Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: character creation costs?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Shinobi Killfist
I guess my issue it this, they claim high starting attributes and skills will be rare. Now is that because of a shortage on points so that just getting an average amount in your attributes burns most your points leaving little for going up to a 6 or because higher stats and skills get dramatically higher cost.

For example in the d20 point buy system you start with straight 8s and an increase of 1 costs 1 point up to 14, to get to 15 it costs 2 points 16 2 more points17 now 3 points, 17 3 more and 18 3 more. This is fine and dandy but every two points above 10 gives you a +1 to whatever that attribute modifies, usually skills and spell dcs and the like. On a d20 roll thats basically a 5% swing for every 2 points. A 14 dex is no better than a 12 dex than a 12 is better than a 10 or a 16 is better than a 14.(outside other mods like armor caps) So up to the 14 point there attribute cost system makes sense.

Past 14 it only makes sense in a world building law of averages high stat should be rare sense. Not so much in the game balance I'm getting more than before out of it sense.(though i've seen people argue it for specific stats like str that "double there benefits since they increase the to hit and damage in the same action)

Now in SR4 I understand the TN is fixed at 5, and your att+skill gives you a pool. In game balance terms the only way a dramatically higher cost would make sense would be if for some reason I cant fathom, due to incomplete info or bad math skills, a 7 dice pool is some how percentage wise better than a 6 dice pool than a 6 dice pool is better than a 5 dice pool.

If a 7 dice pool is the same % better than a 6 die pool that a 6 die pool is better than a 5 dice pool a increasing cost system makes little sense.

I hope that made sense i couldnt come up with a good way to describe what i was thinking.
Modesitt
What people reported from Origins is that char creation is on a point system, but it's about 400 points for an average char, 300 for a lower-powered char and 500 for a high-powered char. Funny how BeCKs uses almost those EXACT SAME NUMBERS.

That's why high attributes and skills will be rare. They're probably switching to BeCKs, which since it's karma based means most people aren't particularily inclined to take all of their skills at 6.
wagnern
Roughly, you should get 1/3 success for each die you throw. So without diging out the stistics handbook, it would seem that a 5-6 die jump would be comparable to a 6-7 die jump. Each increment increases your number of success by 1/3. After all, it sounds like # of successes will be the name of the game.

of corse, if someone does the math-foo I may be wrong, but that is my quick analisis.

Who knows, each stat may have a different cost? Heck that could be a cool way to do races. Instead of giving race X +Y to strenght, just make strenght cheaper for them. Or the Attribute/cost curve could be different . . .
Nikoli
christ, I hate BeCKS.
Edge2054
I love BeCKS, other then how time consuming it is without NSRCG and I'm glad it looks like SR 4 will be getting away from the 1-1 we've seen all through SR. It just makes Min/Maxing far to easy in character generation.

On the other hand, I hope the number krunching is minimized somehow. I don't want players, especially new players, to have to invest as much time as they would have to if they did BeCKS by hand.
Nikoli
Any system that requires a program to understand is a bad idea.
i love NSRCG but I still won't use BeCKS.
wagnern
Becks is just building the charictor with Karma, that is not hard to understand. Now it is inconvient to use, but that is a different creature. (Kinda like Champions, you can understand the system, but making a charictor w/o Hero maker is a pain in the ass.)
Synner
SR4 chargen point system does bear some similarities to BECKS, but probably less than it bears to SR3's Point-based chargen. Personally I found it faster to use than either though. Take that as you will.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Edge2054)
I love BeCKS, other then how time consuming it is without NSRCG and I'm glad it looks like SR 4 will be getting away from the 1-1 we've seen all through SR. It just makes Min/Maxing far to easy in character generation.


Yeah but if every die in the pool just just gives you a 1/3 chance of success roughly at least, then it should be a 1-1. When mechanical penalties come into character creation that dont actually have bearing on the power all it does is reroute min-maxing into another character concept. And if you have a problem with characters starting with a 6 skill for whatever reason, talking to them is a better method than hard wiring the character creaiton so mediocratiy is everyones campaign style.

Someone mentioned champions and for my point thats a good example. every 5 points gets you 1d6 in energy blast. Having a rule built into the game that said its 10 points per 1d6 after 30 active points are put into energy blast because we dont want people starting with powerful attacks is a bad plan. Leave it at 1d6 per 5 points, and let the GM say there is an active point limit or guidleine or whatever of 30 points.

So I hope the costs are based not on fan pro determining our campaign style but on what they should be, the actual game balance value of the skill or attribute.
Catsnightmare
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Streamlining my ass!
I had enough complaints about the math getting two new players to build characters using the point system in SR3. Now SR4 is essentially using the karma buy system for character creation?! WTF?!?
I can almost assure you that from what I've seen of youth/kids today, the younger target audience Fan Pro is shooting for isn't gonna want to bother with that kind of math heavy character creation. They're already losing potentional new customers and the book isn't even out yet.

Edge2054
QUOTE (Synner)
SR4 chargen point system does bear some similarities to BECKS, but only about as many as it bears to SR3's Point-based chargen. Personally I found it faster to use than either though. Take that as you will.

This is good to hear.

As far as my comments on BeCKS. Understanding it without NSRCG isn't the problem, it's the amount of math involved and the time it takes to do it without a program that I was commenting on.

