[Triggvi]

A couple of things to look for when looking at characters for play ability.

1. If they have a dump stat (aka 1 in a stat )[reject them]- they are doing this with the belief that they can stay out of the fighting and be uber hackers.

2. Use the optional rule that uses stat+response limited by program for hackers. Use the same limits for technomancers

3. Look broadly at the player character in the roleplaying context. Challenge them on things you find questionable or hard to roleplay. Let them know they have to roleplay all the negative qualities or they will lose them and be in karma debt or be forced to pick new ones.

4. monitor dice pools- having a dice pool that is too high (18+) is something to be questioned and Enforce the rule of 20

5. make sure the character can hold there own is a social situation with the common folk (at least some social skills).

For most players you don't need to do this. It is just the ones that pride themselves on trying to break the game. They make characters that have exactly one awesome skill but can't order lunch with out offending the venting machine.

[All4BigGuns]

A couple of things to look for when looking at characters for play ability.

1. If they have a dump stat (aka 1 in a stat )[reject them]- they are doing this with the belief that they can stay out of the fighting and be uber hackers.

2. Use the optional rule that uses stat+response limited by program for hackers. Use the same limits for technomancers

3. Look broadly at the player character in the roleplaying context. Challenge them on things you find questionable or hard to roleplay. Let them know they have to roleplay all the negative qualities or they will lose them and be in karma debt or be forced to pick new ones.

4. monitor dice pools- having a dice pool that is too high (18+) is something to be questioned and Enforce the rule of 20

5. make sure they character can hold there own is a social situation with the common folk (at least some social skills).

For most players you don't need to do this. It is just the ones that pride themselves on trying to break the game. They make characters that have exactly one awesome skill but can't order lunch with out offending the venting machine.

1) Your opinion. It may work in your game, and it might be the case with your players, but that doesn't mean it is that way for everyone.

2) Could make attributes mean something to hackers, yeah, but I would like to see a source where this is printed.

3) Just because a Negative Quality doesn't bone the character hardcore every session doesn't mean it's "free points".

4) Again, your opinion. Does not apply to everyone no matter how much you think it does.

5) Having ranks in a social skill pretty much makes you automatically better than the "Average Joe". The things you list here are things that can be done without rolling without ranks in the skill.

[Triggvi]

A couple of things to look for when looking at characters for play ability.

1. If they have a dump stat (aka 1 in a stat )[reject them]- they are doing this with the belief that they can stay out of the fighting and be uber hackers.

2. Use the optional rule that uses stat+response limited by program for hackers. Use the same limits for technomancers

3. Look broadly at the player character in the roleplaying context. Challenge them on things you find questionable or hard to roleplay. Let them know they have to roleplay all the negative qualities or they will lose them and be in karma debt or be forced to pick new ones.

4. monitor dice pools- having a dice pool that is too high (18+) is something to be questioned and Enforce the rule of 20

5. make sure they character can hold there own is a social situation with the common folk (at least some social skills).

For most players you don't need to do this. It is just the ones that pride themselves on trying to break the game. They make characters that have exactly one awesome skill but can't order lunch with out offending the venting machine.

1) Your opinion. It may work in your game, and it might be the case with your players, but that doesn't mean it is that way for everyone.

2) Could make attributes mean something to hackers, yeah, but I would like to see a source where this is printed.

3) Just because a Negative Quality doesn't bone the character hardcore every session doesn't mean it's "free points".

4) Again, your opinion. Does not apply to everyone no matter how much you think it does.

5) Having ranks in a social skill pretty much makes you automatically better than the "Average Joe". The things you list here are things that can be done without rolling without ranks in the skill.

These concepts I have are designed to help a GM promote roleplaying in the game. The biggest complaint I hear from shadowrunners is that people are making characters that are min/maxed to the hilt and are simply unplayable in a team setting if they are required to roleplay they negative qualities.

1. these are things to look for, not hard fast rules.

2. A negative qualities does not have to effect the character every game, but the player still needs to role-play it when it comes up even if the GM is unaware of it at the time. This is part of good role-playing that many min/maxers have a problem with. if they are not role-played they become free points and as such should be taken away.

3.  the optional rule for hackers and technomancers is in the Shadowrun 4a core book (pg 226)

4. A skill of 1 is the skill level of the average joe. A zero means you are defaulting the action. when a shadowrunner has 0 or 1 die in any social skill because his charisma  is 1 or 2. I would not let him get away anything with out a roll. At that level he is social repugnant.

