin' novel about their character but barely understand the rules. But there are also lots of inept munchkins whose attempts at min-maxing have glaring weaknesses to them, as well as roleplayers who create tough, powerful characters.
For people who have a problem with certain players, min-maxing is not the problem, nor is power level. Get them to care about the game and care about the characters they are playing. Trying to limit Availability or starting power level is only treating the symptoms.
I realize min-maxing is not munchkinism, but it is a part of any munchkins toolbox.
In general I have nothing against min-maxing, although I feel there's a level to where min-maxing becomes cartoonish aside from any munchkinesque tendancies.
In general I have nothing against min-maxing, although I feel there's a level to where min-maxing becomes cartoonish aside from any munchkinesque tendancies.
The problem I have with most systems is that they are too easy to min/max. In standard SR getting a skill at 6 in char gen is 'worth' much more later in the game than two skills at three, but the chargen cost is the same. This means that min/maxing is a math based thing rather than a concept based thing.
This is why I am a big fan of BECKS, and why I dislike most artifical limits on begining characters.
This is why I am a big fan of BECKS, and why I dislike most artifical limits on begining characters.
| QUOTE (BitBasher @ Apr 9 2004, 11:45 PM) |
| I understand with what youre saying and I dont think I disagree with you, I do however think I have a problem with the way you're explaining it. The best there is is the old man sitting on the mountaintop that noone in the world can beat in kung fu, ect. If anyone can do it better, then he's not the best there is. |
Sorry to dredge this up, but I haven't read the thread in the last day or so. I just wanted to make one last comment...
Even with a definition such as this, it's impossible to demonstrate such a scenario. By your requirements, it's just not possible. Take a movie like Dogma as an example. God -- the pinnacle of growth potential and creator of all existance -- got bitch-slapped by three punk kids with hockey sticks and bad hygiene. So by your definition, even God apparently needs to earn some more Karma before (S)He can qualify as the end-all be-all character in the multiverse.
Then you have the whole Job mess (where Lucifer basically beat God in a Negotiation (Fast Talk) Test to torture some poor schmoe), the failed Divination Test when He chose the Jews as His Chosen People, the failed Human B/R and Human Programming Tests He made as demonstrated by His creations disobeying Him and eating from the Tree of Knowledge, or how He apparently wasn't All-Seeing enough that he couldn't avoid killing some Jews unless they smeered goat's blood all over their doors back in Egypt. Or the really big one of how, despite being All-Knowing, created an angel without free will who, somehow, managed to, like, get free will and defy Him and, uhm, yeah... okay, I'm still a bit baffled by that one in general.
[And there's no need to go into a long rant or debate about any of that religious stuff; I'm just trying to make a point. Put your feathers back in place, dammit.]
Anyway, having a character that can't be bested or is infallable is impossible. There's no such thing. There is such a thing as a character who's at the end (or at least at the pinnacle) of their career; where they've learned pretty much everything they're going to learn, and are just using it to do what they do. Nothing more to improve on (even if the game states that there is, simply because there is no limits). And playing in such a game is in no way boring or antithesis to good gaming. It's just completely different than the "I've got to earn 52 more experience points so that when I face those Level 3 Ogre Fighters, I'll have the amount of Hit Points I need to survive!" style of gaming.
As for your request for a scenario where such a characters would be interesting... just about any scenario would work. You don't have to earn Karma so you can improve your Athletics (Masturbation) skill in order to do a job (let alone take a job so you can improve it). Being paid cash so you can buy some nice things is more than enough of a reward -- at least it certainly seems enough in the real world.
Oooh... ooh... I want Human B/R...
| QUOTE (Joker9125) |
| He dosent have all attributes over ten their are some that suffer a bit but not just alot. No he isnt cheating hes just good at making combat monsters while like you said everyone goes throught hat phase and gets out of it (me included) he seems to be stuck in it. The main problem is in order to challange one of his characters we have to put everyone elses characters at great risk which could easily end up in everyone dying unless the pimped character guy gets to the uber boss first and this is obviously not fun for anyone in the run except the combat monster. Secondly if we design a run that would challange the other characters he kills everyone before the end of the second initative pass. This is also not fun for anyone except him. I do however like the idea of making characters for players i think ill make a character for him on the next run i GM and make him use it if he wants to play and let him expirence a more well rounded character for once. |
I have an odd suggestion for you. Get him to roll up heaps of these characters. Roll up a sensible character that reflects his personal style of play. give him the character you rolled up for him. Keep the characters he rolled up. They're your new nasty npcs....