The 1-1 system in SR creates min/maxing because it is cheaper in the long run to start every attribute that you ever intend to max out maxed and to start out every skill you intend to raise to six or higher at six. Take for example Troll A and Troll B, Troll A maxes body and str at gen and leaves his int at 1. Troll B puts body at 10 and str at 9 but starts off with int at 3. Troll B needs 32 Karma to put his bod and str where Troll A's are but Troll A only needs 10 karma to put his int where Troll B's is even though both started with the same points to distribute during character generation.

I'm not saying people won't continue to min/max in other ways with a new system, I'm just saying the possibilities for min/maxing in the 1-1 system are blatant and unbalanced.

Champions isn't a good example IIRC because the abilities don't cost anymore the higher they get after the game starts. If it costs 5 to buy a dice of Energy Blast at gen it's going to still cost 5 after rather it's your 10th die or your 50th. Shadowrun doesn't work that way, 1-1 would work if it stayed 1-1 throughout, but it doesn't.
Synner
QUOTE (Catsnightmare)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Streamlining my ass!
I had enough complaints about the math getting two new players to build characters using the point system in SR3. Now SR4 is essentially using the karma buy system for character creation?! WTF?!?

Where are you getting any of that? Care to provide a quote or reference? I know I just said that in my experience its simpler and faster to use than either BECKs or the SR3 point based system so where are you getting the rest of this?
Eldritch
As an observation the new char gen system does seem a little more complex - even not knowing the system yet. Sr3 you spent around 120 points; attributes 2 for one, skills one ofr one, and the magic/race/resources all had their little costs.

SR4 has - according to info given so far - 300 point for a basic level char, up to 500 points for an advanced char. We know attributes average out at 3, as do skills. and that Buying skills attributes over 3 gets really expensive.

This - to me - indicates a much more complex char gen system. More math.

More points = more things to buy - and/or different formulas to calculate costs.

And in my book, More complex does not equate to streamlining.
Adam
Of course, having more numbers to distribute can be made easier by keeping the numbers round.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Edge2054)
[QUOTE=Synner]
The 1-1 system in SR creates min/maxing because it is cheaper in the long run to start every attribute that you ever intend to max out maxed and to start out every skill you intend to raise to six or higher at six. Take for example Troll A and Troll B, Troll A maxes body and str at gen and leaves his int at 1. Troll B puts body at 10 and str at 9 but starts off with int at 3. Troll B needs 32 Karma to put his bod and str where Troll A's are but Troll A only needs 10 karma to put his int where Troll B's is even though both started with the same points to distribute during character generation.


I see what your saying here, but to me that's a flaw not with the creation system but with the growth system. Maybe more so or less so under SR3 dice mechanics. My math skills dont come close to being able to assess probability in its variable TN system. If it costs 5 points to get a stat from 1 to 2 and 5 points from 2 to 3 then 10 from 3 to 4 then the creation system in 4 is broken.(numbers completely fabricated) If the benefits you gain from a skill or attribute increase in a straight line then the costs shouldn't increase the cost should be consistent whether in character creation or in growth after creation.
Taki
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist)
If the benefits you gain from a skill or attribute increase in a straight line then the costs shouldn't increase the cost should be consistent whether in character creation or in growth after creation.

I even pray for a growth system consistent with the character creation on any point (in all games).
I really don't see any reason why some thing could be less expensive at creation than after (and it doesn't mean that you can choose from all the creation list: "I become an elf for 10 karma")
Lindt
Woh.... 300 points? While I normally abhore such profainty, this calls for it. I dont FUCKING believe it. That is stupid as hell. While the karma system makes for (IMO) the best balanced charcters, its almost time prohibitive use without McMackies gift. Charcter generation for SR has always been fairly complex, but adding a level like this is just assinine...
If this IS the case, I will have spent months saying "Wait and see, then Ill decide." This will change that to "Nope, it blows goats."
Modesitt
...While my first instinct was that it was BeCKs, there's no reason to believe that it MUST be so.

Seriously, just think a little bit instead of instinctively lashing out at any and all 4th edition changes. Maybe they just increased the numbers to allow more fine-tuning of numbers and prices, similar to the difference between using a d20 and a d6. Maybe every single number you'd buy things in is 5 or 10, making the math fairly quick and easy.
Ellery
Don't be too worried about a number of 300. It just means that everything is on the same point scale but some things are expensive and some are cheap. Your smallest unit is 1 point, which might correspond to one spell point in SR3 (if spell points even make sense any more, which they may well not--but something could be that cheap). Your big-ticket items (race, for instance) might be worth 50 points. If everything's nicely rounded to multiples of 5 and 10 (when over 1 or 2), the math shouldn't be too hard for anyone who has played SR3. Of course, if absolutely everything is rounded to a multiple of 5, it should be 60 points with all costs divided by five.

QUOTE
If the benefits you gain from a skill or attribute increase in a straight line then the costs shouldn't increase the cost should be consistent whether in character creation or in growth after creation.
No, no, this is a terrible design decision for anything but a Dragonball Z-feel of game. In most realistic scenarios there is a law of diminishing returns, meaning that each fractional advantage you get requires more work than the last. Without that, you have scenarios where one person who spends their whole life practicing martial arts can defeat hundreds of opponents who are of similar size and strength, but have only had a few informal brawls. It gives a "superhero" feel, where the great are untouchable by the good, and the good are untouchable by the mediocre. If you want a superhero game, fine, but that's not how Shadowrun is typically portrayed (once one discounts immortal elves and dragons).

