[Grahm]

I try to get everyone on board with the same power level at start, but it can be really tricky because the line between "my character is a great shot and" "Min maxed super character" is slippery. You tell people low power, and I've seen it be wildly interpreted.

One of the ideas I've toyed with is dice pool guidelines and caps. It sounds artificial, but I think it has potential, and I'm sure others have tried it.

Something simply like this:
"In my game, 6 dice will be an amateur, 8 will be average, 10 will be good, and 12 dice will be amazing.
Characters may not start rolling more than 12 dice for any test, except 18 soak is okay.
After character creation, pool may increase to 14 with specialization ONLY.
After every [50]{placeholder value} karma, I'll increase limits by 1."

(And as a gm I'd use these numbers similarly.)

This means at character creation, the decker needs 10s and 12s.
8s are sufficient to do the job. (So your Sam can have say cha 4, soc group 4 and know he will be competent at social challenges in this game, and the decker knows once she hits 12 dice she can focus on being well rounded.

In other words, the point is NOT to handicap players, but to give them targets.
I don't want them compelled to take certain advantages. ("We'll, obviously I need  (plus two software advantage), my character can program. Well obviously I need the analytic mind advantage, I have an analytic mind! Of course I need every single toughness ability, I'm tough!)

As a player I also feel compelled to min max because if bob rolls 18 dice, I have to expect the same from Npcs, and now I have to roll 18. As a gm, the opfor tends to need to overpower the weaker character to match the better one).

Also a well rounded char tends to be worse because a properly min maxed char is built specifically to use their max to cover their min. So there are a lot of factors driving me and others to focus chars.
It's hard to play a young but promising 10 dice technomancer when you know an 18 die adept hacker is out there or feel you need to be ready for the gm to throw 15 die opposition at you.

Just curious: have people tried this? Does it work? Too restrictive? Impractical because pools not comparable (12 with pistols bad, 12 with con great?). I feel like even as a player I would find this kind of guideline/restriction liberating.

[firebug]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but I think I can give some advice.

It's not that difficult to tell if a character is good at something, actually.  You need to look at common defense dice pools.

For instance, all combat skills are defended against with REA + INT.  With 3 being average for human attributes, you can assume the average defense pool will be around 6 dice.  Because each added die is a 33% chance for a hit, you need about three dice for a "guaranteed" hit.  With this logic, 9 dice in a pool means you are at the point where you will succeed more often than you will fail.  At 12 dice you've reached the point where you can be considered especially skilled in that area.

As a player I also feel compelled to min max because if bob rolls 18 dice, I have to expect the same from Npcs, and now I have to roll 18. As a gm, the opfor tends to need to overpower the weaker character to match the better one)

Also, it's unreasonable for all the NPCs to suddenly be better just because one of the players is especially good.  That makes no sense.  Just because your Street Samurai is great with a pistol does not mean all of the corpsec in the world suddenly became master marksmen.

Finally, I strongly suggest against limiting dice pools.  The game already has limits built in--  Physical, Mental, Social, Accuracy, ASDF ratings, etc.  If you also limit dice pools, that's unfairly antagonistic and will make those limits pointless.

[RHat]

Something simply like this:
"In my game, 6 dice will be an amateur, 8 will be average, 10 will be good, and 12 dice will be amazing.
Characters may not start rolling more than 12 dice for any test, except 18 soak is okay.
After character creation, pool may increase to 14 with specialization ONLY.
After every [50]{placeholder value} karma, I'll increase limits by 1."

Without commenting on whether this is a good idea to begin with, I'd absolutely point out that this is far too low.  6 dice isn't "amateur", it's "I suck at this" (look at the archetypes, and then understand that those are weak characters - I'm not talking about min-maxing; consider these guys a sort of lower bound).  And the post-chargen limits would be terrible.