Saves you a heap of work, gets his munchkinism out of his system and allows the entire group to be on a level playing field.
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| The problem I have with most systems is that they are too easy to min/max. In standard SR getting a skill at 6 in char gen is 'worth' much more later in the game than two skills at three, but the chargen cost is the same. This means that min/maxing is a math based thing rather than a concept based thing. This is why I am a big fan of BECKS, and why I dislike most artifical limits on begining characters. |
I just like to say I agree with you here. I definately prefer using BECKS in character gen and lately that's how our group has been doing it lately. I have to say it's worked well, although I don't think everyone in our group agrees, but I then I don't think they really care one way or the other.
*sigh* It did turn into a thread on the definition of Munchkinism... sorry Joker, I tried to stop it.
I'll not reply to those posts, but since Dax quotes me, I'll respond to him.
I'll not reply to those posts, but since Dax quotes me, I'll respond to him.
| QUOTE (Dax @ Apr 11 2004, 02:09 AM) |
| Now this is something that I have to disagree with. You do not jump into the Shadows with everyone knowing how bad ass and tough you are. |
Yes you do, look at the Archetypes. Everyone of them seasoned veterans as starting characters. Never notice they took out the stupid CyberPunk archetype like "Rocker"? Ever read the archetypes of 2nd edition? You start out bad-ass, and work on getting badder.
| QUOTE (Dax @ Apr 11 2004, 02:09 AM) |
| And I will admit I have some personal bias here. I lothe min/maxing and number crunching. I firmly belive you can have a powerful, kick ass, and thoughly INTERESTING character without having to pull those kind of antics. It's almost like there's no sence of restraint in RPG's anymore. Everyone is looking to make the 'best" characters, and invitably min/max to the point it makes me sick. Well, I'm not looking for the best characters, I'm looking for the right ones. The ones who can do their job with reasonable amounts of skill, but still be interesting at the same time. |
Hmmm, I think you (and alot of people) mixed up min-maxxing and power gaming. Pointing back to a shamanic character I've already pointed at in this thread, the character with a Smartlink-2 (0.40) RangeFinder(0.8 ) CyberEyes with 0.70 levels of mods (0.24) Datajack (0.16) and a Knowsoft Link (0.08) for 0.96 essence. Character wants a Trauma Dampener (GM just agreed to allow Cultured Bioware stating that -anything- with an availability less than or equal to 8 would be allowed). How to do it without losing 2 levels of magic? I spent over an hour on this problem... I just couldn't risk losing any of the cyberware because it was all in-character to have (already had finished the background). ImageLink saved me 0.8, but that put me at 0.88 total essence spent, and it was already all alpha grade. Realized I could do Datajack and Knowsoft Link to Beta that saved me 0.06, but still 0.82 + (0.40/2) > 1.0. Fortunately, the min-maxxer in me remembered the rules on page 148 of M&M, last paragraph of the page. And bought my Smartlink at 75% instead of 80%, saving me 0.02, putting me right at 0.80 in essence, just enough to squeeze in a Trauma Dampener.
Now that's Art, not even power gaming. Of course, I expect a comment like:
| QUOTE |
| But that's munchkinism, how does your character know what 1.0 essence is, and how could he possibly calculate things so perfectly to save 1 level of magic. Just for that I'd subtract a 2nd levle of his magic |
But personally, I'd like to think Doctors are better informed than I, and during the Surgery Planning stages (I got all the cyber at once), COULD calculate it. Just a different view on the game.
And Dax.... we learned long time ago, we don't WANT to be hired by (or run against) an AAA Corp, we, as a team, always turn down those kinda jobs, no matter what they pay. Guess that's why are games are Merc Work in the jungles of Mexico.
Anyhows, I've somehow gone off and rambled far too long. Happy Easter to everyone,
Sphynx
I think we scared away the Joker. 
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| Yes you do, look at the Archetypes. Everyone of them seasoned veterans as starting characters. Never notice they took out the stupid CyberPunk archetype like "Rocker"? Ever read the archetypes of 2nd edition? You start out bad-ass, and work on getting badder. |
Say what you will about Cyberpunk, but the system at least rewarded people for spending their life doing something. There's nothing more embarassing in SR than for a person to spend 10+ years of their life getting a medical degree than to find out Jimmy the Chiphead over is actually better at it because he's got Skillwires 6 and a CED. Rockers were theme specific, and like much of Cyberpunk, did not age well outside of the '80s.
