Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Damnyankee on <01-29-11/1724:08>

Title: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-29-11/1724:08>
Both the setting and rules lend toward specialized characters.  Anyone ever successfully play a "Jack-Of-All Trades, Master of none" Character?  If you where to make one, how would you go about it?  Skill wires?  Something else?

Damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: topcat on <01-29-11/1815:55>
As high as you can in attributes (especially Edge), as many skill groups as you can swing (1-3pts) and broad-impact augmentations.  Skillwires certainly don't hurt and an expert system will allow Edge to work for you. 
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-29-11/1823:35>
If you go super high edge then your really more of an edgerunner than a Jack of all trades, though you could be flexible.   

Damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Glyph on <01-29-11/1909:26>
The trick to versatile characters is threefold:

One, make liberal use of the many Attribute, skill, and dice pool modifiers out there.  This is a world of dystopian transhumanism - you can become superhuman by selling bits and pieces of your humanity, or you can be someone gifted with otherworldly power - and alternately feared and envied by mundane metahumanity.  The rules reflect this reality, which is why augmentations and adept powers give you such cheap power boosts.

Two, don't spread yourself too thin, to the point of uselessness.  This varies from skill to skill.  Combat skills require the most dice for consistent success, since you will be making opposed tests with negative modifiers.  But it is best to stop at a point where you are still good at what you do, and not spread out until you can do everything, but do it poorly.

Three, look for useful synergies.  For example, if you are playing a speed sammie, with high Intuition and augmented Reaction, then the Stealth skill group would probably be a good buy for you, even at a comparatively low rating.  Likewise, a shaman who has a high Charisma can become a secondary face with just a bit of tweaking.  Also do this from a more organic, character background point of view.  Why does this character have all of these skills?  What does he use them for?  For example - he is a private investigator who works under the table - that would explain pistols, unarmed combat, the influence group, perception, data search, first aid, and pilot ground vehicle, among other skills.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-29-11/2031:14>
Quote from: Glyph on <01-29-11/1909:26>
Two, don't spread yourself too thin, to the point of uselessness.  This varies from skill to skill.  Combat skills require the most dice for consistent success, since you will be making opposed tests with negative modifiers.  But it is best to stop at a point where you are still good at what you do, and not spread out until you can do everything, but do it poorly.
That brings up a good question, what is good enough?  As we are not talking about specialized characters, "as high as you can get," isn't the right answer.   How many dice do you need to not be a liability in a firefight? a knife fight?  the matrix?  when does a few more dice in a skill make it less of a party trick and something the team can rely on?  Every category will have a different answer as you suggest.  The benchmark I would use is "When the specialist of the team considers you useful."  IE the Sam knows you aren't on his level, but doesn't have to worry about you if you end up in a firefight, and when planing the ambush, he can count on you doing your assigned role, and making a contribution. 

Damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Glyph on <01-29-11/2245:19>
That's a question that can have many different answers, depending on the overall toughness level of the campaign.  Personally, I would say (to be a reliable backup/assistant in a given area) 12-15 dice for combat skills and magical skills such as spellcasting or summoning, 10-12 dice for social skills or hacking, and 8-12 dice for most other things (perception, stealth, technical skills, etc.).  Others might give lower numbers.

I think one thing that trips a lot of people up is that they try to make a Jack of all trades by making a nearly-mundane human with average Attributes and skills, giving them a lot of weak dice pools in the 6-8 range, or even lower.  That's not really playing to the strengths of the system, either rules-wise or fluff-wise.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Kerebrus on <01-29-11/2331:24>
it is my curse to be a proponent of both.  When it comes to designing characters for myself, it will often be the flexible / multipurpose character.  but I can easily turn on the min / max engine and completely push the limits of a particular specialty.