5. they are my opinion and they are good ones to enhance role-play over roll play.

[Crunch]

2) Could make attributes mean something to hackers, yeah, but I would like to see a source where this is printed.

Its also on p 39 of Unwired and on page 226 of the 20th A core book. In both cases under using Attributes. I find in my games that it also helps to separate the hackers from characters who have some programs.

I like most of those suggestions with the caveat that a low stat or lack of social skills may be justified by concept, and that typically I won't allow a negative quality that a character can't at least handwave in their background. That said a character who walks into one of my games with a stat of 1 will find it coming up pretty often. Likewise a character who's completely socially inept is likely to be a pain in the ass to be around.

But I'm upfront with my characters about what I want. I find that a quick talk before chargen can save a lot of hurt feelings.

[Mirikon]

There's plenty of reasons why a non-melee type (casters, riggers, hackers, and even a face) could have a 1 in, say, STR. Whether they are the bookish type that doesn't do weight training, or because they spend all their time polishing the things they are actually supposed to be good at and trusting the rest of their team to cover for the things they aren't, as any good team setup should be, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for it. Putting value judgements on the stats like that is a bias on the GM's part, not a sign that the player is trying to get away with something.

[Glyph]

On karmagen:
I don't buy into it being an antidote to min-maxing.  It encourages you to get a smidgen more low-rank tertiary skills, because you generally have a few points left over, but it doesn't really discourage most min-maxing (except for a few corner cases such as troll tanks).  The reason for this is that high dice pools are still a major measure of effectiveness, so people won't balk at getting them just because they have slightly more of an opportunity cost.

On negative qualities:
Some negative qualities lend themselves to roleplaying, but a lot of them don't.  Their main effect is either dice penalties or lateral limitations.  You can't really "roleplay" an allergy to silver or a sensitive system.  My personal judgement is that GMs should have a list of negative qualities that they disallow, and let the players know ahead of time, rather than being a passive-aggressive jerk - allowing the quality, then using it as an excuse to vindictively screw over the character (forcibly implanting 'ware in a character with sensitive system, etc.).  Negative qualities should not be free points, but they don't have to come up every session, either (except for ones that do so because they are major flaws, such as uncouth).

[Mirikon]

Indeed, the main time 'Sensitive System' comes up in play is when you screw up, badly, and have to stay in bed until that cloned organ you need is ready.

[All4BigGuns]

On karmagen:
I don't buy into it being an antidote to min-maxing.  It encourages you to get a smidgen more low-rank tertiary skills, because you generally have a few points left over, but it doesn't really discourage most min-maxing (except for a few corner cases such as troll tanks).  The reason for this is that high dice pools are still a major measure of effectiveness, so people won't balk at getting them just because they have slightly more of an opportunity cost.

On negative qualities:
Some negative qualities lend themselves to roleplaying, but a lot of them don't.  Their main effect is either dice penalties or lateral limitations.  You can't really "roleplay" an allergy to silver or a sensitive system.  My personal judgement is that GMs should have a list of negative qualities that they disallow, and let the players know ahead of time, rather than being a passive-aggressive jerk - allowing the quality, then using it as an excuse to vindictively screw over the character (forcibly implanting 'ware in a character with sensitive system, etc.).  Negative qualities should not be free points, but they don't have to come up every session, either (except for ones that do so because they are major flaws, such as uncouth).

Now an allergy to redwoods would suck in the base setting of the game. 

[Triggvi]

There's plenty of reasons why a non-melee type (casters, riggers, hackers, and even a face) could have a 1 in, say, STR. Whether they are the bookish type that doesn't do weight training, or because they spend all their time polishing the things they are actually supposed to be good at and trusting the rest of their team to cover for the things they aren't, as any good team setup should be, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for it. Putting value judgements on the stats like that is a bias on the GM's part, not a sign that the player is trying to get away with something.

A STR 1 is just above being hospitalized or in a wheelchair. There is no easy explanation for having a STR of 1 unless you have a compelling reason in your back story and qualities to accompany it.. I sit around all day polishing my stuff all day is no reason. Just doing that you would at least have a STR of 2. The only reason to have a 1 in a stat is that you are using it as a dump stat to squeeze point for other things.  Hence why GM's take a dim view of Dumpstat.

When you create a character it should be to role-play them. Dump stats make a character unplayable in my book unless you have good back story  that  explains it and you are ready to role-play it. I have not seen a min/maxer yet that is willing to roleplay his dumpstat of 1.