That, and the way they handled the effects of excessive cyberware (psychosis) were nice.
CP2020 handeled lots of cyberware about as well as SR handles encryption (i.e. not well at all). 
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| CP2020 handeled lots of cyberware about as well as SR handles encryption (i.e. not well at all). |
Personally, i thought they handled it very well, and whenthe fuzion system came around (The Bublegum Crisis game and supplements) i thought it got better.
But back on topic,
Spyhnx, The level of number crunching, that you showed in a starting character is in my mind scary. Thats Something that the Cyber Surgeons in Chiba do when you finnally have access to that Beta/Delta clinic. It's not something that i would like in one of my games, thats not to say it's wrong mind, if you and your players/ Gm are still enjoying playing the game then that is all that matters. No?
---
But allthough the Arcetypes are starting characters, there are not new to the shadows. But nor is that the only correct way of making a character either.
I understand Dax's point about "working upto something" it gives a sense of achievement. But something given when it should earned has no value, being arwarded 100 Karma to experience a character, annoy's me (mildly) for at least 2 reasons,
1, see above i've not earned it
2, advancing a charater that qucikly has a tendenticy to warp the character out of the original concept.
But just like all of what has been posted it's your own opinion, and if you still play and enjoy the game then people don't have the right to say your doing it wrong (untill you ask for their opinions)
Shock: Don't confuse "planning" with "spending". Planning 100 karma makes sense, just like it makes sense to plan your life and what you want to study/learn ahead of time.
As for the number crunching, at least when a player turns in a character like that, you know they love the game and their character. Those other characters that get turned in are from players who next week, are perfectly ok playing something else instead, and don't care if their characters die off as quickly. Char-Gen min-maxxing is, IMHO, a GREAT sign.
Sphynx
As for the number crunching, at least when a player turns in a character like that, you know they love the game and their character. Those other characters that get turned in are from players who next week, are perfectly ok playing something else instead, and don't care if their characters die off as quickly. Char-Gen min-maxxing is, IMHO, a GREAT sign.
Sphynx
Ok, so (and i may have this wrong) because i don't number crunch to the 3rd decimal, i dont like my characters as much? I spend far more time on making a background make sense then number crunching, but that doesn't count?
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| CP2020 handeled lots of cyberware about as well as SR handles encryption (i.e. not well at all). |
Eh? You prefer the SR system in which you add more and more cyberware until you finally fall over dead with no appreciable difference between almost-dead and fully meat? At least, in concept, the CP2020 system had you parceling away pieces of your humanity in exchange for more chrome slowly becoming more detached from humanity and then finally going insane? If nothing else, it made hunting cyberpsychos a good way to run a cop game
If SR were balanced for it (and it's not), I'd love to institute a similar thing in SR as a house rule.
I have to agree with Shockwave here. Lack of numbercrunching does not mean that you don't love your character. I know that all my players love their characters (if they have created a good one), but some just don't care that much about the numbers. They just want a character with decent stats. What's important to them is the background and personality of the character and what interesting (difficult) situations that the character can get into because of that personality and background.
Ok, I may have worded my post poorly, but in my experience, it's very true that if a player doesn't do some amount of number crunching, that player usually tends to be unattached to their character.
However, since we're so far off topic and into discussion areas I don't enjoy discussing due to my bizarre playing methods, I'll cut out of this discussion. Hope I was able to influence you a bit Joker, there's always a side that alot of the dumpshockers don't feel is right, and I feel it's the only right way. I just wanted to express why certain things aren't wrong.
Sphynx
However, since we're so far off topic and into discussion areas I don't enjoy discussing due to my bizarre playing methods, I'll cut out of this discussion. Hope I was able to influence you a bit Joker, there's always a side that alot of the dumpshockers don't feel is right, and I feel it's the only right way. I just wanted to express why certain things aren't wrong.
Sphynx
My personal definition of 'munchkin' would be a player with one solution/style. I used to play Vampire and so I saw the two extremes of munchkin; at one end are the brujah with massive strength and melee who take physical damage disciplines, at the other end are Toreador with max charisma and mind-control who just take over your character for half an hour while they play sex-games. Somehow, I am a bigger fan of the fighters than the freaks playing solo cybersex...
Min-max is different. I like characters with definite strengths and weaknesses. Just have to teach them, minimum does not always mean zero.