You can throw out target points, but hard caps are not a good plan.  And if you're playing a lower-power character (hacking with 10 dice, for example) in a normal power game, you should expect to run into trouble.  Low power characters need to be in low power games (and if that's what you want, I suggest looking into the Street Scum rules).

And for reference, it's pretty easy to get up to, say, 18 dice without min-maxing: Agility 6 ( 8 ), Weapon (Specialty) 6 ( 8 ), Wireless Implanted Smartlink.

[Grahm]

First, I just reviewed sr5
Npcs and archetypes have waaaaaay more dice than in sr4
So I now understand the strength of your reactions.
So yes my numbers were way too low.

My goals are two fold:
(1) does it make sense to equate dice pools with power level: can you thus use dice pools meaningfully to set expectations at character start. I don't think the resource rules get at the core issue since some players/classes can be very powerful with lower priorities and resources than others.
(2) a very secondary question is a gut check on what these levels are.

Longer rambling:

It seems like the priority system is okay, but not great at balancing power levels when you have different types of players. (Guy A can't make an sr4 char without react and form fitting. Guy B can't be bothered with splat book power creep and stops at simple skill plus attribute plus wired reflexes plus "cool" stuff.)

Additionally,  the example of how easy it is to get 15 dice is what I'm trying to address.
You use even street scum rules, someone is still going to pull out a 15 die firearms adept.
It seems like if you wanted a ganger level game at start, just saying use street scum rules isn't enough. Unless you want military sharpshooters you end up needing dice caps still.

It seems to me like two things would help in games of any level:
(1) hard caps would give all players a real understanding of expectations. If the cap is 16, guy A will stop at 16 and diversify and guy B will be able to say "okay, so that's how I compare to other players"

(2) clear thresholds of power level expectation spelled out at char gen:
(A) you can do this but not reliably when the drek hits the fan
(B) you can do this reliably against joe security guard/contribute meaningfully to parties and social encounters/hack basic stuff.
(C) you are effective and can do this task in place of a specialized character
(D) this is your niche


I honestly would expect max in a primary skill.
So if max was 12, the party could survive with a guy with 10 in social skills if they had no face, and someone with 8 dice could help in that aspect, and under six the skill was barely worth having.

It seems to me if your goal into get everyone at the same power level, you need to create a consensus about power level (dice pools).

I also see frequent complaints that say decker a better than technomancer a because adept dockers can break 20 dice easily. With a hard cap, once a player know they can reach that cap, they are free to do anything they want with that character without feeling they are letting the team down.  "Man I wish we had guy A's decker!"

similarly, my experience is that chars are even LESS willing to spread skills after game starts, because isn't the skill cap 12 now? Gotta get 12 in firearms first- at least one person won't stop until max. Anything less than max possible feels second rate! 

Another example I had a char who wanted to to be a Mage who liked hacking.  Because our hacker was super min maxed, having 12 dice imade the Mage feel like a dumb amateur because the expected OpFor needed to at least give the hacker a chance to fail.  (This example doesn't work in sr5 I know). Similarly, if the face rolls 18 social dice, you're a rube with 8.

But also: before the game started, he (mage) had no way of knowing that 7 logic and 5 skill was meaningless in that campaign ( I wasn't gaming, I was a mystic adept who used touch range spells. Force 12 stun touch)(thank god sr5 fixed that!). (Playable because said Mage wannabe hacker started with only 10 sorcery dice, and I was initiated and super lovingly crafted. Also: 4 initiative passes)..

Back to something I said earlier and why I was surprised:
I recall sr 4 archetypes having 8-12 dice pools and professional rating 3 Npcs rolling 6-7 dice, with professional rating 6 getting 12 dice.
Pcs always had 16 plus.

in contrast, the archetypes do seem better in sr5.
Street Sam: 15 dice with long arms and pistols
Covert ops 11 sneaking, 8 firearms (really?)
Shaman: 7 dice sorcery, 9 conjuring
Combat Mage: 11 sorcery (no totem or specialization)
Adept: 14 unarmed combat
Weapon specialist 12 dice with pistols and long arms.