The only real way to avoid the problem is to introduce a cap--and then you get bunching up of people at the cap with no distinction between the great and the fantastic. This is frustrating, as we celebrate the amazing accomplishments of the fantastic over the great all the time (Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Michael Jordan, and so on, just to pick examples from sports), and it's nice to be able to capture that feeling with a character.

I expect SR4 to have lots of linear trends because it appears simple and streamlined (and it's very easy to explain), but I expect also to see lots of caps that will frustrate long-term development and places where the need for a cap was forgotten and where imbalance will arise.
Ol' Scratch
I fail to see how figuring out how many points you've spent using 300 on a variable scale (1 for 1, 10 for 2, 25 for 3, etc... or whatever) is easier or more streamlined than the current Point Buy system, where all you have to do is count how many attribute points you spent and double it, then add in how many skill points you spent and be through with it (save for Resources, Magic, and Race which are all just a single number to deal with).

The latter can be done without having to do any math more difficult than counting on your fingers. The former would almost assuredly require jotting down some numbers or using a calculator unless you really have a knack for math and bookkeeping (which, at most, is only required for dealing with the actual Resources you gain under the current systems, which isn't really part of the Point-Buy system itself).

Saying the former is going to be faster and easier in general, without any other explanation for how those points are used, is just not possible. You may be more familiar and comfortable with it now, but there's just no way it's going to be easier.
Bull
Christ. you people seriously overthink and overanalyze everything.

It bears a striking resemblence to the SR3 point buy system. A few things have been tweaked, a few things added, and the point cost for damn near everything has been changed. It's still mostly a linear model, and while my experience doesn't quite jive with Synner's and I wouldn't say it's faster, I also say it isn't any slower either. At least not any slower than the first few times I made SR3 characters. I have most of those memorized now, so barring making a Decker, Rigger, or heavy and wierdly outfitted cyber-dude, I can whipe characters together in my sleep.

ive me a year with SR4, and I'll be in the same place. Mostly because I don;t make characters very often.

Bull
SR4WorldOrder
sorry but i don't like the BECKS system either. if there is alot of math envolved i hope they give a calculator along with the book. it sounds like it'll take longer to make a character than it will to locate a mr johnson by oneself in the icey regions of siberia.
SR4WorldOrder
on some things i'd say "if it wasn't broke don't fix it" which it looks like FP did
Bull
QUOTE (SR4WorldOrder)
sorry but i don't like the BECKS system either. if there is alot of math envolved i hope they give a calculator along with the book. it sounds like it'll take longer to make a character than it will to locate a mr johnson by oneself in the icey regions of siberia.

on some things i'd say "if it wasn't broke don't fix it" which it looks like FP did

Umm, did you read either of SYnner's or my own posts?

It's not Becks. Period. It bears almost no resemblence to Becks, except maybe in how many points you start with. It does, hoever, bear a striking resemblence to the old point buy system.

It's no more complicated or time consuming than SR3.

Bull
Ol' Scratch
Very well then. But if the method of buying attributes and skills varies from anything but directly linear numbers (10 for Skill 1, 20 for Skill 2, 30 for Skill 3) vs. some scale (10 for Skill 1, 25 for Skill 2, 50 for Skill 3), you'll still be wrong. It will be more complicated and time consuming than the current system. And considering that's what people have been saying about the new system for a while now, unless someone says directly the opposite, there's no real way to limit high-scoring attributes and skills without them being disproportionally more expensive than lower ones, and Disportionally More Expensive = More Complicated.

This has jack-all to do with that atrocious BeCKS system.

I, personally, like more complicated systems like that (again, not referring to BeCKS), but saying that it's no more complicated or time consuming than a point-for-point system is just flat-out wrong.
Ellery
Haven't you just concluded that it's probably linear, then, or very nearly so? (I.e. constant cost per point of whatever.)
Critias
QUOTE (Bull)
Christ. you people seriously overthink and overanalyze everything.

Christ. How dare we talk about and speculate over a game we love, in a forum dedicated to such discussion?
Serbitar
So the SR4 system is still linear and different from karma advancement ?

That sucks. MinMax problems all the way. They should have just picked Becks and leave the uneducated "math sucks" people at home. Everybody in this forum should be able to use a calculator or a table where those things ar summarized.

Why the hell is the world getting so lazy? I mean, its not math you have to do in game, and thus slows gameplay. Its at character creation that you do at home with plenty of time.
Ellery
We haven't heard anything about how karma is used. That could well be linear too, now.
Ol' Scratch
I'm objecting more to the bullshit responses some of the playtesters are saying, not that "math sucks." I get really fed up hearing things like "it's not any more complicated or time consuming" when they likely mean to say "it's not very complex at all." Things do not get much more simple than it is now. Any type of scaled system is going to be more complex, and thus more time consuming than the current system. That in no way means it will be difficult or annoying to use.

I'm just sick of lies and propaganda.
Ellery
I really don't know why you'd assume that when they say "it's as simple as SR3 point-buy" that it is likely lies and/or propaganda. If they said both, "it's as simple as SR3" and "it's scaled advancement like SR3 karma awards", then yes, there's a contradiction. But if they just say, "point buy with 300 points" and "simple as SR3 point buy" then why not assume that it's exactly like they say? Given all the talk about "3 is average", they may have introduced a step function, such as points up to 3 costing, say, 5 build points, and points from 4-6 costing 10 build points. But a step like that doesn't make things noticably harder, especially if they make other bits easier (such as doing away with the idea of separate spell points and instead buying spells directly with build points, doing away with the income vs. points table and making that linear, e.g. $2k/point, and by having cyberware listed by build point as well as market value, so you don't have to do the point-cash-ware conversion).