Min-max is different. I like characters with definite strengths and weaknesses. Just have to teach them, minimum does not always mean zero.
L.D., Shockwave, it's not a matter of min-maxing being more or less "important" than a background - it's a matter of effort being put into character creation tending to make people identify more with their characters. But number-crunching and good backgrounds are not mutually incompatible. Heck, I bet you guys do more number-crunching, trying to get the character that your background envisions, than some munchkins do. It's the effort spent on the character that encourages the player to roleplay the character well.
I agree that background is more important than the raw numbers, and you know that the technique of min-maxing is being carried too far when your background starts sounding cobbled-together or contrived, more of a way to explain how you got your stats than a description of an actual fictional person. But some level of min-maxing is needed, because Shadowrun is a team game, where you are playing someone who could plausibly be accepted as an asset by a group of professional criminals.
There are a lot of self-professed "roleplayers" who don't pay enough attention to making a useful character, and wind up feeling useless for half of the game. Because a lot of the game does come down to dice rolls, which both add a random element to the game and simulate usage of skills. It doesn't matter how well-written your background is; if you don't have decent skills and abilities, you will be ineffective.
I agree that background is more important than the raw numbers, and you know that the technique of min-maxing is being carried too far when your background starts sounding cobbled-together or contrived, more of a way to explain how you got your stats than a description of an actual fictional person. But some level of min-maxing is needed, because Shadowrun is a team game, where you are playing someone who could plausibly be accepted as an asset by a group of professional criminals.
There are a lot of self-professed "roleplayers" who don't pay enough attention to making a useful character, and wind up feeling useless for half of the game. Because a lot of the game does come down to dice rolls, which both add a random element to the game and simulate usage of skills. It doesn't matter how well-written your background is; if you don't have decent skills and abilities, you will be ineffective.
@Glyph
I realise that, but I was responding to
I realise that, but I was responding to
| QUOTE |
| As for the number crunching, at least when a player turns in a character like that, you know they love the game and their character. Those other characters that get turned in are from players who next week, are perfectly ok playing something else instead, and don't care if their characters die off as quickly. |
which I strongly object. Now he might have meant something different, but as it's written it sound as if the amount of time spent on a background doesn't count and the only thing that counts is the time you have put into numbercrunching.
What is important is the not necessarily the amount of time spent creating a character. If you have a natural ability for numbercrunching, then it doesn't take long to do that and you might have gotten a flash of inspiration and have a great background ready in 10-30 minutes. Does that mean that the player loves that character any less than the guy who has spent 17 hours creating his, just because he can't decide between titanium or plastic bonelacing? My answer is no.
What is important is how much you care for that character, how well you are able to play him and how he fits in the world, team and the setting for the campaign. Which more or less boils down to how much fun you're having.
What is important is the not necessarily the amount of time spent creating a character. If you have a natural ability for numbercrunching, then it doesn't take long to do that and you might have gotten a flash of inspiration and have a great background ready in 10-30 minutes. Does that mean that the player loves that character any less than the guy who has spent 17 hours creating his, just because he can't decide between titanium or plastic bonelacing? My answer is no.
What is important is how much you care for that character, how well you are able to play him and how he fits in the world, team and the setting for the campaign. Which more or less boils down to how much fun you're having.
Thanks L.D for answering for me and proberbly better then i could.
You're welcome. 
| QUOTE (L.D) | ||
| @Glyph I realise that, but I was responding to
which I strongly object. Now he might have meant something different, but as it's written it sound as if the amount of time spent on a background doesn't count and the only thing that counts is the time you have put into numbercrunching. What is important is the not necessarily the amount of time spent creating a character. If you have a natural ability for numbercrunching, then it doesn't take long to do that and you might have gotten a flash of inspiration and have a great background ready in 10-30 minutes. Does that mean that the player loves that character any less than the guy who has spent 17 hours creating his, just because he can't decide between titanium or plastic bonelacing? My answer is no. What is important is how much you care for that character, how well you are able to play him and how he fits in the world, team and the setting for the campaign. Which more or less boils down to how much fun you're having. |
Ah but the opposite needn't be true either. A guy who spends 5 minutes thinking up a character concept and 5 hours at char gen doesn't necessarily love his character any less than a guy who spends 5 hours doing background but only 5 minutes at char gen. If anything, the guy who spent 5 mins at number crunching is more likely to end up with a dead/useless PC than the one with the 5 hour number crunched character.
