When building characters, I've found that the point system is the most flexible for me. Which do you prefer? Are there some house-rule chargen methods out there?

I'll generally go with point based creation as it allows me to get a bit closer to the character that I envision.

However, I'll use the priority method without complaining if the GM wants them. I also find it useful for quickly building characters. Great for when the fabled PC killing GM steps up to the screen.

Point, always point.

The two big house-ruled methods are BeCKS and Sum-to-10 (which in previous editions was canon).

~J

I'm a big fan of Build Points. I gotta get in there with a pencil and some paper and really hash everything out. Helps me get to know the character.

We use any system we want to, though. It's all up to the player.

Now BeCKs is the one to get in there with a pen and paper to hash out a character. Takes for fraggin' ever. Of course, it usually works out better to use BPs, IMHO.

My personal favorite is Sum-to-Ten. Easy slot selection with more options/combinations than Priority. I usually try all of them with a bunch of sample characters, and I find that some characters work out better with different systems.

Points. All the way.

BECKS (I've usually got alot of time to waste)

I like BeKCs a lot, too. That system lets me spread the points around. If you don't like the number crunching, use the NSRCG.

Priority system here... it's less flexible, but good for playing metahumans (assuming you are using the More Metahumans rules that are canon now in 3rd edition), especially the priority D metahumans. It's also one of the few ways to take the million, be magically active and still have decent skills and attributes. Depends on your point threshold, though. Although the SR Companion suggests 120 points, our group has found 125 to be better balanced against the Priority system. Most of the characters that I make with Priorities actually end up being 127 to 130.

Its only good for metahumans if you don't play Trolls or Elves.

Is there a way to play the meta-varients with Priority or Sum to Ten?

Priority is good for metahumans, even if you play Trolls or Elves. Just that it does not benefit them as much. To use metavariants, by Canon, you have only one route: BP.

So if a player wanted to create a Night One or a Giant it would be Priority B? That's pretty harsh. What happens if he/she wants to me an Adept or Aspected Magician?

I don't see how Sum To Ten is cheesy but you may have had bad experiences with it.

Points or Priority have to be the way to go, IMO. I don't like the karma based way of doing things as characters end up with way too many skills - quite frankly min-maxing is a problem with players not the chargen system - if a player doesn't see the need for well rounded characters, good luck to them.

I'm not sure why I don't like it, but sumto10 *does* seem a bit cheesy... I get the impression it was created *just* to allow for million nuyen, 30 attribute samurai (I know I can achieve the same with points, but it's not quite the same) in response to the "mundane humans get screwed" school of thought.

Fact is, using points allows for the greatest flexibility without allowing the creation of characters with hundreds of medium level skills - a value of about 125 seems about right (any less and mages are disadvantaged over the priority system) and given the additional rules since the BBB was written allows for the unawakened to get some advantages (MA maneouvers, SUT as an active skill, off-hand skills etc).

Point - ever since it was introduced in the companion.

I likes the BeCKS. I think it creates more generalized and plausible characters.

My real beef is with the Priority system, where you'd be stupid not to max out those primary skills (whatever they are for your character). BeCKS at least makes you suffer for specialization.

As a side note, I tend to run VERY long campaigns, so a slightly less specialized start lets the fun go longer without the characters becoming unstoppable in their chosen field too quickly.

We're using a house rule on char gen, saying that only a fair number of skills can be at rating 6, 5, etc.
How many skills are allowed to be at which rating is GM call. Works fine so far and the GM is able to balance the power level of the characters, preventing chars with five skills at 6 in the beginning. If he want to.

I've done the same type of thing in my games. I typically only allow the use of the Build Point system, but if a player really insists on handicapping himself with Priorities, well, they can go for it.

I really dislike BeCKS, although I can see its appeal for some people.

Sum-to-10. I've seen points math-crunched once to often to like it, and priority often seems to limiting, so I think this is damn near the perfect balance.

My group has never done anything but priority.

Depends what Im after. Personally I like points, its easy to scale up and down, and its still easy to memorize. But there are times that Becks has its bonuses. Namely mundane humans. Mostly because I can take a TON of low power (2 or 3) skills and still have reasonable atts and ¥¥¥. A gen system that favors the jack of all trades. But MAN... Ill never do it without NSRCG again...

I typically use sum-to-10, find it pretty balanced. I never use priority, and I'll normally only use points if I'm making a character that requires it (metavarients, drakes, etc.), or if I want to have unbalanced edges/flaws.

I have not used BeCKS, but I have NSRCG and TSS article explaining it.

I prefer the point system as a GM because it allows me as GM to set the level of the game from street level to world changing, all I have to do is tell my characters how many points they have to spend.

Becks here. helsp control min maxing. why is becks not listed in the poll

I like BeCKS in the abstract; one of my big issues with SR character management is the disconnect between building and advancing your character, and the way it rewards versatility rather than punishing it is awesome. The character I'm playing now uses Sum-to-Ten, but I chose that for entirely munchkin reasons: I wrote down a list of abilities and resources that I figured I'd need to make the concept* semi-viable, then tried different build methods until I hit upon one that could accomodate it.

