that's hard to achieve. you're likely to spread your character too thin, and be good at nothing instead of being good at everything.

dashifen, i'm going to hold your 13 people up to the hundreds of character sheets i've seen across multiple game systems over a decade or so of gaming. most of those character sheets had stats that put the character at or near the top end of their chosen specialty/specialties. they weren't necessarily all min-maxed to the limit, but they almost all took at least the obvious choices that would make them good at what they chose to do. maybe SR4 is magically special, or something, and everybody who plays it will be compelled to create characters with lower stats and skills across the board. but i doubt it.

besides which, the problem still exists (in reduced form) at 5/5.

Yet, it 'can be achieved without sacrificing too much ability in other areas', and will outclass everybody on the long run... seems perfect for a game with hard caps, doesn't it?

Uhm, Shadow?

Perhaps you should
a) decide who you are referring to
b) decide what you want to state
c) do it without being too offensive
and, finally
d) consider wether what you wrote supported what you wanted to state.

Well, I guess I have to say 1 out of 14 now, if this character's for Interception

Just by calling 3rd Edition D&D, AD&D 3.0 tells me you don't know what your talking about. And the time from 3.0 to 3.5 is about 3-4 years not 1.

You.

You are acting like a jackass.

I am sure your a great guy in reali life, but on these boards you are being insulting.

I think so.

Agreed. Again my namesake is one heck of an athlete having doubled all her dice & has Articulation & Synthcardium 2 (forgot that one in an earlier post) to boot. She's almost able to go Faster than the proverbial Speeding Bullet and leap tall buildings (well at least fences & walls) in a single bound. In many ways she moves almost like Trinity from the Matrix (man I love that wall running scene).

Of course I still miss the non segmented movement in SR2 (huh...?? where'd the brat go, I had her in my sights just a...*sound of Katana slicing through bone & various cyber implants* ).

Rest assured, I certainly put great attention to your wording - I just don't follow your PoV.
As Shadow stated, it is by far not that hard to be awakened, chromed and be good at something else, too - especially, if being an Orc essentially means 20 free BP as stated in another thread.
The Hacker part was indeed exaggerated, but not that much - it is really cheap to max a commlink.

Actually, you did neither - you stated that everybody will make characters that are world class at what they do.
In SR4, good would be 3, perhaps 4, while 5 is already exceptional.

The fine point is - why stop there, if you already stopped worrying about the concept of the character (and just adjusted it to fit the numbers)?

But, if your concept, as Shadows, is to have a chromed Mage that is a worldwide legend with Handguns - wouldn't it be rather restrictive of a creation system not to allow that?

If you are offended by my sarcasm, I am truly sorry.
Yet, I'd rather be helpful and sarcastic than 'helpful instead of sarcastic'.

Well, if you feel that the players are constrained about the skill caps. Just lift them and double cost to raise a skill over the normal cap.

Edit. I was just thinking. Add a quality called 'Focused Skill'. Which lifts the skill cap on one skill and doubles the cost to raise it over the normal skill cap. Give it a cost of oh I don't know, 5 karma. Also have a prerequisite of Aptitude quality in the chosen skill.


Just to respond to your post. Why do you consider the game to be too easy for the players then if your having to up the thresholds?

As has been said in numerous other threads, it breaks the system. You have to up the power level of your opponents to ungodly status just to challenge the players.

SR4 has a lot of cool ideas, scalability and long term play aren't on the list.

*sigh* fine, let me clarify, since you seem hellbent on twisting everything, and willfully ignoring the point. players tend to give their characters the maximum available rating in skills and attributes related to the character's field of expertise.

Since you seem to spin a phenomena to the point where it serves your assumptions and arguments, I would say that taking you by word does not twist what you wrote, but rather shows that what you initially wrote (and what sounded so easy to swallow) does not support your theory at all.

Fine, this is a thesis one can work with.

So let's get this straight:

First, you assume that some players tend to min-max their characters - sometimes even regardless of their initial concept?

This phenomena exists, indeed - but it's far from being general.

Second, because SR4 allows a player to do so, it is a broken system?

Only if you expect a system to enforce a guidance that keeps players from doing so.

Third, with hard caps this becomes directly visible?

Quite sure - when you hit the wall of a hard cap, there is less excuse for not 'staying in character'... as this is the only point where the problem can arise:
If you did 'stay in character' and your concept states that the character is at the pinnacle of his development... then there is nothing wrong.

Whats my point?
What is perceived as a problem is in fact a system that in some respect restricts players less than previous editions... I would rather blame the player, than blame the system, as the system assumes, that the player is aware of his choice.

So this boils down to the ultimate question (well, exaggerated, indeed ):

Doe one value the freedom of choice over the safety of guidance, or not?

