QUOTE (Glyph @ Jan 5 2013, 05:01 PM)
See, stuff like that touches on one of the main issues that I have with people who play something suboptimal for "roleplaying" reasons. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They pick something deliberately weaker, but then they want the GM to either cut them special breaks, or make the other characters weaker in some way.
I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone like that on these forums. Pax seems to not mind being numerically suboptimal, as do pretty much all of the people I've seen who play mundanes for roleplay reasons. I personally don't play mundanes, but I would like to see them be a more reasonable option for those who do want to play them.
Even putting that matter aside, there's still the matter of good game design. If you're going to give players an option, it kinda needs to be something that is actually worth their while to choose. You may argue that playing a mundane in Shadowrun isn't mandatory, and that anyone who chooses to play such a character should expect to suffer a hit to their effectiveness. But... why exactly should they? What good reason is there for making mundanes so much weaker than other player character archetypes? Why shouldn't they be more balanced?
You seem to be treating character archetype as a sort of game difficulty slider. That if you choose archetype X, you should expect difficulty level Y. Thus, you'd have to be an idiot to play a mundane and then complain about how underpowered you are. But what if you extend that metaphor? Is playing a mage essentially playing on "Easy" mode? Are street sams "Medium", while hackers or faces are "Hard"?
Personally I don't find that notion very appealing. Personally, I think of my character archetype as being an expression of the character's nature, which ideally should be separate from the character's power. In a game so heavily invested in storytelling, players should be able to tell the story they want - about the character and persona they want to play - without feeling unreasonably limited by their archetype of choice. There should be room for variety, and for comparable abilities across archetypes. An Invisibility spell doesn't flat out beat Infiltration, or Disguise, or Chameleon Coated armor, or the Conceal Critter Power. They all operate in a unique way, but they're all roughly balanced in terms of costs and benefits. No one source of optical concealment is substantially and blatantly superior than the others. And thus, if you want to play an Infiltrator, you have many options open to you, all of which are primarily flavor based rather than mechanic based. You don't just automatically play a Mage Infiltrator because Invisibility is inarguably the best choice for stealth. You get to pick the type of sneak-thief you like most, rather than the one that is a walking "I Win" Button.
Likewise, the various character archetypes are more or less balanced as well. Pick any two archetypes to go head to head, and it's often a toss up as to which will beat the other. They have roughly the same levels of power for roughly the same costs, and the major differences innate to their abilities are often somewhat situational and condition-specific. But mundanes aren't like that. They alone pay higher substantially higher costs and end up with substantially lower levels of power. It's not just a matter of making the best usage of the abilities available to a character in a given situation - it's that all things being equal, the mundane is less powerful and less capable for the same or greater costs.
~Umi