Of the options named in the poll, I prefer point-based, as it allows more variety and doesn't screw human mundanes.

Aspected conjurer/decker/face/small-time rigger. I wanted to pack as many means of gathering information as possible into a single character.

I'm personally a big fan of BeCKs because it lets you build the character you want (the biggest advantage of Points) and it doesn't penalize you for taking, say, one skill at 4 and another at 2 instead of one at 6.

I'll admit it's numbers heavy and it's not perfect. Say, if you want to play a shapeshifter full mage w/ 30 spell points you need to drop a whopping 240 karma.

One of the reason why I dislike Becks is that it encourages versatility. WTF, you ask? Why would I as a GM dislike Becks for encouraging my players to build "believable, rounded characters"? Because when I GM SR, there is usually more than 1-2 players. Having only 1-2 players demand that they spread out their skills to cover the bases. When you have more and when EVERYONE is a generalist, you have to ask yourself,"What is the Johnson doing? Hiring a bunch of guys all with the same set of skills and not one of them an expert at what he does?"

OOC: If the sammy can't doing anything the decker can't or that the mage can negotiate as well as the face, then what is the sammy or face doing in the group? It takes the fun out of the experience for everyone.

The points allocations and costs are not supposed to *fair* - they are supposed to produce a reasonable spread of races - which having looked at the various polls on DSF "which race are you?" etc actually does seem to work. Trying to evaluate the cost/benefit of any particular race is a pointless exercise.

Psh. You should have given Sum to Ten and BeCKs their own categories.

BeCKs over here.

I kept wondering why my Awakened characters were far more powerful under Priority than Points. I recently sat down and went through all the permutations of the Priority system. This is the abstract:

A range of 110 - 135 points, with an average of 123 and 7/9ths. If you allow mundane humans to use Sum to 10, then the range becomes 115 - 135 points with an average of 124 and 2/3rds. If you are an adept, the range is 124 - 135 (they get the most benefit) with an average of 128 and 1/9th. If you are a full magician, the range is 121 - 130 with an average of 124 and 5/9ths. Unless you use Sum-to-10, mundane humans are totally shafted under the priority system, with a range of 110 to 118.

Trends: Taking higher priorities in Resources jumps the overall point value up significantly. NO mundanes have a point total over 123. Overall, you get better value out of magically active characters (with adept characters given the most advantage) and metahumans under priorities. What this means is that the point system is less forgiving with Awakened characters and more forgiving with mundances.

Specific Examples:
Resources A /Magic B /Attributes C /Race D/Skills E 135 points (the highest value is a dwarf/ork adept who takes the million)
Resources A/Attributes A/Skills C 124 points i.e. the Street Sam Package in Sum-to-10
Skills A/Resources A/Attributes C 128 points i.e. the Techie Package in Sum-to-10

I like BeCKs.

Over the Xmas break this year, I wasn't working much. And you know about idle hands...

So I manually calculated out which system (Points or Priority) was technically better. (not unlike what hahnsoo was doing) Points always has the advantage of maleablity and EdgeFlaws, but for the purposes of this experiment, we're looking at pure purchasing power. Also, this doesn't compare anything that can't be done with Priority, and no Otaku. Do it manually if you want to so badly.

http://www.geocities.com/morphling_the_pre...der/Compare.xls

It's divided by Race and Magic, with all others subordinate. Maybe next time you make a character, you'll check his archetype against this comparison?

Any chance of an html version for those of us without the processing power to run the bloatware known as MS Office (or even the much more processor friend Open Office)?

Here's my data. It may have a few tiny math errors, but I've doubled checked everything:

Damn!!! I can't believe you calculated every option under the priority system.

Here's what I do to reconcile the metavariant thing with the priority system. I let the player choose which system they want to use. If they choose BP, I give them 125 pts.. If they choose priority, they get an extra 5 pts. If they play a metavairant, they have to spend the 5 on the variant. If they don't they can spend it on skills, attributes, or edges.

The method I prefer is to roll 3 D6 and add them together for each attribute.

Unfortunately, no GM has ever let me use the method I prefer.

BeCKS here, since I like the flexibility it offers--and the fact that you can make a decent generalist using it. OTOH, I've only used it on NSRCG, and I don't think I'd enjoy doing it by hand--except if I were in one of my occasional masochistic number-crunching moods.

I think it's unfair that Dwarves get a net +4 to their attributes without any attribute penalties, along with free Thermo and +2 dice vs. toxins and disease, AND they only cost 5 points. But hey, I'm not complaining... anything to get more people to play Dwarves, I guess.

Personally, I prefer Becks. But only with NSRCG to do the number crunching. I'm no masochist. If NSRCG isn't available, I'd say point buy.

Flexable Priority. All add to 10.