What is hard to do is make the system simpler and provide great flexibility and avoid egregious min-maxing. But they've made no claims about flexibility (which is part of the reason why one might use BeCKS, right?) and not made a convincing claim that they've avoided min-maxing (aside from a few comments from playtesters who feel that it won't be a problem).
Bull
QUOTE
What is hard to do is make the system simpler and provide great flexibility and avoid egregious min-maxing. But they've made no claims about flexibility (which is part of the reason why one might use BeCKS, right?) and not made a convincing claim that they've avoided min-maxing (aside from a few comments from playtesters who feel that it won't be a problem).


"SR4 is more flexible than a double-jointed gymnist with jello for bones!" wink.gif

"SR4: We'll shoot Min Maxers in the head, so they're not a problem for ya!" grinbig.gif

Seriously, Min/Maxing will be possible in any system, really. It's all a matter of degrees.

I'd say the system is almost as flexible as the SR3 system, because there's now a suggested cap on how many points can be spent toward attributes. From my experience playtesting, the cap doesn't so much limit your attributes as it helps make sure you still have points to spend on the rest of your character wink.gif

But as I was saying, it's a matter of degrees. Make "6" rare and hard to attain, and that makes 5 the new Min/Max, really. <shrug> There are limits to buying high end skills and attributes though, so that helps keep things "lower pwered", but it also means that MinMax just moves the numbers around a bit.

It's up to the GM to slap a Min Maxer around and tell them "no" if it's really a problem. Too many players and GMs forget that "submitting your character for GM approval" is a part of Chargen in most games. Its even in most books, right in the chargen section! (Don;t know offhand if that's in SR4, but I'd assume so)

smile.gif

Bull
Taki
Saying sr3 karma is too complex for a creation system is fine too me.
I still wonder why dev didn't use the sr4 chargen for karma advancement then ?

(to exchange a pool of badass with one of min/maxers ?)
Bull
QUOTE (Taki)
Saying sr3 karma is too complex for a creation system is fine too me.
I still wonder why dev didn't use the sr4 chargen for karma advancement then ?

(to exchange a pool of badass with one of min/maxers ?)

You still had min maxers in SR3. They just bought all their skills and stats up to 6 to start with.

You now have a slightly lower scale to work with, since Attributes and SKills have a cap on how high they can go, and there are limiting factors during Chargen taht prevent you from taking more than a few skills and/or attrinbutes at higher ranks. So while 6 is the natural unaugmented maximum of an attribute, most characters won't have any attributes at 6 (or whatever their cap is after racial mods). SO this means that 4 or 5 becomes the "Max" attribute value. But this doesn't mean they're actually maxed, and doesn't mean it's not possible to hit 6 at chargen.

Plus, every system, whether you use a complex karma buyup system or a flat rate point buy system or something in between can be min/maxed. You can't avoid it.

What you can do is try and make sure that every attribute has value to it, so that giving yourself one or more "Min's" to get yourself a "Max" leaves you with a big, gaping hole in your character design.

And it's the GMs job to exploit that flaw. And if the GM doesn't feel like or want to exploit that weakness, then it's his job to say "hey, your Troll Combat Monster can't have an Logic and Intuition of one, or else he's little more than a vegetable with an axe. Take a minimum of two each, or no fixer on the planet would hire a team that included someone so mentally retarded he can't tell friend from foe."

Anyways, that's way off the original topic anyways. smile.gif

Back to overanalyzing everything that gets said. go on. Shoo!
biggrin.gif

Bull
Taki
I don't think I need to overanalyzing what you say Bull. From my point of view you are saying that min/maxing won't be in sr4 such a violent advantage it is in sr3. This is good indeed, but min/maxing will still be induced at a lower scale.

Once again I say "induced" because for those who know the rules, imaging one char with some advancement will often lead to calculating the smallest cost (both chargen point and karma ) to get there.
That can't be avoided (since chargen is not proportional to karma advancement).

Your answer let me think I will find chargen/karma better in sr4 than in sr3 but still flawed. I guess I can be happy about that !

Cain
All right, let's try it this way:

Fact: Chargen in SR4 will be based on 400 pts for average characters.

Fact: It has been announced that higher levels of attributes and skills will be more expensive than the lower levels.

Assumption: Attributes and skills will use a stepped-cost buy system.

Fact: Stepped-cost buy systems are inherently more complex, mathematically speaking, than straight-cost or template systems.

Conclusion: The SR4 chargen system will be more complex than either the SR3 MCC Table or Point-buy system.
-------------

Fact: It has been announced that the game is attempting to go back to a "grittier" street-level feel.

Fact: Attributes and skills are capped, and have "other limiting factors" at chargen.

Assumption: Skills and attributes are designed to be lower than in SR3.

Assumption: When using a 400-point scale, 1 is the smallest discrete unit used for calculation; also, 1 will be used regularily to calculate small units.

Assumption: The minimum cost for 1 point in an attribute will be 1 point.

Fact: A linear progression from 1 to 6 only totals 21 points

Assumption: 21 points does not qualify as "very expensive" under a 400-point system.

Assumption: The easiest "fix" would be to use either a logarithmic or non-direct progression.