Okay yeah these are Much better than old archetypes. I see why the strong reaction.

NPCs:
Corp sec lieutenant: 8 dice
Special forces: 18
Holy cow: okay, the new skill maxes REALLY REALLY change the game.
And they give Npcs much better cyber now ...

So my numbers were low for sr5 I see that.

it looks like I can tell players:
Security guards: 8
Professionals: 10 (cops, vet sec guards)
Elite: 14
Elite special forces 18

Still, I can see a hard cap of 14-15(+2 specialization) being reasonable.

[RHat]

Elite special forces at 18?  Seems low to me.  Their skill would be 8 or higher, they'd have high Agility which would then be further augmented, along with other bonuses.

The idea that different players can use chargen resources at different levels of efficiency is, frankly, not a problem that can be attacked if it is even a problem at all.  Any limitation you put in place will simply shift how more efficient players operate - if the highest possible pool is 14, then the efficient players are getting as many 14's as possible. 

Further, hard caps do not give players an understanding of expectations.  If that's your goal, you say "these are my expectations".

In any case, in SR5 it's a bit of a different style as far as dice pools go - with Limits being in place, a high pool stops being all that useful after a certain point.

And remember - those better archetypes are still simply a lower bound.

And having gaps between players isn't a bad thing.  If the mage, with everything he has invested in being a mage, is at close to where the hacker is at hacking, that's bad.  If something is a secondary or tertiary area for the character, they NEED to be noticeably behind the specialist in that area.  Having a secondary Face, for example, can be a good thing - but the dedicated Face is gonna be a lot better.

Hard caps do not accomplish your goals.  Direct communication does.

[Michael Chandra]

18 is more than enough for anything you ever toss at players. 17 offense, 14 defense, 18 armor is what's the tough opposition in the really tough CMP line, and those are NPCs I describe as "my dicepool levels", and I'm quite optimized for a Street Sam when it comes to my primary dicepools.

For a starting character, 15 is amazing, 12 is good, 9 is average, 6 is bad. I only went beyond 15 with Specializations / Qualities, and if I used Wireless Smartguns I could go higher. I have no intent of using them, though.

By the way, just because the one specialized character rolls a lot of dice, doesn't mean the NPCs should match it. Adjusting the enemy level for the one character best at what they're dealing with, means you're going to slaughter the entire party.

Rather than saying "not higher than this, period", veto the characters if they seem too min-maxed. And if you're worried that players will keep boosting their primary skills, don't start an arms race to begin with by insisting on matching their dicepools with the enemies. By putting temporary limits in place, and matching their dicepools, you're forcing them to increase them as soon as you allow it.

[JackVII]

It's funny that an average human considered "Competent" in a skill is deemed bad at the skill with a dice pool of 6. It seems like there is a disconnect there.

[Kanly]

Competent and average humans are for everyday stuff. If a skill test is required then already something extraordinary, dangerous, risky, challenging is happening.
Probably any drafted soldier could unjam a gun with their dicepool of 6. But for runners the standard is pretty much unjaming the same gun in the middle of a chase while under fire. In that situation, 6 is dangerously bad.

[ZeConster]

For opposed stuff, 6 isn't all that useful. For fixing your plumbing, though...
Plus those 'competent' cops will still be able to get a decent hit chance against gangers.

[Tuoweit]

I personally think that your idea of capping dice pools is reasonable (though the specific numbers are debatable), and I've played in some good games (not SR specifically) that have similar "power caps" that helps the GM keep everyone more or less on the same page as far as optimization/power levels go (both for PCs and the opposition). 

However, SR in particular doesn't have a universally-applicable power scale.  Some dice pools simply go higher than others (like the damage soak you already listed separately) because it's easier to get some bonuses than others.  Combat skills tend to acquire more dice pool bonuses than most other skills because of firearms attachments, for example, as do other skills that have specific supporting devices, like First Aid and Locksmith.  Spellcasting, with enough focus abuse thrown at it, can ramp up quite quickly.