In 4th Edition, skillwires are not really worth it, as the skill softs cost as much as the conventional skills (in terms of BP's at character creation, and that is not counting the skillwires).  Sure, money is often easier to come by than karma, and a skillwire character might be able to swing downloading a demo version of a particular skill in a pinch.

that being said, I did make skillwires work for rounding out a character in previous editions, but the 4th edition team plugged that loophole.

and I would also put the question on the flavor of the game / GM.  If a GM has a group of specialized combat monsters, then their games will be combat oriented, and social interactions are a known and accepted weak point.  But if you are running a stock / pre packaged scenario (like MISSSIONS, or at a convention), then characters with a more diverse skill set (and an intelligent / ingeneous players) can handle some of the curveballs that come with those.

and characters with a degree of diversity allow for helpful skill overlap.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <01-30-11/0336:41>
Quote from: Damnyankee on <01-29-11/2031:14>
That brings up a good question, what is good enough?  As we are not talking about specialized characters, "as high as you can get," isn't the right answer.   How many dice do you need to not be a liability in a firefight? a knife fight?  the matrix?  when does a few more dice in a skill make it less of a party trick and something the team can rely on?  Every category will have a different answer as you suggest.  The benchmark I would use is "When the specialist of the team considers you useful."  IE the Sam knows you aren't on his level, but doesn't have to worry about you if you end up in a firefight, and when planing the ambush, he can count on you doing your assigned role, and making a contribution. 

Damnyankee

Looks like to me that this would be one-man-army/team. Shadowrun is mainly cooperative game, Companions talking about different roles and such. You could play more of this roles, that is for sure. For instance Heavy weapon support/Face/Matrix support would be great combination...hell no. Those are specialized roles so specialized characters fit in.

BUT

If you really want to play jack-of-all trades, you should begin with lower stats and wide array of skill groups. About the dicepool...

Quote from: Glyph on <01-29-11/2245:19>
That's a question that can have many different answers, depending on the overall toughness level of the campaign.  Personally, I would say (to be a reliable backup/assistant in a given area) 12-15 dice for combat skills and magical skills such as spellcasting or summoning, 10-12 dice for social skills or hacking, and 8-12 dice for most other things (perception, stealth, technical skills, etc.).  Others might give lower numbers.

Well. let say. Attribute 4 is better than average, attribute 5 is highly trained - that means specialized one. So if you would want to build Jack-of-all-trades for 400 BP, you would have some different skill groups OR wisely selected specializations with total dicepool of 8 -10(+/-metatype mods)...
It begins to interrests me. I would try to work out a character like that and post it here. Praxis beats the theory :)
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Dakka on <01-30-11/1649:12>
An agility of 5 doesn't make you specialized, it makes you versatile in agility related skills.  200 points in attributes is a must for a versatility character and another 40 on Edge.  To be decent at everything requires a high Edge, because non specialists are going to have dicepools around 8 to 10 and those don't make for outstanding successes.  Edge helps take the edge off of the smaller dicepools.  You can call them Edgerunners if you want but no other stat can be used on EVERY check, what is more flexable than that?
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <01-30-11/1707:58>
Quote from: Dakka on <01-30-11/1649:12>
An agility of 5 doesn't make you specialized, it makes you versatile in agility related skills. 

True, although there is a bit missunderstanding.
I`ve been thinkink about thiis table>
\
RATING 5  EXPERT
Star status: your expertise gives you a reputation.
Athletics Example: Athletic star: most major pro sports athletes
(MLB, MMA, NBA NFL, NHL, etc.).
Firearms Example: SWAT team, elite military (Rangers, Special Forces).
Technical Example: Top scientist. Published in peer-review journals.
Social Example: Incumbent politician, Grand Tour regular, corporate vice president.
vehicle Example: Ancients go-ganger. Military combat pilot with combat experience.
Knowledge Skill Example (Academic): Masters degree.
Knowledge Skill Example (Street): Ran the Seattle shadows for 5+ years.

