With an ordinary character, I would agree with you.
The difference for me is, I tend to have elaborate and exotic character concepts, and I end up spending a lot of points on fleshing out the concepts themselves, rather than on making the character more powerful. If I wanted to play as "
Guy In Trenchcoat No. 482", sure, I could be tossing 24 dice around, but for me, I prefer to have more unique sorts of characters.
Heck, even your Pixie Rigger Adept is still highly doable, because being a pixie itself isn't that big of a deal - you're still building an otherwise normal rigger adept, you just happen to be a pixie and that costs you some points. My stuff is... well... a little more "out there".
For example, some folks may remember
my T'skrang Taildancer changeling project, and the sheer difficulties of mechanically representing the physiology of a T'skrang. Not only are most of the options that you have to take to pull of something like this expensive in their own right, they also don't exactly give you benefits quite worth their costs, and they often lack synergy with each other and the rest of the character.
There's also the fact that I tend to build "wide" with my skills, rather than "tall". Instead of a small number of skills with large dice pools, I tend to end up with a larger number of skills with more moderate pools - often because the skills make sense in terms of the character and their backstory. My Taildancer has
16 different skills which he doesn't default on, because his character archetype demands he be able to do all those things with at least some degree of ability.
For example, I know the average Runner is
NEVER going to use Tracking, Navigation, or Survival, (because how many GMs actually enforce things like Navigation rolls for driving around town without getting lost?) so of course they never bother putting any points into them. But if I'm playing a character whose backstory would reasonably include them having such skills, I take them, even if I never expect to use them and am essentially "wasting" points.
So those 20 BP someone else can spend pumping up a single major skill to Rating 5? Yeah, I spend them on getting the Outdoors 2 skill group so that with an average Intuition of 3, I still manage to have a measly 5 or so dice for the skills my character should, logically, possess at some degree of basic competancy given who and what they are.
Oh, and in this specific case it also doesn't help that - again, for thematic reasons - I'm an Adept and a lot of the things I'm using my Power Points for are much, much, much,
much cheaper and more efficient to get as cyberware. Not a problem in itself, but stacked on top of the rest of my restrictions, it adds up.
Granted, I fully and readily admit both myself and my characters are somewhat extreme outliers. I do personally think that too many GMs are too lenient with allowing people to hyper specialize ("
Why do I need Social skills? That's what the Face is for, and I will literally never be called to roll on a Social test ever, so it doesn't matter if I can only throw 2 dice before negative modifiers!").
But I also realize that a lot of what I do is the exact opposite - I actually, literally, will never roll most of my skills, but I include them anyway - and that probably seems bass ackwards to a lot of folks.
Different strokes and all that.
~Umi