Conclusion: Costs will be based on a logarithmic, not linear, stepped-cost system, if any direct progression system is used.
-------------
Fact: Under the SR4 system, characters can still gain a max stat of 6, before racial modifiers.

Fact: There has been "other factors" mentioned besides the cap, which restrict the maximum level of attributes. Obstensibly, this aids you in making sure you "still have points to spend on the rest of your character."

Assumption: You will only be permitted to have a few stats at an unmodified 6, regardless of availiable points; possibly, only one.

Fact: Extraneous restrictions complicate a system.

Fact: Neither the SR3 MCCT or Point-buy system had any outside limits imposed; except for the suggested 60-point cap on attributes in point-buy.

Conclusion: The SR4 system will be more complex than either of the SR3 systems.

Opinion: Restrictive issues should be dealt with within the system's own mechanics, and not by artificially imposing limits on it.
-----------
Fact: The SR4 system-- or any system, for that matter-- cannot possibly prevent munchkins from abusing the system to min/max their character to an excessive, game-breaking degree.

Fact: Characters can still get an unmodified stat of 6, before racial adjustments.

Assumption: Racial adjustments will broadly follow the same categores as before: elves will gain Charisma and Quickness, Trolls will gain Body and Strength, etc.

Assumption: Cyberware, bioware, and magic that affect attributes will still exist in SR4.

Assumption: FanPro will want to avoid retconning things out of existance.

Assumption: Only a few pieces of 'ware will actually be removed from the system, although a fair number may be rendered obsolete by the Matrix 2.0. (ex, crainal cyberdecks.)

Fact: Under SR3, some of the most frequent min/maxing occurred using a combination of any of the following: Racial modifers, cyber, bioware, and/or magic.

Assumption: Fanpro is not even considering removing any of these categories.

Conclusion: Munchkins will still have as many ways to abuse the system as before.
Ellery
You're making an awful lot of questionable assumptions. For example, it is also a fact that people have stated that SR4 character creation will be no harder than SR3 character creation. Thus, while I agree that some sort of stepped system is necessary to make high stats more expensive, it could be as simple as a single step between 3 and 4 (or some other pair of numbers). That would satisfy both statements, and while this is technically more complicated than a flat-cost system, it is insignificantly so.

That 21 points is not "very expensive" in a 400 point system is not an assumption at all--rather, given that attributes are supposed to be lower, a total cost of 21 points to max out an attribute would not result in lower attributes--it would so blatantly allow high attributes that even the most mathematically challenged developer would immediately notice.

However, I have no idea why you think a logarithmic system (do you mean exponential?) is the natural conclusion. The triangle progression that yields 21 points is essentially quadratic (T(n) = (n^2 + n)/2). But there's no reason that the first point of an attribute has to cost 1 point. There is presumably something that costs one point, but the lowest cost for one point of one attribute could be 1 or 5 or 10 or 40. If they really want to keep attributes around 3, they'll probably assume about 200 points into 8 attributes raised to 3 each, which yields a per-point cost of around 8.

Anyway, multiplication by five or ten (or even eight) is a lot easier than calculating an exponent for most people. Continuing on from the single-step flat-cost system, one could guess that attributes cost 5 points from 1 to 3, and 10 points from 4 to 6. The exact numbers are hard to guess, of course, but the point is that there is a very simple system that fits the criteria they've stated reasonably well.

If it has been stated that factors other than running out of points will keep you from having lots of 6s, then it does seem hard to avoid a bit of extra complexity (although that could be the minimal level of complexity of "you can have at most one stat at 6"). I don't recall it being stated that it wasn't as simple as running out of points, though. Maybe it costs 50 points to go from 5 to 6--that'd certainly keep you from raising much of anything to 6.

I do agree that it's not a good practice to set up rules for how the players can spend points, and then tell them that there are certain combinations of those rules they're not allowed to use. But it's not really any different than a cap--a cap says, "You can buy new points for X much. But you can't do that if you have hit the cap." I think caps are bad practice too, and lead to all sorts of craziness and unpleasant limitations. Having caps plus extra rules saying that you can only have one six or somesuch isn't any worse for me. In a scenario like that, you just look at it the other way--the cap is five, but they're so generous that you can break it once!

Finally, the last part contains too many ideas for the train of thought to be obvious to me. However, I do not think that it is a "fact" that a game cannot be created that resists all attempts by munchkin min/maxing to break it. Resistance can be built into the system by giving it inherent sweet spots that draw in min/maxers and keep them confined to known power levels. I'm not sure if this can be done with a linear total cost (flat incremental cost) system, since linear functions tend not to have sweet spots. This is one of the reasons why linear / flat cost systems, despite their simplicity, are to be avoided. The extra complexity of a nonlinear system can pay handsome dividends in terms of game balance and long-term enjoyment--it's worth the investment. Typically, though, games are not designed to make it impossible to min/max because one needs to do a lot of bookkeeping and analysis to catch all broken cases of min/maxing, and it's not worth the time and effort--it's more effective to make the system somewhat resistant, and let the GM catch the few remaining cases.
wagnern
What it ultametly comes down to is that it is a Role playing game. If players stick to there consepts and build charictors with strenghts and weaknesses there should be no problems. Now if you are able to create a system that rewards for this, cool.