I know it is about skills, but even attribute 5 is considered "Superior" and as such I understand that character exploits most of potential.
But to have 3 supperior atributes...f.e. Agilitiy, Charisma and Intuition/Reaction to be faster-than-light-marsman-face, well, I would say, this character doesn`t know what to want...
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-30-11/1819:13>
You are saying that any character that is not specialized/min-maxed is a poorly built character, and I reject that.  Sure, its easily to build a grabastic mess of stuff that looks cool, but that doesn't mean that every flexible character is poor.  I think its about intent.   


damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Bradd on <01-30-11/1824:10>
A high attribute means that you're highly talented and/or cross-trained. For an attribute with as broad an impact as Agility, "specialized" really isn't the right word for it.

Also, I generally assume that a character's overall skill levels and attributes are similar, especially at the high end. For example, skill rating 7 is "the best of the best," but that isn't really true unless you have a 6-7 linked attribute backing it up. When attribute and skill ratings differ by a lot, I adjust how I interpret the numbers. For example, somebody with Agility 3 + Infiltration 1 is a "beginner" who "has done this a few times." However, somebody with Agility 5 + Stealth group 1 is more than just a beginner. They may not have focused specifically on Infiltration as much as a typical "professional," but they are just as effective because of broad training and talent. In that case, I would estimate that the actual skill level is closer to novice or professional than beginner.

In short, the descriptions on p. 119 are for typical people focused on individual skills. It's a different story when you build a broad skill base with groups or attributes.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Kontact on <01-30-11/2029:01>
Quote from: Damnyankee on <01-30-11/1819:13>
You are saying that any character that is not specialized/min-maxed is a poorly built character, and I reject that.  Sure, its easily to build a grabastic mess of stuff that looks cool, but that doesn't mean that every flexible character is poor.  I think its about intent.   

The problem is that intent does not determine reality.  If someone intends their character to be a realistic "got laid off from ___ job and left SINless and now has to scrape by in the shadows to survive" type, then they are going to suffer the realistic fate of being largely useless and then dying.

Like you said in the first post, the rules and the setting skew towards specialist characters.  If you want to fight against that current, you're going to need every tool in the box to do it.  That's what min/maxing is.  Minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths.  Pretty much what a generalist character is entirely about.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-30-11/2044:42>
Quote from: Kontact on <01-30-11/2029:01>
Quote from: Damnyankee on <01-30-11/1819:13>
You are saying that any character that is not specialized/min-maxed is a poorly built character, and I reject that.  Sure, its easily to build a grabastic mess of stuff that looks cool, but that doesn't mean that every flexible character is poor.  I think its about intent.   

The problem is that intent does not determine reality.  If someone intends their character to be a realistic "got laid off from ___ job and left SINless and now has to scrape by in the shadows to survive" type, then they are going to suffer the realistic fate of being largely useless and then dying.

Like you said in the first post, the rules and the setting skew towards specialist characters.  If you want to fight against that current, you're going to need every tool in the box to do it.  That's what min/maxing is.  Minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths.  Pretty much what a generalist character is entirely about.
You have made your point that you don't think its possible.  I agree that its not easy.  But to continue to argue with me/us about it is not productive.  If you disagree with the concept of the thread, don't participate. 

damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: FastJack on <01-30-11/2107:08>
Take a breather boys. No need to start getting hot over some of the comments presented here. I think everyone is just trying to figure out the right definition of "flexible" before they go further.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Glyph on <01-31-11/0012:10>
The thing that makes generalists viable is, as I alluded to in my first point, the wide array of dice pool boosts available to them - and this isn't going against the intent of the system.  Far from it.  Technology and magic turning Joe Average into a superhuman (but with a dark twist) is part of the whole atmosphere.

Look, take someone with Agility: 4 and the Firearms skill group at 3.  That's 7 dice, not really that much.  But get the restricted gear quality and give this guy muscle toner: 4 and a suprathyroid gland, raising that Agility to 9, and then get a reflex recorder for that Firearms skill group, and cybereyes with a smartlink.  Suddenly, you're rolling 15 dice, much more acceptable for someone expected to back up the primary shooter against security guards that are likely to outnumber you and be on their home ground.  And with such a high Agility, this guy will also sneak better, jump better, and do numerous other things better than the person with 200 points in Attributes and lots of skills, but not a lot of 'ware.

