I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the English version...

Can't be long. If anything, this forces CGL's hand.

That will happen. If you have even the slightest amount of system mastery it's pretty easy to discard the inferior choices in weapons.

But those players are rule-playing the game. Whatever happened to pick a concept, and stick to it.

I want a Ruger Super Warhawk for my gunslinger beacuse it looks cool, and don't care if it's got an accuracy one or two points lower than the Ares Predator IV, or if it's makes a loud noise when fired.

I want a staff for my Chaos Magician becaus it goes with the look, and not becaus it has an accuracy lower or higher than any other melee weapon.

I want to roleplay my characters, and min-max does not help me roleplay

Ideally, "roleplaying" your character should not mean that you have to make inferior choices...

-CJ

Your character is supposed to be competent. Part of competence is picking the best tools for your job. So picking the best is roleplaying. Best will vary based on certain limitations, availability, cost, etc.

Look up "Stormwind Fallacy", please.

Min-maxed out rules monstrosities can be roleplayed as well as any other character. Roleplay depends on the player, not the rules.




-k

I don't see where he put forth any sort of fallacy. He said it didn't help him, not that it doesn't help at all. I tend to agree with him on that point, really.

To an extent I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure (this time) that he actually did this.

Correct, I find that min-maxing actually makes it easier to roleplay your character as you want. By choosing the optimal solutions you give yourself greater flexibility and variety by reducing the overall cost of a particular aspect of your character. Thus your statistics match up more closely with your concept and means that when the crunch comes down your character will be able to... you know.... actually do what he's supposed to.

His post opened complaining about OTHER people's "rule-playing" in regards to character builds, and lamenting why people can't "pick a concept and stick with it."



-k

One of the choices I made, back when I made my drake mystic adept was that I dedicated some of his build towards things that made the character a person with a history rather than being a pure numbers game.

Part of that was buying a nexus (2 whole BP) because I had declared, that as a Chaos Mage* he'd "awakened" when he accidentally discovered a UV node in his university's network and effectively leaned how to modify the underlying rules of the universe in his favor.** So I spent 2 BP (which I would have LOVED to spent elsewhere, I started the game with a list of about 10 skills on my "spend Karma here immediately") on a nexus that contains that UV node and also forms the part of his Lodge.***

I bent the rules of the universe slightly (but didn't break them), as these are the characters perception and beliefs rather than what may have actually occurred. I had a good story and simply built the character (as optimally as I could) to represent that story. In the end, that nexus never came up in play, just due to the campaign that we ran, but I wouldn't have sacrificed those story elements anyway.

*I still dislike this term, but if you look at the fluff you'll realize how well it fits.
**Hence mystic adept: part of his changes were to himself (powers), others were activate-able effects (spells)
***The rules specifically allow this. Look it up.

*goes back and reads*

Ah, my mistake. I stand corrected.

Re-reading Larsine's post, you might not be entirely wrong, Patrick.

He's complaining that picking certain things based on flavor results in suboptimal power choices. If he really believed that roleplay > ruleplay, he wouldn't care, and would take the suboptimal choices anyway.

As an unrepentant powergaming roleplayer, I run into this problem all the time. My vision for a character may require choices that are less optimal in regards to power. However, this just means I look at other options that will minimize the downsides of the problem choice, while maximizing any benefits.





-k

You're a min-maxer.

Generally, I build a character like this. I'll go down the line for what I did for my shifter mystic adept.

A. Pick a general idea or concept. (Shifter with magical ability.)

B. Get the exact details. (I want him to be really strong and be good at melee combat and his spells to be more supportive. So I make him a Bear for the extreme strength, and an Oak druid for the 'solid nature.')

C. Figure out stats and skills that make them competent without breaking their concept.(I gave him as high of an Agility as I could, since it's good for melee. Gave him a very high Body and Strength because that fit his concept. Gave him good other stats to help out and I didn't see him super deficient in anything. Gave him a high melee skill with a specialization and picked out other skills. Rounded him out. Picked his abilities equally that helped both his fighting and magic. Took defensive or healing type spells.)

D. Figure out extras(I liked WoW night elves so I gave him Shift Elf and made him this massive, 7'6'' dude with a big mane of hair. Gave him fitting knowledge skills like gardening and herbalism since he liked doing that on his spare time. He knew Colorado Forests well since that's where he lived half the time.)


I do this for them all. I always make sure C is done though. I will happily min max within a concept, and think that wanting to shut down all min maxing totally is a fallacy. There's nothing wrong with some min maxing or wanting to make your character competent. I only ever saw that as a problem when that becomes the absolute bottom line...and you know what? Even then, if that's how your table likes to play, that's okay! The game should be played in the way that lets your table have the most fun possible, because a game is supposed to be fun. I don't even think it's wrong if people have the most fun at their table not minmaxing at all. It's not my thing, but I admit my hackles go up a bit when I see terms like 'roll playing' or 'rule playing'-they simply have negative connotations. I always preferred terms like 'more mechanical play' or the like. It has a more neutral sound to it and doesn't make it sound 'wrong.'

I had to optimize like hell to make my drake work, and most of that ended up being the (albeit poor efficiency) choice to have almost all of his skills at 1...the only other option was to not have them at all (i.e. drop one skill from 1 to 0 in order to raise another skill from 1 to 2).

But again, I didn't compromise C and kept what I could from D (such as spending 10,000 / 2B on that nexus that I never used).

And I still ended up with four skills at 0 that were "raise immediately."

I think the only place that min-maxing bothers me is when it contradicts the fluff and the facts of the world or contradicts the backstory of the character. Like someone with a 7 skill in pistols, with 8 agility, and no knowledge skills relating to clubs or law enforcerment with a back story of former beat cop turned club bouncer (I think I saw that on Dumpshock a while back, though I could be mis-remembering). I'm sorry but if you want to play a navy seal level combat expert, just play one and don't try to call it something else.