I do like the idea of increasing cost, it will make that 6 in postols quite extra-ordinary, and it makes some sence. Ever notice that the absolute top indivisuals in any given field spend almost all of there time honing there skills? (If you don't start skating at 4, you will never be in the olympics as a figure skater)

It would make well rounded, compedent charictors quite appealing. And make experts quite amazing and cool.
Jrayjoker
QUOTE (wagnern)
What it ultametly comes down to is that it is a Role playing game. If players stick to there consepts and build charictors with strenghts and weaknesses there should be no problems. Now if you are able to create a system that rewards for this, cool.

I do like the idea of increasing cost, it will make that 6 in postols quite extra-ordinary, and it makes some sence. Ever notice that the absolute top indivisuals in any given field spend almost all of there time honing there skills? (If you don't start skating at 4, you will never be in the olympics as a figure skater)

It would make well rounded, compedent charictors quite appealing. And make experts quite amazing and cool.

There are a lot of ways of thinking about your character from development onward.

Any system that does not allow you to create the character you want to play form the start is not (IMO) robust.

With the current (SR3) tools you can make a street level character or an uberelite character and anything in between within the rules. It appears to me that the goal of this system is to force the starting characters to be street level opperatives. Now, I like that sort of game, but it is not for everyone.

So there it is...
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (wagnern)
What it ultametly comes down to is that it is a Role playing game. If players stick to there consepts and build charictors with strenghts and weaknesses there should be no problems. Now if you are able to create a system that rewards for this, cool.

I do like the idea of increasing cost, it will make that 6 in postols quite extra-ordinary, and it makes some sence. Ever notice that the absolute top indivisuals in any given field spend almost all of there time honing there skills? (If you don't start skating at 4, you will never be in the olympics as a figure skater)

It would make well rounded, compedent charictors quite appealing. And make experts quite amazing and cool.

I don't like an increasing cost, unless it increases at the rate a benefit is gained. 6 in pistols should cost an amount appropriate to the mechanical benefit gained. It should not cost how much the designers think how rare it should be in the world. How rare it should be is an individual GMs campaign design decision. I mean yeah whoopee for you if your campaign design happens to match the developers, so the point costs work for you. But there are other gamers out there who like different styles of games and the creation guidelines shouldn't penalize them for liking a different style of game.

I'm happy to hear the the costs are at least mostly linear, since the benefits gained are as far as i can tell mostly linear. Now personally the average attribute thing will pan out for me if we use SR4 in the next campaign we were working up. That doesn't mean it will work for every campaign I either run or run in though. Sometimes you want a change of pace.
Cain
QUOTE
For example, it is also a fact that people have stated that SR4 character creation will be no harder than SR3 character creation. Thus, while I agree that some sort of stepped system is necessary to make high stats more expensive, it could be as simple as a single step between 3 and 4 (or some other pair of numbers). That would satisfy both statements, and while this is technically more complicated than a flat-cost system, it is insignificantly so.

I find that to be rather unlikely, although possible; in order to keep stats down, the step would have to be rather large. Mulitiple steps seems much more likely, and much more intuitive to work with. What you're describing is what I called a non-direct progression, where each step has an arbitrary change.
QUOTE
However, I have no idea why you think a logarithmic system (do you mean exponential?) is the natural conclusion. The triangle progression that yields 21 points is essentially quadratic (T(n) = (n^2 + n)/2). But there's no reason that the first point of an attribute has to cost 1 point. There is presumably something that costs one point, but the lowest cost for one point of one attribute could be 1 or 5 or 10 or 40. If they really want to keep attributes around 3, they'll probably assume about 200 points into 8 attributes raised to 3 each, which yields a per-point cost of around 8.

The logarithmic (multiplicative or exponential) scale will raise costs enough that getting more than one or two stats at 6 will be prohibitively expensive. The advantage of a direct progression is that it can be calculated at all-- for a non-direct cost advancement, you either need the charts on hand, or have to memorize them.

For example: Under the SR3 point system, you can easily assign attributes and skills, without thinking about it. Assigning races requires a bit more effort; and good luck assigning mid-grade resources if you're working from memory. That makes the system more complicated, since you have to constantly refer to a chart in order to derive your values. If SR4 has a non-direct progression for attributes and skills, as well as one for resources, then you're going to have to do a *lot* of chart work in order to make a character. While this may not necessarily be much more complex, it is more aggravating than a staight-buy system.

QUOTE
If it has been stated that factors other than running out of points will keep you from having lots of 6s, then it does seem hard to avoid a bit of extra complexity (although that could be the minimal level of complexity of "you can have at most one stat at 6"). I don't recall it being stated that it wasn't as simple as running out of points, though. Maybe it costs 50 points to go from 5 to 6--that'd certainly keep you from raising much of anything to 6.

In order for that to work, you'd definitely need a multiple-step system, without direct progression. IMO, that's the worst kind to work with. At any event, it was Bull's post that said the restrictions mostly "made sure he had points left for the rest of his character". That's where I got the idea that the number of unmodified 6's are capped.

QUOTE
I do agree that it's not a good practice to set up rules for how the players can spend points, and then tell them that there are certain combinations of those rules they're not allowed to use. But it's not really any different than a cap--a cap says, "You can buy new points for X much. But you can't do that if you have hit the cap." I think caps are bad practice too, and lead to all sorts of craziness and unpleasant limitations. Having caps plus extra rules saying that you can only have one six or somesuch isn't any worse for me. In a scenario like that, you just look at it the other way--the cap is five, but they're so generous that you can break it once!