And for reference, it's pretty easy to get up to, say, 18 dice without min-maxing: Agility 6 ( 8 ), Weapon (Specialty) 6 ( 8 ), Wireless Implanted Smartlink.

This gave me a chuckle.  Obviously it's a difference in perspective, but I would consider maxing out on Agility for most metas (with augmentation to boot), maxing out starting skill at 6, plus specialization and smartlink to be clearly min-maxing, whereas you consider it not to be   (Please let's not digress into "what is min-maxing", I'm just noting that there's a difference in definitions and leaving it at that.)

@OP, With such disparities evident even in just a few posts, I feel there's never going to be a solid consensus on what's an appropriate number for your limits, really, at least not beyond the confines of a given table.  Go with what makes sense to you in terms of a coherent game world and campaign level, and discuss it with your players.  The book already gives some game world examples, as you've already discovered - IMO those are good guideposts to use, others have different opinions.

[baronspam]

And for reference, it's pretty easy to get up to, say, 18 dice without min-maxing: Agility 6 ( 8 ), Weapon (Specialty) 6 ( 8 ), Wireless Implanted Smartlink.

This gave me a chuckle.  Obviously it's a difference in perspective, but I would consider maxing out on Agility for most metas (with augmentation to boot), maxing out starting skill at 6, plus specialization and smartlink to be clearly min-maxing, whereas you consider it not to be   (Please let's not digress into "what is min-maxing", I'm just noting that there's a difference in definitions and leaving it at that.)

Min maxing would be an elf with exceptional attribute agility 8(10) weapon skill speced to 8, three levels of adept powers to get more skill, and then the smartlink(bonus of 1 because of adept running it through goggles).  Thats a pool of 22.  Aptitude would get you to 23.  Now, if you really want to min/max you can say the adept gives up a point of magic for a little augmentation, and Gets cybereyes and a reflex recorder.  Pool is now at 25.  A pool of 18 honestly is just being good at your primary job. 

[Tuoweit]

stuff

(Please let's not digress into "what is min-maxing", I'm just noting that there's a difference in definitions and leaving it at that.)

[RHat]

This gave me a chuckle.  Obviously it's a difference in perspective, but I would consider maxing out on Agility for most metas (with augmentation to boot), maxing out starting skill at 6, plus specialization and smartlink to be clearly min-maxing, whereas you consider it not to be   (Please let's not digress into "what is min-maxing", I'm just noting that there's a difference in definitions and leaving it at that.)

Without getting into a pointless digression, I'd point out that you cannot define min-maxing without covering both the "min" and "max" portions.

That, and "I'm gonna call that min-maxing, fail to provide any sort of definition, and then prematurely reject any attempt at arguing this" is not argumentatively valid or in any way useful.

[Tuoweit]

That, and "I'm gonna call that min-maxing, fail to provide any sort of definition, and then prematurely reject any attempt at arguing this" is not argumentatively valid or in any way useful.

Regardless of what my definition is, that it differs from yours is sufficient to illustrate my point:  That a forum like this won't come to a consensus about specific numbers for a dice pool cap.

[RHat]

That, and "I'm gonna call that min-maxing, fail to provide any sort of definition, and then prematurely reject any attempt at arguing this" is not argumentatively valid or in any way useful.

Regardless of what my definition is, that it differs from yours is sufficient to illustrate my point:  That a forum like this won't come to a consensus about specific numbers for a dice pool cap.

Which is, of course, beside the point that a cap doesn't actually accomplish the stated goals.  Communication does.

In any case, there was no "min" present in what you accused of being min-maxing; thus it becomes impossible to apply any definition of min-maxing to it.

Additionally, "min-maxing" should never be confused for "above the power level I prefer" or "built in a different way than I prefer".