Ideally the rules should be set up so that they follow the fluff and picking the options that sound cool and are good roleplaying are also good mechanically. But not all rules are perfect for you get conflicts.

Yes.

I'm also a roleplayer.






-k

That assumes that character creation will actually prevent maxing out both categories. The BP system was supposed to do that, and look at some of the monstrosities people have come up with.

I know they're going back to Priority, but the last time they tried (Runner's Companion) they produced an unworkable system. Finding a good balance point is tricky. I don't know if they have found it or not, but I do know that I'm reserving judgement until I can see it in play. Once I've torn apart the system with the aid of a few min/maxers, I'll form a final opinion on how robust the system really is.

Lately, all my characters are being built with the following flowchart:

(1) Match the artwork.

(2) Match the newly released artwork.

(3) Make sure it matches the artwork.

(4) - (7) Revise.

( Done!

The only thing I like about the priority system is that it's good for fast character creation. I find it too unwieldy for creating overall balanced characters.

Is it possible to be both?

Yes. Exceedingly so. If you're playing an RPG with a ruleset that ruleset dictates what you can and cannot do and how you do it. In order to roleplay your character how you want you must be able to reliably achieve success within the ruleset. That is where optimization comes into play. By choosing X over Y, minimizing downs, and otherwise tweaking the character you can accomplish everything you want to roleplay within a tighter build. The tighter you can make your build the more flexibility you have when it comes to creating the character as a whole. You have more areas you can expand into either by virtue of now having free points to allocate or by virtue of slightly loosening the build for more points. This means that by the rules your character now has more crunch that correctly articulates his skills, attributes, and knowledge.

Now, if you were to say "I don't care about the rules, just roleplaying." then why are you playing Shadowrun? A free-form RPG that uses a setting like Shadowrun is better suited to what you want but as long as you're using the Shadowrun ruleset that ruleset acts as a constraint on what you can and cannot do.

It is possible to be a Min-/Maxer/PowerGamer and a Roleplayer as well.

It is NOT possible to be a Munchkin and a roleplayer at the same time.

At least that is how I understand those terms...

Wow how rude to short people.

Short ppl are scary ... beardies too!

"Insane" is a better word than "heartless". And, as I said, there are numerous accounts of the effects of Essence loss, including Hatchetman's one.

Deus Ex goes with dehumanizing theme full scale, especially the new game. Even in the trailer: Adam takes the glass, and it cracks in his hands.

only short people from Oz.

It's impossible not to be both, because you can't roleplay while dead!

You're not in Kansas anymore Black Swan.

What's the difference between a munchkin and a minmaxer?

Min-Maxer usually work within the rules.
Munchkins creatively re-interpret them.

Personally, when I make a new character, I get the most enjoyment out of the character when I write the character's story first and then make the statistical character. I usually end up with a character that isn't min-maxed, but is more fun (for me) to play, then if I had min-maxed and then wrote the story.

As far as my understanding goes:

Min-/Maxer = Powergamer = get the best possible out of a believable Char within the rules. They also tend to help out other players ... suggesting useful angles they might not have noticed and such, not being a "Spotlight whore" etc.

Munchkins on the other hand have only one goal: "To WIN!" ... they interpret the rules "creatively" in their favor, try to "lure" the GM into giving them advantages, try to grab "SpotLight-Time" whenever possible, and generally do not care about anything, as long as they WIN! and as long as they are the Winners/Champs/whatever...

And I often, as a GM, encourage my players to give me a brief account of those things that are minned or maxed. That usually leads to good storytelling.

according to the Urban dictionary, a Munchkin is a Powergamer.

i usually try to smuggle these things by my GM and other players just for the looks on their faces when they realize just what i managed to do with certain characters.
none of them thought i could make the SR3 Skillwires into a useable, much less broken design . .

I am a confessing Min-Maxer / PowerGamer.

For me it is like this most of the time:
- I talk to the other players, finding out what "Role" they want to play, helping them out with some pointers here and there
- I look at the group and figure out what is missing for a successful team
- I think about how I can best complement the team / cover areas that still need covering
- I come up with a concept that might fit in
- I write the story for the Char
- I Min-/Max the hell out of him to make sure he is able to fill that role...

But that's only me I guess..

True, true. I forgot about the critter.

no it's not.

Doesn't that frustrate the hell out of your GM?

Communication is overrated. Unless they made a challenge out of the wires issue.

This makes me happy

So Hamburg, AGS it is? You happen to have a free spot in your Team?

Of course, that's kinda the point of it

they did, actually. and usually, my shenanigans are groan inducing and silly but still good for the team.

Technically yes, 2 things to add here though:
a) no idea when we'll actually play, it's really seldom . . once every some months, sometimes not for a year
b) i'd have to ask the rest of them what they think about it.

I used to have a player who would do stuff like that. Then he took dykoted arrow to the cyberknee.

JK of course. I did have a chat with him, though. I reminded him that I was the only one in the group willing to run SR (everyone loved it but wanted to play) and its just as important that I have fun as it is for him to have fun, and to knock it off. He respected my position and he keeps it clean now.

Well, seldom is better than NEVER

I'll send you a PM with details, no need to derail the thread I guess

The first thing for every "good" Min-/Maxer / Powergamer: To fit in, at least to some degree

When is the actual release date, anyway?

*shrugs*
they want to play their sleek ninja adepts and final fantasy like spellcasters and cat girls and the such . .
and i want to play silly stuff that usually annoys the other players as much as their characters annoy me and also has a usefull angle . .
i am the only one who gets more restrictions placed on him than the rest as well.

We've all played shit disturber characters before. From my experience it ends up ruining it for everyone.