I'll add something else.  Nearly any supporting character, in addition to the dice pool levels I alluded to earlier, should also have at least one additional initiative pass, and some good armor/damage soaking capability, simply to be survivable.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Kontact on <01-31-11/0117:27>
It's still more efficient to put as many points into attributes as possible since they add dice to whole swaths of skills.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Glyph on <01-31-11/0229:37>
Yeah, but don't stop with the natural  points.  Look at my example above - those two pieces of 'ware gave the character 8 more Attribute points.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <01-31-11/0331:29>
Quote from: Glyph on <01-31-11/0229:37>
Yeah, but don't stop with the natural  points.  Look at my example above - those two pieces of 'ware gave the character 8 more Attribute points.

Do not have the rules right now to see that but what is the cost of this Cyberware?
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: FastJack on <01-31-11/0857:14>
Quote from: Sichr on <01-31-11/0331:29>
Quote from: Glyph on <01-31-11/0229:37>
Yeah, but don't stop with the natural  points.  Look at my example above - those two pieces of 'ware gave the character 8 more Attribute points.

Do not have the rules right now to see that but what is the cost of this Cyberware?
EssenceNuyen'Ware
0.832,000Muscle Toner R4
0.745,000Superthyroid
0.225,000Reflex Recorder (Firearms Skill Group)
1.7102,000Bioware
0.51,500
(plus options)		Cybereyes R4
0.25~6,500Cyberware
1.95~108,500Total cost
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <01-31-11/0910:40>
Oh..I mean money cost :) or better, how many BPs for resources??
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: FastJack on <01-31-11/0923:33>
Quote from: Sichr on <01-31-11/0910:40>
Oh..I mean money cost :) or better, how many BPs for resources??
Updated the info
Title: Re: Specialized vs. flexible characters
Post by: topcat on <01-31-11/1118:37>
A character min/maxxed to perform well at a small pool of things will be the best possible option for competing in that pool.  They'll be useless outside of that pool, hoping that someone else will pick up all other pools on their behalf.  It's very much "MMO" thinking where characters have specific roles they are expected to excel at and a good team covers all necessary roles.  Like in MMOs, some SR4 players just assume that any non-specialized character is useless by virtue of the fact that they are not as good as mix/maxxedly possible at a given role.

I tend to prefer having cover for every role on a team.  Even if that cover is less than perfect, it's still better than going from perfect to nothing if the character in the primary role falters.  Whether that's a single character that can fill in many roles or multiple characters with secondary roles, it's just nice to have backup.  The safety of backup requires some tradeoffs from the single-role min/maxxed build.  Whether those tradeoffs are worth it is up to the particular group of players

Finally, reduced min/maxxing makes it a lot easier on the GM.  By being slightly less focused, you lower the bar as to what's needed to challenge any given character and raise the bar for what each character can handle, arriving at a happier medium.  One near-unkillable character makes it hard to produce quality threats for the team, because anything that can threaten the near-unkillable character will liquefy anything else on the team.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-31-11/1142:36>
Quote from: Glyph on <01-31-11/0012:10>

I'll add something else.  Nearly any supporting character, in addition to the dice pool levels I alluded to earlier, should also have at least one additional initiative pass, and some good armor/damage soaking capability, simply to be survivable.
I agree with that.  Shadowrun is a dangerous universe. 
Besides the above mentioned cyber suite, what are some other options?  I was looking at some of the old stand buys as well...  reaction enhancers  thats a bonus to the ranged dice pool.  Most of the mods that give you the extra pass also give you a bonus to reaction as well. 
If you look at being a Something/something/hacker, most of the hacking skills do not rely on the stat too much, if you are only going for 2-3 pts in your hacking skills, it might be ok to no max out on the related attribs.  Yes, you can be dumb as a post and still be a drek-hot hacker.

Damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: FastJack on <01-31-11/1206:52>
Looking over the thread, I'd rather have characters that were great at one thing, but decent enough at a second thing that they could pick up the slack if needed. If you built an entire team like that, you'd have a well-oiled machine that could get out of any jam.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <01-31-11/1226:09>
Speaking as a player of a character who is a generalist covert ops kind of person, my character does very well.  He can not only sneak around, but bypass security, tail a mark, disguise himself, impersonate another male human, run, swim, flip, and climb, and does well in fire fights and close combat.  In fact, I picked up some extra stuff from the martial arts PQ's in Arsenal so that he could get himself out of trouble when he needed to.

He has about two dozen different skills to cover a variety of situations.  He isn't great at any one thing, he's just good at everything.  Has dice pools in the 8 to 10 range for everything he does.  I can personally attest to the fact that you don't need 12+ dice pools to be effective.  You DO have to know what it is you want to do, and how to squeeze every advantage from a situation.  I don't mean just extra dice, I mean thinking on your feet and changing the conditions that you find yourself performing in.  That means making hard rolls (high thresholds) into easier rolls by taking the right piece of gear (field kits for stuff like electronics) or by making it so that you don't need large dice pools to be effective.  Don't hit something head on, go around it.  This holds true for everyone, but the generalist will shine if you adhere to this idea closely.

The great benefit of the generalist is that if you have someone in the group filling a role and specializing in it (becoming a primary with 15+ dice in a relevant pool), that teammate knows that, no matter what, someone can back them up when they need it.  And the whole team knows that they can count on having a secondary to allow the team to multi-task a situation to their maximum advantage.

Having more than one primary filling a role is problematic as the ones involved will step on each other's toes.  The generalist, however, won't outshine the specialist at what he does, but will give the team a safety net for their plans if (when) things go wrong.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <01-31-11/1317:51>
Quote from: The_Gun_Nut on <01-31-11/1226:09>
Speaking as a player of a character who is a generalist covert ops kind of person, my character does very well.  He can not only sneak around, but bypass security, tail a mark, disguise himself, impersonate another male human, run, swim, flip, and climb, and does well in fire fights and close combat.  In fact, I picked up some extra stuff from the martial arts PQ's in Arsenal so that he could get himself out of trouble when he needed to.

Was that character created as such with 400 BP, or is it karma payed?? Because, I`d wote for having more than just one field of interrests, but you will have to survive and play smart, until you are good enought to go out without the team (of specialists :) to cover your ass.

Quote from: FastJack on <01-31-11/0857:14>
EssenceNuyen'Ware
0.832,000Muscle Toner R4
0.745,000Superthyroid
0.225,000Reflex Recorder (Firearms Skill Group)
1.7102,000Bioware
0.51,500
(plus options)		Cybereyes R4
0.25~6,500Cyberware
1.95~108,500Total cost

I was wandering what costit would be, but 22 BP is quite cheap...
Title: Re: Specialized vs. flexible characters
Post by: Bradd on <01-31-11/1629:43>
Quote from: topcat on <01-31-11/1118:37>
It's very much "MMO" thinking where characters have specific roles they are expected to excel at and a good team covers all necessary roles.

It's not just MMOs! You see this all the time in ensemble fiction, especially in the heist genre, and it happens in real life too. The usual thing is for each teammate to dominate one specialty plus a basic skill set shared by all. For example, in Leverage, the whole team has solid Stealth group and Con skills, Eliot dominates Combat, Sophie does Social, Parker owns Athletics group, and Hardison covers Electronics & Cracking group. (Nate's niche isn't easily modeled by RPGs.) Some of them have backup skills, some have weaknesses, but overall it's the same approach you see in team games.

For a very different example, see Charmed. The Charmed Ones can all cast spells and brew potions, but their innate powers give them very different teamwork roles. Prue's power is their main magical weapon, Piper defends them, and Phoebe is the master of legwork. They often make plans to coordinate their unique abilities.