In fact if you have a good concept, the best you can do is spend more time to number crunch properly to do it justice. Any less is a lousy roleplayer who is masquarading under the True Roleplayer label.
Wow, this thread is still taking on water. The truth of it is that any player who focuses on either roleplaying or rollplaying to the exclusion of the other is a bad player. The former used to crop up in L5R all the time, where you'd get someone who could run verbal rings around a player with twice the social skills and come out on top. The key to keeping this behavior in check, according to AEG, at least, was to always call for rolls but provide modifiers based on the quality of the roleplaying.
In sr terms, Joe and Bob are negotiating with two identical fixers in two identical warehouses for two identical items. Joe has negotiations 2 but is a phenomenal roleplayer. Bob is a moderately bad roleplayer and has negotiations 6.
The TN to get the item is 5. Joe does a great job of talking the fixer up, and laying out a good case for why he should get the item. His arguments are sound, logical, and make it look like the deal of a lifetime. Bob manages to mumbles something about really needing the item and offering a price.
When it comes time to roll the dice, the GM awards Joe a -1 to his TN because of his roleplaying and has him roll against TN 4. Bob barely muddled through (but he tried) so his TN is still a 5. Joe gets 1 success and Bob gets 2.
Does that mean Bob is a better player? No. He barely muddled through a conversation with an NPC. Is Joe a good player? No, he's playing a character who should obviously have a high negotiations and he didn't buy the proper skill level. Not only that, Joe is actually not as good a roleplayer he things, since he wasn't playing the character with reguards to his stats (he probably only glanced at the sheet once before the game started, so confident was he in his ability to "roleplay" through the game).
Okay, these are contrived examples. A truely good roleplayer is also someone who spends time with the numbers of his character. He may not spend hours starting at his list of cyber deciding how to eek in another .01 essence worth of gear, but he does spend a lot of time thinking about what kind of gear his character would own and use. He crunches numbers, but not for the sake of crunching numbers.
Bah, this was a long post that went nowhere useful
In sr terms, Joe and Bob are negotiating with two identical fixers in two identical warehouses for two identical items. Joe has negotiations 2 but is a phenomenal roleplayer. Bob is a moderately bad roleplayer and has negotiations 6.
The TN to get the item is 5. Joe does a great job of talking the fixer up, and laying out a good case for why he should get the item. His arguments are sound, logical, and make it look like the deal of a lifetime. Bob manages to mumbles something about really needing the item and offering a price.
When it comes time to roll the dice, the GM awards Joe a -1 to his TN because of his roleplaying and has him roll against TN 4. Bob barely muddled through (but he tried) so his TN is still a 5. Joe gets 1 success and Bob gets 2.
Does that mean Bob is a better player? No. He barely muddled through a conversation with an NPC. Is Joe a good player? No, he's playing a character who should obviously have a high negotiations and he didn't buy the proper skill level. Not only that, Joe is actually not as good a roleplayer he things, since he wasn't playing the character with reguards to his stats (he probably only glanced at the sheet once before the game started, so confident was he in his ability to "roleplay" through the game).
Okay, these are contrived examples. A truely good roleplayer is also someone who spends time with the numbers of his character. He may not spend hours starting at his list of cyber deciding how to eek in another .01 essence worth of gear, but he does spend a lot of time thinking about what kind of gear his character would own and use. He crunches numbers, but not for the sake of crunching numbers.
Bah, this was a long post that went nowhere useful
| QUOTE (toturi) | ||||
Ah but the opposite needn't be true either. A guy who spends 5 minutes thinking up a character concept and 5 hours at char gen doesn't necessarily love his character any less than a guy who spends 5 hours doing background but only 5 minutes at char gen. If anything, the guy who spent 5 mins at number crunching is more likely to end up with a dead/useless PC than the one with the 5 hour number crunched character. |
I never said that. My entire point was that the amount of time spent on creating a character does not necessarily have anything to do with how much you love your character. That depends on the player. Although as a general rule, yes, the more time you spend creating a character the more attached you are to him/her.