You assume there is a problem, so you missed the point:

Thats more a question of flavor than a problem - the system of WoD is widespread with a scale even smaller.

And thats fine and fair for you - nobody forces you to do otherwise.
If you want a more distinctive feeling, this might just be hard to acquire by just modifying SR4.

The mechanics of SR4 are, though seemingly the same, something entirely different - most of the distinctive elements are out of the window.
(Yes, it is impressive that SR4 at least feels somehow like SR3... nice work of the devs, but unfortunally, this is what causes most of the quarrel.)
To get them back, you basicly would have to redo the whole system - or maybe you want to join the SR3R-project.

I understand your point, but as do you with mine, I don't share it, though valueing it.

Erm, well - supernatural entities in Shadowrun can cross this cap, too - and in the WoD, most of the times the cap for supernatural PCs was just a bit higher than for mere mortals... but this is just a sidenote, too.

Bolded for truth.

So the people that you helped create characters somehow ended up with characters that share a certain trend... And you're wondering if there might be a problem with your sample?

I certainly like this:
- Total hits cannot exceed Skill Rating x 2, unless Edge is used.
- Skill caps put at 9(10 with aptitude) - possibly x3 cost to increase above 6.

We can do some play testing with this:
- Half of Attribute rolled with Skill for tests, and use Rule of 6 for all skill tests.
- EX Explosive ammo: DV +2, AP -1.

And add this:
- Skills cost x3 to increase above 6, then cost x4 to raise to 10 if applied to aptitude
- Increasing skills to a rating above 6 requires a powerful teacher of at least the new rating and gives no bonuses to the pool to learn the skill

You do have a point there...

lesse...attribute from 3 to 5 = 27 karma
skill group 3 to 4 = 20 karma, from 4 to 5 equal 25 karma.

Hmm...still not totally pleased with the implications in that math - maybe attributes at x3 up to half racial, and at x4 above that?

Attribute 3 to 5 = 36...hmmm, abit much maybe. =/

Will have to discuss those specifics further with my group.

I'm not at all surprised. In SR4 6 is no longer the magic number it used to be. What's more the cost of getting a 6 is quite significant compared to a 5. Finally if anyone gives it any thought whatsoever they'll realize that it is far far cheaper to get a 6 through karma.

Yup, and that's a good thing insofar that it encourages people to diversify and not hit the cap until they've done at least 3-4 runs.

But it's bad insofar that it severely penalizes the player who does get that 6, by making him/her spend alot of BPs on almost nothing.

In short, the system encourages using loopholes to gain an advantage...

no, i conclude from the relevant data (ie, the many character sheets i've seen, created by hundreds of different players) that most players tend to come up with character concepts that include being very good at the character's chosen specialty. in other words, when most people create a decker, they create a decker with high decking skill because they want to play a decker who is good at decking. most players understand, consciously or not, that SR (and most other RPGs) are roleplaying games, with an emphasis on both the roleplaying and the games. most players enjoy "winning" the game, as well as exploring the personality they've created. if they only enjoyed the roleplaying aspects, they'd join the Drama Club instead of spending so much time gaming. add to that the fact that roleplaying games are for many players a vehicle for acting out their fantasies, and that most people fantasize about winning rather than losing. therefore, since it's hard to "win" a game if your stats suck, and since most players don't like to imagine themselves as losers (part of the RPG vehicle is the fact that you are, in some sense, your character) will create a character with high skill in their chosen field.

no. it's a broken system because it allows players to create characters who are the best in the world at what they do, with no room for growth in their chosen field.

damn right i do. it's a game, remember? yes, it's a game that involves roleplaying, but it's not just roleplaying, or we wouldn't be quibbling about rules in the first place--there wouldn't be any rules. the rules are there to allow the players and the gamemaster to reasonably determine the results of actions taken in a given scenario, which is in turn based on a combination of the gm's imagination and the setting information. SR's setting information suggests that runners do not tend to be anywhere near the best in the world at what they do, but the rules tend to create characters who are the best, or nearly the best. that means that there's a clearly-visible line between the roleplaying and the game, and that means that it's hard to reasonably determine the results of actions taken in a given scenario. after all, if the rules and the setting don't match, how do you determine what's reasonable?

no. hard caps have an array of problems, but the specific problem i'm pointing out is not a result of simply having hard caps. it's a result of having hard caps during character creation which match the hard caps that exist for character advancement.

except that, as i mentioned above, the roleplaying information in SR4 does not support the commonality of world-class characters in the shadows. the rules do. that's a dichotomy in the rules and setting which will result in dichotomy in character concepts and character stats. if you go by the book definition of skills, skill level 6 is enough to make you very, very special in the world of SR. but if you go by the chargen rules, skill 6 is not all that special at all--most runner groups are going to have someone who can at least match you, if not beat you. your character is no longer special at all, despite supposedly being nearly the best in the world at what he does. is he special or not? dichotomy. bad.

you would rather everyone strongly followed your roleplaying paradigm, rather than allowing for the creation of rules that support a variety of paradigms.

these are not mutually exclusive design goals. you're limiting game design to a binary choice. poorly-designed games are constrained by choices like that.