IMO, the difference between a cap and an arbitrary restriction is that a cap is more-or-less universal, while restrictions are case-specific. Just saying: "Your stats have to be between 1 and 6" is a natural part of a system. An arbitrary restriction says: "You can only have one at 6, one at 5, and the rest have to be 4's or lower", kinda like the current otaku rules.


QUOTE
However, I do not think that it is a "fact" that a game cannot be created that resists all attempts by munchkin min/maxing to break it. Resistance can be built into the system by giving it inherent sweet spots that draw in min/maxers and keep them confined to known power levels.

The "sweet spot" idea may sound fine in theory, but in practice, munchkins can be quite clever. They just end up making their characters more extreme than before-- for example, combat monsters will have even *less* incentive to buy up their social skills, since raising their combat ability cost so much.

QUOTE
I'm not sure if this can be done with a linear total cost (flat incremental cost) system, since linear functions tend not to have sweet spots. This is one of the reasons why linear / flat cost systems, despite their simplicity, are to be avoided. The extra complexity of a nonlinear system can pay handsome dividends in terms of game balance and long-term enjoyment--it's worth the investment.

Linear systems tend to depend on limitations rather than mathematical advantages to restrict power levels. For example, SR3 simply says: Your unmodified ability can only be between 1 and 6. SR4, apparently, says: Your unmodified ability is only restricted by what you can afford, except you have to give them a value between 1 and 6, and you can only have so many 6's no matter how you assign your points.

It seems pretty clear that SR4 is not depending on sweet-spot theory to restrict power levels. If it were, it wouldn't need all the restrictions inside and outside of the core system.

At any event, I've discovered that straight-buy systems aren't unbalanced, if you scale the power level of the world appropriately. Basically, I only feel a game is unbalanced if one character type has a significant edge over the others, or if one archetype is excessively gimped. As long as the system is internally consistent, it is balanced as far as I'm concerned. Thus, the only question concerns ease-of-use: how quickly can you create characters using the system? How well does it fire your imagination in creating your character? Does it help, or hinder, you in building the person you have in mind?

YMMV, of course. wink.gif
Ranneko
QUOTE (Cain)
Linear systems tend to depend on limitations rather than mathematical advantages to restrict power levels. For example, SR3 simply says: Your unmodified ability can only be between 1 and 6. SR4, apparently, says: Your unmodified ability is only restricted by what you can afford, except you have to give them a value between 1 and 6, and you can only have so many 6's no matter how you assign your points.

I always thought it was fairly simple to do this kind of thing, especially with say a stepped cost system.

You just limit the number of points that can be spent on attributes. Yes, the maximum is 6, but if it costs a third of the max points you can spent on stats to get a single one of them to 6, then you are not going to have many people going around with a bunch of 6es in their statline. And if they do, then they won't have anything worth talking about for the rest of their stats.

No explicit rules on how many 6es you are allowed, just a simple cost system, a cap on the number of points spent on attributes, and a cost progression. Nice and simple.
Adarael
QUOTE
Any system that does not allow you to create the character you want to play form the start is not (IMO) robust.


Jray, you're my new favorite person. This is exactly how i feel about game systems.

Secondarily, I'm curious where people are getting the idea that 'most shadowrunners will have most of their stats at 3'. I mean, I'm just not sure who said it first.

Cuz I think that'd suck. That would mean, pretty much by the definition of the stat scaling system, that runners were average people.
SL James
I thought it was from one of the FAQs, but you do make a good point that that seems to have taken on a life of its own.

BTW, the quote in your .sig is hilarious.
Shadow
Well I (think) they are capping powergaming by having artificial limits on character creation.

Like say, you can only have one att at 6, one at 5 and the rest must be 4 or lower. Same with skills I would imagine.

This is just a guess bassed on what I heard people talking about at Origins.
Ellery
Capping the total number of points used on attributes sounds very plausible to me.

With a scheme like this, you could give people, say, 120 points for attributes, costing 5 points each. You have to spend at least 40 points to get all 1s. An "average" person would have scores of 3 all the way down. You could have 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, or 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2, or 6 6 6 2 1 1 1 1. Sure, it's boring, and hampers creation, and you might as well just say "your attributes start at 1 and you have 16 attribute points to distribute however you please (up to the max of 6 in one attribute), and 280 build points to spend on other things". But this kind of scheme would fit the statements that have been made.

I'm not saying that I think this is the best way to do it--but it is a way to do it that fits available official statements and doesn't make the system more complicated. (As mentioned before, it makes it less flexible instead.)

QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist)
I don't like an increasing cost, unless it increases at the rate a benefit is gained. 6 in pistols should cost an amount appropriate to the mechanical benefit gained. It should not cost how much the designers think how rare it should be in the world.
Ack. I very much disagree.

Firstly, the rules determine what abilities appear rare and common in the game world that the characters see, not the flavor text. This has a direct impact on the setting. The designers are in the business of designing the setting--if not, why buy a gaming product? So they should very much use costs to influence the prevalence or rarity of things in the game world. If the GM doesn't like it, he or she can always change the cost. Of course, this should only be done when the in-character reason that the thing is rare is that it is requires a lot of effort to gain that skill or whatnot. Things that are rare for other reasons (e.g. nobody thinks it's worthwhile, they're illegal, etc.) should be restricted via other in-game means (e.g. making the item/ability suck, having high availability codes, or whatever).