Seriously how can a hacker survive with a Logic of 1. He would be a someone that can't add 2+2 and would think the reason he has to take off his shoes to count to 20 is an epic intellectual discussion, but by game mechanics he doesn't need Logic to be a uber hacker.

There is no reason for dumpstats of 1 unless you are ready to play the physically or mentally handicapped in shadowrun.

[Triggvi]

On karmagen:
I don't buy into it being an antidote to min-maxing.  It encourages you to get a smidgen more low-rank tertiary skills, because you generally have a few points left over, but it doesn't really discourage most min-maxing (except for a few corner cases such as troll tanks).  The reason for this is that high dice pools are still a major measure of effectiveness, so people won't balk at getting them just because they have slightly more of an opportunity cost.

On negative qualities:
Some negative qualities lend themselves to roleplaying, but a lot of them don't.  Their main effect is either dice penalties or lateral limitations.  You can't really "roleplay" an allergy to silver or a sensitive system.  My personal judgement is that GMs should have a list of negative qualities that they disallow, and let the players know ahead of time, rather than being a passive-aggressive jerk - allowing the quality, then using it as an excuse to vindictively screw over the character (forcibly implanting 'ware in a character with sensitive system, etc.).  Negative qualities should not be free points, but they don't have to come up every session, either (except for ones that do so because they are major flaws, such as uncouth).

on Karmagen

The cure to min/maxing is not the system but to cure the player. When people say it is less productive to min/max with karmagen they are not talking out there ass. Point efficiency for karmagen is better for lots of moderate to low skills and you still get to have a few power skills too. the average stat is higher as well 3.5 per stat instead of 3 for BP

High dice pools are a measure ability is your chosen field. But a character is not just a label or a chosen field. They need other skills to survive. The uber-gunman can't just go around using his gun all day shooting people. He need complimentary skills (armory, influence group, dodge, electronics group  and others to round him out). Bp makes it harder to have any complimentary skills without making the character as a whole suffer.

On Negative qualities.
They simply need to be played when they come up or you should loss them. My statement still stands. This is a role-playing game and you need to be able to role-play the character you have generated. Too many min/maxers simply forget they have a disability with their dumpstat of 1 or the negative qualities they took. There are things like sensitive system that come up when you decide to get cyber ware. You have limited the option of the character but that is still role-played in that your character does do well with cyberware or he may decide to get cyberware and find out he is one of the millions that does not do well with metal in the meat. all that is said is that negative qualities are not feebee points with out consequences. If the GM feels that is being abused he should warn the player and then take them away or tell him to pick new negative qualities or make him buy up the dumpstat to 2.

[Unahim]

A STR 1 is just above being hospitalized or in a wheelchair. There is no easy explanation for having a STR of 1 unless you have a compelling reason in your back story and qualities to accompany it.. I sit around all day polishing my stuff all day is no reason. Just doing that you would at least have a STR of 2. The only reason to have a 1 in a stat is that you are using it as a dump stat to squeeze point for other things.  Hence why GM's take a dim view of Dumpstat.

I'm currently in the process of making a Technomancer character who had some kind of matrix-accident, causing her to have lost all of her memories. She was then found by some curious sprites, who (in round-about fashion) helped her find her way to an ex-runner Technomancer they knew. He tried to get through to her, but she was traumatised in such a way that she was hard to talk to in the flesh, and evens cared of being there.

But she liked the sprites, causing her to spend almost all of her time in the matrix, and making her (re)education being virtually taken care of by the sprites, giving her a rather machine/AI like view on a lot of things.

I'll not get into how she ended up shadowrunning, but she operates out of a mecha with some drones. She basically hardly ever moves by herself (even in the mecha she's jumped in, so no cotnrols) so her physical body has suffered under that abuse. That is why she has 1 STR. Even if she gets out of the mech, she's supported by an Iron Will exoskeleton, so a lot of the movement isn't her own.

She pretty much can't dodge or do anything worth mentioning, combat-wise, outside of the mech. And seeing as the thing is quite big-ish, she'll have to get outside of it, lots, even if the GM isn't specifically out to force me to do so. Due to budget issues, she's not that great at hacking remotely either, or really hacking at all, so her use is being at the scene.

I think that's a "dumpstat" with real consequences, with good reasons and with RP implications.

[emsquared]

A STR 1 is just above being hospitalized or in a wheelchair. There is no easy explanation for having a STR of 1 unless you have a compelling reason in your back story and qualities to accompany it.