Also, I forgot to mention BtDS (Bob the Destroyer Syndrome). Basicly, it's named after a guy I used to game with. He played many different characters, but they were all Bob the Destroyer. If you shot down a character, he'd tweak it a little and come back with Bob the Destroyer Mk 15. He spent a lot of time on number crunching and his characters, but they clearly weren't something he was invested in.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
| In sr terms, Joe and Bob are negotiating with two identical fixers in two identical warehouses for two identical items. Joe has negotiations 2 but is a phenomenal roleplayer. Bob is a moderately bad roleplayer and has negotiations 6. The TN to get the item is 5. Joe does a great job of talking the fixer up, and laying out a good case for why he should get the item. His arguments are sound, logical, and make it look like the deal of a lifetime. Bob manages to mumbles something about really needing the item and offering a price. When it comes time to roll the dice, the GM awards Joe a -1 to his TN because of his roleplaying and has him roll against TN 4. Bob barely muddled through (but he tried) so his TN is still a 5. Joe gets 1 success and Bob gets 2. |
I've often read about these types of role-playing bonuses. I think they come from the WhiteWolf genre and are an interesting way to encourage roleplaying. I'm just curious, do you do the same thing for combat characters?
I mean, there are definitely those players who want to "role" play through everything and hats off to them. So giving them bonuses for doing so is very nice for their style of play. But there are a near equal number of players who are in the game for the combat, and just love rolling that handful of dice while shouting "Eat this you fraggin piece of $^%#". Since you give bonuses to those that are "role" playing because of the way they enjoy playing, are you giving similar bonuses to those players who are just there to have fun, and kick butt? You know... if they put as many dice into an attack as they can, give them a -1TN to hit?
I'm not trying to discourage the roleplaying encouragement, I think it's a grand idea. I just never did it because I don't want to show that level of favoritism, I want all my players to have fun, and run games around making sure they do. Not sure I could implement such a system...
Sphynx
LD: The implication of your argument was thus given the example you have given.
TinkerGnome: Sure he was interested. He was interested in building and playing a Destroyer character, and he was persistent enough to do it over and over again! It was you and perhaps the people you gamed with that didn't realised that. He evidently wanted a character that ownz the opposition, your GM was stupid enough not to realise that.
TinkerGnome: Sure he was interested. He was interested in building and playing a Destroyer character, and he was persistent enough to do it over and over again! It was you and perhaps the people you gamed with that didn't realised that. He evidently wanted a character that ownz the opposition, your GM was stupid enough not to realise that.
Actually, Sphynx, yeah. WW's Exalted has something called stunt dice. If you describe your actions during combat and GM and other PCs think "Wow, that's just so cool", you get extra dice. In SR, it's usually an extra point of karma pool for the encounter or possible an extra die on the roll. Saying "I'm going to put six dice of combat pool into this!" doesn't add anything to the enjoyment of game for the group as a whole (in most groups, at least), whereas someone adding a vivid mental image does. [edit] The problem in L5R is that you had two extreems on the player spectrum. The kind that would roleplay straight through a social situation and try to avoid rolling at all, and those who would say "I want to get him to do x" and ask for a TN to roll against. The solution was to always call for a roll but let the quality of acting influence the TN. This let Joe and Bob be on more equal footing since, otherwise, Joe the Roleplayer would own Bob in a samurai game. [/edit]
I remember one game where we, for some unknown reason, were sneaking into Bug City via nightgliders. I was an adept with a dikoted katana (these were premades) and we were being shot at. I dove hard, pulled my saftey release and came down feet first on the head of one of the shooters while trying to kill the guy beside him with a well placed katana slash. Even with bonus dice, you can't pull off a 10 meter drop into hostile fire and attack in SR without taking some damage, though
The statements I made were about someone who rollplays exclusively vs. someone who roleplays exclusively. The best place to be is somewhere in the middle of the two.
Toturi, I said "invested". He was definitely interested in playing Bob the Destroyer. He wasn't invested in his character, at all, though. It was just a faceless set of numbers to him.
I remember one game where we, for some unknown reason, were sneaking into Bug City via nightgliders. I was an adept with a dikoted katana (these were premades) and we were being shot at. I dove hard, pulled my saftey release and came down feet first on the head of one of the shooters while trying to kill the guy beside him with a well placed katana slash. Even with bonus dice, you can't pull off a 10 meter drop into hostile fire and attack in SR without taking some damage, though
The statements I made were about someone who rollplays exclusively vs. someone who roleplays exclusively. The best place to be is somewhere in the middle of the two.
Toturi, I said "invested". He was definitely interested in playing Bob the Destroyer. He wasn't invested in his character, at all, though. It was just a faceless set of numbers to him.
The bonus i give for a "good descriptive scene" is either extra dice or a reroll if the dice turn up real bad. If they are rolling 6 dice and get say 4 success then all good, roll only 1 or none after the cool description 'ave a reroll.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.