I don't find that this is a "broken" system because of that particular reason. I think a character creation system should support the ability to be the best at what you do, with no room for growth. Why? Because sometimes that's how real life works... some people just are at the top (Tiger Woods, Bobby Fischer, many Actors/Actresses), and reach the ceiling of human ability at a young age. It doesn't make for much stat-growth while you are in the game, certainly, but the option should be there. Otherwise, you'd simply be playing "that other game", with Skill points and attribute points instead of "leveling up". Shadowrun isn't much for the "leveling up" part of the game (unlike some roleplaying games)... you can improve your characters, but it only makes you more capable, not more powerful (a big difference there... a Panther Cannon will still kill you regardless of how many "levels" you gained. The same can't be said about DnD).

The "joy of being better" is not necessarily a goal for a roleplaying game. I know that I don't play Shadowrun to start low and level up. I play Shadowrun because I can play a professional who is the best right out of the box. I don't want to start with a longsword and leather armor and work my way up to +5. The equivalent in SR would be starting with a Streetline Special and Armor Clothing, I guess. The point is that each group has their own goals when playing an RPG, and that having a hard cap doesn't necessarily mean character creation is inherently broken.

And have you seen Tiger play lately? He hasn't really exceeded the performance that he achieved 6 years ago. He's reached the ceiling. This doesn't mean that the ceiling of human effort cannot be raised eventually (there's a good section in the Tri-Stat core rules about the 4 minute mile that talks about this). He may very well get better someday by taking golf to a transcendental level that we can't even dream about (we can only hope). But at the moment, he's stuck.

Look, I'm not a big supporter of hard caps either. I understand that the issue is with the hard cap being close to the top of human ability, and I agree that it isn't necessarily the most conducive thing for character creation. But all of this crying about hard caps reminds me of the folks in the d20 system complaining that Level 20 was the highest non-epic level you could achieve, with a healthy dose of GURPS "I can min-max everything using points to be the bestest!".

If one were clever, they can design a system that introduces soft caps simply by design, I suppose (an incremental cost, for example, but this leads to incredible levels of complexity just for character creation, assuming you unify character creation with advancement mechanics). But even SR3 had hard caps at 6, with the option of specialization and other methods to make you better than the most skilled person who has ever lived in that field (that's what all of those extra rulebooks are for, hrm?).

So you assume.

Thanks for this unnecessary reminder of trivial psychology - do you even consider the possibility that to be able play at all, people must be willing to loose?

No, in fact, they will never be the best.

Reference, please.

Which stills needs some sort of proof.

So basically you are saying that growth for growths sake is good, and therefore, everybody should start small.
Thats not a problem, thats flavour.

As there is no mythical entity choosing 'The One' out of all existing characters... how, without a cap, can you even be halfway sure?

So special in fact, that they list multiple, popular examples who is just as good as you are...

My paradigm?
Amazingly, SR4 allows more than one when allowing one to max out a character to an absolute.

As it is neither binary, nor not mutually exclusive, in fact, it's just a scale.

the game devs stated many times that their design for SR4 was intended to promote more street-level gameplay. best in the world != street-level.

yes. multiple examples of people who are famous for the very abilities they're being listed as exemplifying. but if every runner group out there has someone just as good as these exemplars, why are the examples so special?

yep. the flavor of SR is supposed to be street-level. the rules don't support that flavor. that's a problem.

exactly. you can't. you'll never know who "the best in the world" really is, only who the best you've ever met is.

how, exactly? if you've got 7 stat, skill, and edge, you are the best, period paragraph. what paradigm is going to change that? your paradigm is that players shouldn't take advantage of the rules just because they don't match the character concept. my paradigm is that the rules should support the game world whether the players are good roleplayers or not. obviously, that's not ever going to be a goal that's wholly attainable. but it can be achieved to a far greater degree than SR4 manages.

yes. that's exactly my point. but you made it binary by making it an either-or question, in your last post.

Speaking from the point of view of someone that:

- has had to maintain a fairly high-tempo schedule for 5+ years that doesn't always allow for constant gaming, which leads quickly to the feeling that things are developing much faster than it would seem to someone that plays a game every weekend (hope that makes sense, sorry if it's a bit unweildy)

- has been playing AD&D/D&D in many forms for many years, including the "Time of Trouble" (RL version, during the 2 to 3 switch )

- is a forum junkie at WotC boards, when I have the time to be

I can state that the effect Gomez was referring to did indeed occur, and yes, this feels extremely similar.