I see this all the time in the workplace too. There are certain basic skills that everyone needs, but beyond that it's a good use of resources to specialize. Risk is higher in real life, so we tend to have more backup experts, but the basic setup still happens. The difference between MMOs, fiction, and real life is one of degree rather than kind.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: topcat on <01-31-11/1730:11>
Quote from: Bradd on <01-31-11/1629:43>
It's not just MMOs! You see this all the time... (snip examples)

Good examples, but they appear to fall short of MMO style play, because the characters are able to do things outside of their specialty with an acceptable (and often exceptional) degree of competence.  They may have a specialty or focus, but they are still competent and useful outside of it.

I use MMO play to mean that the character fits one of a few very focused roles (e.g. damage, debuff, buff, heal, control, tank) and focuses on that role so heavily and exclusively that it ends up unable to contribute meaningfully outside of the role.  Most builds tend toward this, because that's how you get one-shot kills, unkillable trolls, and hackers that can sleepwalk through the best military security out there.  If every build point is spent toward one goal, the results can be incredible.

Some games may require MMO-style play, others don't.  Nothing wrong with either choice, say I, as long as it's fun and fits the game.  I tend to prefer a more toned-down game, whether playing or GMing, though I certainly go through powergaming phases from time to time.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <01-31-11/1958:29>
A counter-ensable example would be Burn Notice.  Mike, Sam and Fye all have the same basic skill set, with some (minor) variation.  The few times they have any one else help its usually not for the skills, but the lack of warm bodies (or cars, or houses..)  The characters differ (and the inter group conflict arises from) in that they have different motivations and goals. 

Damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Glyph on <01-31-11/2209:19>
The cost of that 'ware actually runs closer to 32 BP - don't forget to add getting the restricted gear quality, twice.  But it's still worth it - the bonus to Agility alone boosts so many skills, and the increased Attributes can often free up more points to spend on skills.

The whole specialist vs. generalist debate is interesting, because some roles fall more into the latter category.  Sammies get the heat for being one-trick ponies, but honestly, they are one of the easier roles to "multi-class".  Mages and hackers, on the other hand, have roles that are actually comprised of a number of Attributes, skills, and gear, and they usually need to make painful sacrifices to be meaningfully good outside of their area.  Covert ops is a similar broad role, but one that is easier to break into narrower roles.

My characters tend to be either dual specialists (face/sammie, etc.), or specialists with a wide spread of other skills.  Mainly because I would get bored if they could only do one thing well.  I think of shadowrunning as something involving information gathering, people skills, planning, infiltration, combat, and exfiltration.  If you can only do one of those roles, you will likely be bored a lot of the time.  Not just the purely combat types, either.  If you can, say, dig up data, but aren't good at sneaking, talking to people, or handling yourself in a fight, you will probably be as bored as the mono-focused fighter.

That depends on the focus of the campaign, though.  If everyone is playing combat types, your generalist might be as valuable as gold to them for his ability to negotiate pay, scout out the area, etc.  Or, the runs might be nothing but combat, and your well-rounded guy will be a second-rater with a bunch of extra skills that he never gets to use. 
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Kontact on <01-31-11/2232:27>
Quote from: Sichr on <01-31-11/1317:51>


I was wandering what cost it would be, but 22 BP is quite cheap...

Well, it's really 22bp worth of gear and then 10bp worth of restricted gear qualities.  Still, it's 8 stat points just from the suprathyroid and the r4 toner.

The point of beefing your attributes at chargen is that they are much harder to raise during play with karma.  Conversely, skills are cheaper to raise in play unless that skill is very high.  So, by min/maxing for your generalist, you end up with a guy who has as much put into his core stats as possible, by bp and by gear.  Lots of soft-maxed attributes and low-level skill groups.  2 Karma is enough to get a specialization.  4 is all it takes to get 1 rank or raise from 1 to two.  A group is ten for 1 or 1->2.  Only a few sessions will have your generalist filling out from 5-12 dice to 8-15 dice at a bevy of skills.  Now you're a generalist.  Meta-gaming, maybe, but there's always a backstory that can explain a gifted type of runner who never had to work very hard since everything came so easy.  "I line up the dot, pull the trigger and the bullets hit the target.  Why would I need to practice that?"