Secondly, there is no single "rate [at which] a benefit is gained". Take spellcasting, for example. You cast a spell at a certain force, with a certain sorcery skill, and resist drain with a certain willpower. If you look at each of these alone, you might think--well, twice the force, twice the effect. Benefit increases linearly, so cost should too. Twice the sorcery skill, twice the dice to overcome an opponent's resistance, linear again. Twice the willpower, twice the dice to soak drain, linear again. Simple, right?

Now consider what happens when Mage A spends twice as much on spell force, sorcery, and willpower as Mage B. He casts spells of double the effect that are twice as hard to resist while resisting drain twice as well. There's a good argument he's eight times more effective a spellcaster for only twice the effort. Mage A used synergies in abilities to create a very potent effect. Mage B is so screwed.

So, what can you do?
  1. Create a game with no synergies. This is rather boring, because it means that only one variable can affect any given situation.
  2. Create a game where costs are nonlinear. Mage A will have to spend much more than twice as much to get eight times the impact.
  3. Yell at Mage A for being a munchkin and ban him from your games.
  4. Laugh at Mage B for being a loser and don't invite him to your games.
Personally, I prefer method 2. You have to do a little more work to play the game, but honestly, at the age most people are playing these games, this should be utterly trivial to everyone. It is a damning indictment of our school system that people even notice that it's "complicated". I don't hear cries of protest that SR4 should be released as streaming audio because "reading is too hard". But SR4 requires at least 6th grade reading skills. What's so bad about requiring 4th grade math? If people have been badly let down by the educational system, their RPG can provide a fun way to brush up on their mathematics skills in addition to providing an enjoyable reading experience.

(Sometimes I think that mathematical skill in 2005 is like magical skill in 2060--only 0.1% to 1% of the population can use it nyahnyah.gif)
Cain
Here's the problem with solution #2: advancing costs doesn't prevent munchkinism, it only encourages it to become more clever. As the example in GURPS went, there are some people who will try and take the "one hand" flaw finger by finger, so as to gain the most advantage out of it.

Straight-buy, while it allows for a lot of initial power, also means it's cheaper to create a character who's adept in the areas you desire. Someone who wants to play a combat monster will find a way to create a combat monster-- and while he may be restricted in what he can do, so will everyone else! While the absolute value of the stats might be lower than previous, the munchkin will still be relatively abusive.

But beyond that, I find that most of the enjoyment of gaming is in playing a character, not in creating one. I hate it when I have to lose a game session or two locked in chargen; I'm usually ready and raring to get into the meat of the story.

With any new system, most groups are going to be stuck with only one book to pass around. That slows down chargen, since everyone has to wait their turn to look stuff up; this, naturally, is unavoidable in any new system. So, the best thing a new system can do is accelerate the character development, so less time is spent building the character-- and more is spent playing it.
Ellery
You know, you don't have to follow any creation system if you don't want to--provided that your GM is okay with it.

#2 isn't a perfect solution unless the designers are very very careful. But with a bit of effort on the design end, it can go a long way towards solving the problem. And that's the goal, really--to make #4 not as valid a response as #3. If OOC it's crazy from a power standpoint to not do something, then IC, it would also be crazy for people who need that power to not do it in in character. Shadowrunners need to be competitive with the opposition they're likely to run into.
Glyph
If they actually avoid the "power creep" that comes with most new editions, I will be impressed by their bucking the trend of nearly every game revision, including both of the previous Shadowrun revisions. But I still think it sucks.

I think they've listened too much to the vocal minority whining about how "overpowered" Shadowrun is. It isn't. It is a game where you play characters who do dangerous and illegal covert actions for a living, running up against all manner of horrific threats. Someone who plays "street level" is running a variant campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but it shouldn't become the norm.

Under the current system, you can create a brutally efficient specialized professional, or a generalist with a wider range of skills and abilities. If you create someone street-level, they will still generally have much more potential than the average street trash.

Lowering the power level doesn't magically bring things back to "street level" - it just results in characters that suck more. Generalists will have less range and be less interesting and useful, while specialists will not even be able to be the best at their specialty - and it will be harder to create one with any other useful skills.

Street level should be conveyed by the setting, not by gimping the characters. This is a game with monstrous trolls, cybered-up freaks, mages casting fireballs, shamans summoning spirits, and adepts catching knives out of the air. They are powerful by nature. De-powering such characters comes off as contrived.

One of the biggest things I liked about the game was that it wasn't D&D. You started out relatively powerful and able to jump into a wide variety of challenges, but it took you longer to get to the point where you were game-breaking. It was like starting at 5th level or so and slooowly working your way up to 12th. You didn't start out as a pathetic weenie, and you didn't turn into an overpowered 20th level freak.

I'll still browse before I decide to buy it or not, but to be honest, there are a lot of things about this new edition that seem really discouraging.
Serbitar
QUOTE (Ellery @ Aug 8 2005, 08:40 PM)
Personally, I prefer method 2.  You have to do a little more work to play the game, but honestly, at the age most people are playing these games, this should be utterly trivial to everyone.  It is a damning indictment of our school system that people even notice that it's "complicated".  I don't hear cries of protest that SR4 should be released as streaming audio because "reading is too hard".  But SR4 requires at least 6th grade reading skills.  What's so bad about requiring 4th grade math?  If people have been badly let down by the educational system, their RPG can provide a fun way to brush up on their mathematics skills in addition to providing an enjoyable reading experience.

(Sometimes I think that mathematical skill in 2005 is like magical skill in 2060--only 0.1% to 1% of the population can use it nyahnyah.gif)


/signed

Do you really have wood and plastic shop in school ?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012