Change the game: piss some people off; make some people happy; start a generation of players of game "X" that don't know diddly about the game except for the "new" version; hack off fanboys; make new fanboys; make a boatload of money (which SR4 hopes to accomplish) etcetera, etcetera.

So, my point is, aside from not realizing that they'd dropped the "Advanced" from the game title, Gomez's point was sound. No need to try and out-cool someone for making a good comparison.

This is, indeed, an assumption from experience.

Which, in fact, didn't make it into the book.
So not only supporting the ones wanting to play street-level, but also the ones playing high-level.
How dirty of them.

Every runner group? Many? Some?

No. There is not a single word in the book that states 'thou shalt crawl the streets'.

Oh, uncertainty is sooo cool - so if one wanted to create a character who is world class in what he does, he is never allowed to be sure that his character really is... how very fun.
How does this compute the phenomena stated by you, that many players want to 'win the game'? They would never be able to, as there is no absolute.
Which lead to endless discussions about what 'world class' really was back in SR3.

You mean Edge 8... or just any other racial modified limit... if maxed out with ware or magic.
If that is what you wanted, so be it - you are now at the pinnacle of human achievement, rivalled only by chance and a slim creme de la creme... wheres the problem with that?

Um, not quite... my 'paradigm' (if one can even call it that way) that one should know what one wants, and act accordingly.
Quite elitist, indeed.

Yes, this would be called an utopia... The Perfect Game.

Possible - which is the reason why things like BeCKS will exist in SR4, too.
Obviously, SR3 wasn't perfect in this respect either - just more limiting in the basic rules, and simply a cop-out in setting up a coherent scale.

I did the same exact thing

Just because someone is a playtester, that does not automatically make them the end all be all, nor does it invalidate other people's opinions or perceptions. I will be the first one to say "Hey, I disagree with you, and this is why." If someone came back and said "Nuh-uh.....your wrong" and doesn't back it up...I will give them the same thought to their response that they put in their response.

Alpha, Beta and release versions of games sometimes don't even resemble each other. <shrug> I give my hat off to all the playtester's, but they are not the Holy Grail of input when it comes to SR4.

If you say so - I'm amazed by your telepathic powers.

That I knew for about... four months?
When he quitted playtesting and posted his rant, at last.

Well, let's say he has more 'actual game experience' with the playtesting draft he got.

I won't argue his subjective view. I will argue his generalizations.

Or he just dropped out, and has outdated info...
The book, in fact, states that normal characters are comparable to 'Prime Runners' and Elite Forces.

'Always' tends to get your arguments screwed - so does it here.
'min/maxing' and 'some higher, some lower' are different pairs of shoes, too - it's a scale, but a difference nonetheless.

Sadly, this does neither have to do anything with min/maxing, nor SR4 in special.
On the other Hand, it not even half of the truth - to become an actual character, there is a bit more necessary.

Personally, this sounds only cheesy.
Yet, it can be achieved even in SR4 if one does create a character that way.

The decision is: Do you want to tell that story in play, or do you want it have told when starting to tell others in play?
This decision is not only valid but normal: One seldomly starts playing a Character with its birth.

'If you are really intelligent, then you accept that I'm right.' - thats a false dilemma, too... only a more obvious one.
Sorry, but there is nothing that forces one into such an int-then routine, especially not with such complex themes.

What news - guess thats what rules are good for: to restrict.

To claim that SR4 is restrictive because it does not restrict you to create characters that have (nearly) finished one aspect of their story is somehow... awkward.

'If you don't accept that I'm right, you are stupid.' - yet again... a false dilemma.
It misses the point, too - which is not 'roleplay can cover for stats' but 'roleplay and stats should match'.

Refusing to play weaknesses is something that isn't in fact something exclusive for any type or any game, so its a moot point here.

Funny, this is what mfb associated to 'Joe average gamer', not 'elitists'.

So, since I have played Shadowrun since it first came out (I think back in 1989), my opinion holds more weight than someone who just got in the game because of my vastly superior gaming experience? If that is the case, Harlequin sucks and you all have to agree, 'cause my opinion rules!

He playtested, but dropped out. Cain was quoting him as gospel and basically using that as a point to invalidate someone else's views. You have run four adventures, did you play them with your house-rules or "natural"? I would wager, based on your posts, that these 4 games were house-ruled, but I could be wrong. And, again I would wager, that your changes don't match my play style. So again, is it black and white that either of us wrong? Because if it is, then I am right and you are wrong.

I try not to invalidate other's peoples arguements off the cuff (but I sometimes do because I don't have the time for a rebuttal or just don't want to repeat myself) but attempt to understand where they are coming from. The fun and interesting thing with opinions, including my own vastly superior ones, is that they are right, because you can't disapprove an opinion, you can only invalidate the facts or perceived facts they are based on.