But, branching is basically what a Sam does.  Even a tricked-out, killer Sam.  He hits his ceiling for advancing in his main role, and branches out into supporting roles.  He swaps out meat for augs until he is an unassailable force of action.  New muscle fibers, new brainmeats, that good stink, bones like a tank, genemods, nano-colonies, every bit of awesome he can stuff into his quivering post-human form.


Edit: Getting swooped by Glyph is like getting the thumbs up from mighty Zeus of SR.  Seriously.  Glyph is uncanny about being exactly correct.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <02-01-11/0306:17>
As factualy I`mworking at R&D and my professional skills tend to be very social (as Im graduated social sciences) and I work mainly in the field of indutrial communication systems, I m part of the team that fits many roles just because we are specialists in our tasks. I also have aquite good longsword fencing training and I do swimming and jogging. And, of course, shadowrun. With all of this ++ my girlfriend, I have no time to learn or train much other things and have more other interrests, in fact, Im glad that I have time to read some literature from time to time or watch some movie.
If you want to be an expert in something, you need at least 40.000 hours of constant praxis. That deffinitely means, that if you are not some longliving pointy ear, you have a chance to become really good just in a few things.
Yes. Talking about IRL now.
The game should be different just because of advanced training and learning technologies (also a part of my pro-field). It should give you grat advantages with all the augmentations. That`s cyberpunk. Using your physical and mental abilities as a tool to get the best out of the world while doing it your own way.
What I think is that the jack-of-all-trades must have is a strong self-concept that would make sense of his selected skills and make them interconnected to become a part of viable/playable personality. so that means, if you want to create this kind of character, you should first find this ..hmmm. ???focus of personality??? and then build a character around it. You shouldnt start from attributes and skills. It takes much more than just a good math and knowledge of the rules...

IMHO...
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <02-01-11/0853:54>
"My father was a shadowrunner, or so they say.  I never met him, he died before I was born.  I grew up reading everything I could about them, the comics, the trids. I was reading shadowsea by the time i was 12.  I wana be a shodowrunner like my dad, thats why I have hand razors, and an implant comlink, and...."

Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <02-01-11/0925:34>
My character, based upon Michael from "Burn Notice" (neat that it all ties in), was 400 BP.  All stats except for Edge were 3, and all 24+ skills were either 3 or 4.  Enhanced articulation, reflex recorders, muscle toning, bone density, cybereyes (completely tricked out), smartlink, and wired reflexes 2 were all I needed to get the physical edge he required to perform.  They didn't even need to be that high up; only WR were above rating 1.  A good internal commlink with some high performance Firewall and some black IC protected his PAN, and opened up the possibility of getting some good programs for hacking, later.

He didn't do any one thing great, he could just do whatever the team needed to infiltrate a location.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Dakka on <02-01-11/1239:43>
Move by wire is better than Wired Reflexes.  It's restricted so you would need some extra BPs to get it at creation, but it fits nicely into the hole left by your Wired Reflexes as an upgrade later.

I disagree that Sam, Fiona, and Michael all share the same skillset.  There are some major overlaps in asskicking and name taking but Sam is clearly more of a face, Fiona is a demolitions expert and firearms expert (rank 6 firearms group instead of 4), and Michael is an infiltration specialist.  You don't see Sam rappelling off of the roof. 
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <02-01-11/1245:45>
Quote from: Dakka on <02-01-11/1239:43>
You don't see Sam rappelling off of the roof.
No but they often remind us he was a SEAL, so we know he could do it.. just that he doen't want to rumple his Hawaiian shirts. And Fee has been a face a few times (well, a skin anyway...)