Are you aware that what you're saying is a blatant contradiction to RAW? You have only provided a personal opinion that only serves your inherently flawed argument. By definition of the RAW; 1 in a stat is "weak", weak strength, weak willpower, weak logic, it is weak - NOT crippled.

Funny that this convo pops up immediately after the augmented Adept thread, as they are exactly the same. Both are fueled by a belief that build pre-empts role-play. That's unfortunate if that's your experience, but in my experience, for players who have been RPing for more than half their life, building optimal characters is the norm - whether it's because they simply know the system so well now that they can and so they like to explore that and do, or because to challenge themself through RP, they want to depart drastically from anything they've done before mechanically, so they end up at an extreme - it doesn't matter so long as the player RPs it. And you may say that this is all you're saying, but it's not. You are saying a min-maxed character cannot be RPed, and implying that anyone who builds a min-maxed character isn't interested in roleplaying. That's simply gross RP-elitism.

Dumpstats in D&D are referred to, not even really as a pejorative, as a role-play crutch. Which while on it's face means that it's a shortcut to emphasizing a weakness of your character - so it's easier to role-play it, or it helps you role-play, it's also exactly that - all about mechanically enforcing what you want to be your character's weakness.

If you don't want your group to have optimal builds, that's your business and that's fine, but do not try and say that your beliefs are correct and others are wrong. They both have their ups and downs and are both a valid way to play.

[Mirikon]

As emsquared said, while that may be your interpretation of the attributes, Triggvi, that is not consistent with the RAW or the RAI. If you would actually read the section on Attributes in the Game Concepts chapter of the core book, you would understand that. Your attitude reflects your bias, not the rules.

Weak means weak. Someone who is crippled would have that reflected by various qualities, not by attributes. It is fully possible to have STR 6 and be Paraplegic, to take the opposite example. Someone with STR 1 could be a schoolgirl, or someone from a rich family that never had to do 'physical labor' before in their life, or, yes, a hacker who spends the majority of their time in the Matrix, to the neglect of their body.

[Unahim]

-snip-

Exactly. I've never played any kind of Matrix character before, so I wanted a character who's so matrix, so matrix it hurts. And so her physical stats are one big dumpstat. It makes sense for the character, and combined with Reality Impaired, I'm quite giddy with the fun situations outside of her comfort zone that will occur.

As long as the GM doesn't mercilessly try to slaughter me by having all the NPC shoot grenades at me while I'm cowering behind cover doing nothing particular (because my character is terrified of that) just because he wants to punish me hard for being outside of the mech (harder than the fact I'm not contributing anything to the fight, that is)then I'll have a reasonable amount of fun RPing my weakpoints, and won't mind doing so. I just don't like it when the GM actively tries to muder me for a negative quality. Like, not just try to bring the negative quality into play, butj ust constantly pull up situations where the neg quality is pretty much a pre-ordained death sentence.

The reason for that is that I get quite attached to my character -concepts-, not to the amount of dice I roll. I find the notion that I would be a bad RPer simply because I have a murder machine that turns my character into a, well, murder machine when she's inside of it to be quite offensive. I'm an author in a few fandoms, so I usually write several pages long stories about my characters, their background, their personalities, etc, which also explain their skillsets.

And then, after writing this up for a few hours (or days) I sit down and spend a few hours on my build.

Is that wrong? Does spending at the very most an equivalent, and usually even a lesser, amount of time on my build as opposed to my background make me a bad RPer? I find the notion offensive.

[Triggvi]

A STR 1 is just above being hospitalized or in a wheelchair. There is no easy explanation for having a STR of 1 unless you have a compelling reason in your back story and qualities to accompany it.

Are you aware that you're just blatantly lieing? Making up misinformation only to serve your inherently flawed argument. By definition of the RAW; 1 in a stat is "weak", weak strength, weak willpower, weak logic, it is weak - NOT crippled.

1. A zero stat is so weak you can't move without a wheel chair. So 1 point above that would be what? just above being in a wheel chair. Statement stands. I was using a little dramatic wording to get the point across. I also never used the word crippled, that has a different meaning. Having a logic of 1 is weak to the point of disability, not crippling.

2. Calling someone a liar is bordering on if not just over the line of  a  personal attack. Please refrain from making personal attacks.

3. Most GM's frown no dumpstats for the reasons stated in previous posts.

4. If you are offended by people expecting you to role-play your characters, then you may need to rethink what you are doing in games.