Well it was good ol' knee slapping irony till that damn saline IV drip came along.

Remember that this thread is taking a min/max mathematical view of the metahumans.

Most games being human oriented tend to have predjudeces against orks and in some GM's worlds they are viewed as metatrash/gangsters. This isn't reflected in the numbers but can be a major drawback to a character.

If you look at racial minimums & maximums like ye olde attribute bonuses, it breaks down as follows.

Human: +1 Edge
Elf: +1 Agility, +2 Charisma (Lowlight)
Dwarf: +1 Body, -1 Reaction, +2 Strength, +1 Willpower (Thermographic, +2 vs Toxins & Pathogens)
Ork: +3 Body, +2 Strength, -1 Charisma, -1 Logic (Lowlight)
Troll: +4 Body, -1 Agility, +4 Strength, -2 Charisma, -1 Intuition, -1 Logic (Thermographic, +1 Reach, +1 Armor)

That comes to a net attribute gain of +1 for humans and +3 for everyone else. From a BP cost standpoint, that's humans getting 10 BP "free" and the metahumans getting 30 BPs in addition to their perks (vision modifiers and such).

Without assigning BP value to the non-attribute racial perks or going into individual attribute weighting, from a sheer attribute-economy point of view your "best" buys are humans and orks. For a cost of 0 BPs a human gets +10 BPs. Orks spend 20 BPs for a 30 BP gain. Then dwarves at 25 BPs for 30 BPs, elves come out even at 30 BPs for 30 BPs, and then trolls are your "worst" buy at 40 BPs for a 30 BP attribute gain.

However, those bits that I ignored a minute ago for mathematical convenience really shouldn't be ignored. The racial perks are situational bonuses rather than consistent like a straight-up attribute modifier. Also, certain attributes are going to be more useful in certain situations.

For example, Reach is sort of like having +1 Agility only in melee. Troll armor is comparable to having +1 Body for only damage resistance rolls. Thermographic vision has a more variable bonus (or "penalty negation," really) so is harder to quantify.

Then the attributes themselves end up weighting differently depending on the situations you habitually find yourself in. For example, if you're in ranged combat most of the time, then Body, Agility, and Reaction are almost equally important but Strength is somewhat irrelevant.

~~~~~

From a long-term standpoint, having higher attribute caps becomes important because your racial maximums dictate how high you can augment your attributes. Muscle Toner 4 (if you can ever get your hands on it) is sold only to elves with Agility as their Exceptional Attribute, for instance. Only massively-initiated troll physical adepts can ever achieve a 15 Body and Strength.

The point there is that while humans are the most immediately cost-efficient purchase, it's the races with large bonuses who can get godlike in the long term.

This means -- going directly back to the OP's topic -- that orks not only get some short-term oomph but they also have a good opportunity for long-term physical gains.

There's a lot more to my games than raw numbers, and I don't think all metahumans really have to have numerical disadvantages. It's really the GM's obligation to create a world in which a player is a minority race. If your GM does not implement this aspect well, then orks will be pretty advantaged over humans, but if he does make the player really feel like an ork, then most races seem relatively balanced.

After reading a bit in the pdf, it seems to me that Orks are considered trendy now?

Also, I have an easier time understanding why an orc or troll would become a shadowrunner, to overcome poverty and whatnot. Now why a human or a pretty boy elf would ever do it beats me...

I follow, I'm sorry if I came across like I was somehow condemning taking a look at the numbers only. I meant to imply that I don't necessarily agree with the balance of the metatypes cost per benefit, but that I supplement perceived balance flaws with other ways outside of numbers alone.

Fair 'nuff.