DY
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Sichr on <02-01-11/1317:00>
huh... R U talking about some series??? Cannot get any sense myself from those posts :D
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: FastJack on <02-01-11/1357:06>
Quote from: Sichr on <02-01-11/1317:00>
huh... R U talking about some series??? Cannot get any sense myself from those posts :D

They are talking about Burn Notice (http://www.usanetwork.com/series/burnnotice/).
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Dakka on <02-01-11/1651:30>
Quote from: Damnyankee on <02-01-11/1245:45>
Quote from: Dakka on <02-01-11/1239:43>
You don't see Sam rappelling off of the roof.
No but they often remind us he was a SEAL, so we know he could do it.. just that he doen't want to rumple his Hawaiian shirts. And Fee has been a face a few times (well, a skin anyway...)

DY

Right, but he's not a specialist in it anymore.  There is clear overlap in their skillsets, but I would say they are closer to a group of specialized runners than a group of generalists.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Damnyankee on <02-01-11/1706:12>
I would counter that argument by saying: when you are all the same  relatively speaking, you are generalists and not specialists. 

Damnyankee
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Bradd on <02-01-11/1859:13>
They're not all the same, though. Just comparing their "spy" skills (Social and Stealth group), they differ greatly. Michael excels at all of them (5+), Sam is pretty good (3-4), and Fiona is a bit rough (2-3). Sam and Fiona both have specializations in Seduction that put them on Michael's level, but only for that approach. They also both have extensive contacts to back up their overall specializations. Sam's a fixer and recon guy (including sniping), Fiona makes things go boom.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Glyph on <02-01-11/2217:15>
Specialist vs. generalist is mainly something to consider at char-gen.  Afterwards, generalists get better at what they do, while specialists spread out.  This is what makes elite mooks such as the Tir Ghosts better than the PCs - the combination of being really good, and having lots of skills, rather than one or the other.

I will mention one thing about Karmagen.  Traditionally min-maxed characters will tend to come out slightly better than standard 400 BP characters (yes, even with the errata), but generalists will come out FAR cheaper, due to the lower costs of low to mid-level skills and Attributes.  In build points, a skill of 6 costs the same as two skills of three, or three skills of two.  In karmagen, a skill of 6 costs the same as three skills of three and a specialization, or five skills of two and a skill of one.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Walks Through Walls on <02-03-11/0853:34>
Gun Nut,

I have thought about making a character based on Michael from Burn Notice, and would be interested in seeing your 400 BP version based on him. I hadn't thought about base lining all the attributes, and am now intrigued.

Also I'm not sure that their skills all overlap as much as they complement each other. They each have some low level skills that the others excel at while having their own specialties. 

I cannot wait for the next season to start.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Digital_Viking on <02-03-11/0911:14>
Quote from: Walks Through Walls on <02-03-11/0853:34>
Gun Nut,

I have thought about making a character based on Michael from Burn Notice, and would be interested in seeing your 400 BP version based on him. I hadn't thought about base lining all the attributes, and am now intrigued.

Also I'm not sure that their skills all overlap as much as they complement each other. They each have some low level skills that the others excel at while having their own specialties. 

I cannot wait for the next season to start.

Somewhere I have a thread where I was trying to make a character based on Guererro from Human Target (Similar to Michael, being a generalist) - folks gave me lots of good advice there.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Walks Through Walls on <02-03-11/1304:35>
It isn't so much the building of the character, but when I tried to do it based on Michael I found that I didn't feel I did his diversity of skills, and the ability he has in them justice. I found myself saying well I could forgo this aspect of his abilities or make him not as good here. Long story short I just didn't feel I did him justice with only 400 BP. I know Michael isn't a beginning character, but still didn't like how any of my attempted builds came out.
Title: Re: Specalized vs. flexable characters
Post by: Bradd on <02-03-11/1423:38>
He would probably work better in karmagen than standard build. With karmagen, you can build a solid specialization or two (like Michael's Influence and Stealth) with a broad base of other skills.