Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: ELIZABETH NORTH <elnorth@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: character creation
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 20:03:36 -0700
Thanks Victor! :) (for the opt.char. create table)

My group is getting ready to make new PC's and I never really liked the
usual ABCDE priority method. (It didn't allow for a lot of variety.)

Hi everyone! :) I am new to the list and this is my first post.

--Aaron
Message no. 2
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: character creation
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 04:55:00 EST
>Thanks Victor! :) (for the opt.char. create table)
>
>My group is getting ready to make new PC's and I never really liked the
>usual ABCDE priority method. (It didn't allow for a lot of variety.)
>
>Hi everyone! :) I am new to the list and this is my first post.
>
> --Aaron
>
Your welcome that's why I posted it.
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 3
From: RAY MACEY <r.macey@*******.qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Character creation (fwd)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:58:44 +1000 (EST)
I posted this on the rec.games.frp.cyber newsgroup, and then thought as an
idea I'd post it to the list. So what do you think?


Ray.

_______________________________________________________________________
| 'The Universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be |
| missed.' |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: n1565842@*******.qut.edu.au or
r.macey@*******.qut.edu.au

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:56:25 +1000
From: RAY MACEY <n1565842@*******.qut.edu.au>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.cyber
Subject: Re: Character creation

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Dark Shade Spectrum wrote:

> Yo chummers,
> im looking for character creation ideas, from roleplaying ideas, to how
> to crteate that mage or that phys ad.....anything at all....
> cya laterz
> Cen

I was having trouble getting my two players to co-operate properly and the
game was suffering, so I/we came up with some ideas. I made a requirement
that they both make characters with a magic attribute, be it physads,
mages, adepts, whatever. Then I told them that they were fraternal twins
(ie non-identical) so that the could be different in looks, sex, attitude,
whatever, without falling into too many stereotypes.

I then told them that (as they were the only two members, and comprised
the entire team) there magic only works properly while they are within 50
metres of each other. If the move apart, they have an amount of time in
hours equal to their essence, before they start to lose magic points.
This lose occurs at the rate of one point per hour. It is regained when
they come back within range.

Ok now guys, this was just simply the way I played it. Please don't write
50 replies telling me that 50 metres is too far, or they should lose magic
faster/slower or whatever. Other than that, how do you like the general
idea?


Ray.

_______________________________________________________________________
| 'The Universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be |
| missed.' |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: n1565842@*******.qut.edu.au or
r.macey@*******.qut.edu.au
Message no. 4
From: "Caric" <caric@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Character creation (fwd)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:24:53 -0700
> I was having trouble getting my two players to co-operate properly and
the
> game was suffering, so I/we came up with some ideas. I made a
requirement
> that they both make characters with a magic attribute, be it physads,
> mages, adepts, whatever. Then I told them that they were fraternal twins
> (ie non-identical) so that the could be different in looks, sex,
attitude,
> whatever, without falling into too many stereotypes.
>
> I then told them that (as they were the only two members, and comprised
> the entire team) there magic only works properly while they are within 50
> metres of each other. If the move apart, they have an amount of time in
> hours equal to their essence, before they start to lose magic points.
> This lose occurs at the rate of one point per hour. It is regained when
> they come back within range.
>
> Ok now guys, this was just simply the way I played it. Please don't
write
> 50 replies telling me that 50 metres is too far, or they should lose
magic
> faster/slower or whatever. Other than that, how do you like the general
> idea?
>
>
> Ray.
The only question I have is: Did it work?

I say if it got the two to cooperate and work together than you played it
just fine, as long as the players were happy with it.
Message no. 5
From: Guardian <s777317@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:11:39 +1000 (EST)
As a sidelight, we play with the rule that each attribute can be only
raised once, and only by one point. It kinda placed an emphasis on high
beginning attributes as they couldn't be raised much, especially by
mages. PhysAds can use magic, but that's really expensive karma-wise.
And since we're playing in a relatively low powered campaign, cyberware
enhancement of attributes is minimal (except for the decker/street-sam).

Apart from the said decker/street-sam, I don't think there's one
character with a physical stat of 7 or above, and the only mental stat
above 6 is charisma. Altho, this will change once we have the karma to
up the stats.

Anyway, makes for a really different character generation outlook,
especially when considering that if we have 1,000,000 nuyen at the start,
we have a lot left over cose we're not supposed to buy high powered stuff.

Guardian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's called tourist season, so why can't we shoot them?"
Adam Treloar aka Guardian
s777317@*****.student.gu.edu.au http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 6
From: Vael Lashar <ltwiss@********.COM>
Subject: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:09:59 +0000
To start off. I've never got to play Shadowrun. I've always been the
poor bastard that was forced into GM'ing it.

The one process of roleplaying that I absolutely despise is character
creation. It always takes to long. You have to worry about gear -
money - lifestyle etc. Where is this characters emotional/ physical
status when I began roleplaying him/her?

I hate it. Another player in the group is a GM and he always takes
care of the creation process while I play Warlords II or something.

One of the best Gamemastering experiances I had was with two of my
old high school buddys. They created two elven characters. The
setting was Tir Tan. They played college students (which in real life
they were) who had just undergone their right of passage. I set up a
system for each test that they rolled against. I kept the outcome of
the tests secret until their first roleplaying session.

They started with little or no background or personallitys for their
characters. For the next year and a half. They created their
characters before my eyes. Each character was definatly not an aspect
of the person playing; and was extremly fun.

IMHO; I would much prefer a character that grew before my eyes. Not
something that was initally created.

Vael Lashar
Message no. 7
From: "Robert Pendergrast (Tom)" <3011_3@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:20:43 -0700
<super snip>

> IMHO; I would much prefer a character that grew before my eyes. Not
> something that was initally created.
>
> Vael Lashar

Exactly.

-Tom-
Message no. 8
From: Elfman & Danita <elf-dani@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:54:46 -0700
> From: Vael Lashar <ltwiss@********.COM>
>
> To start off. I've never got to play Shadowrun. I've always been
the
> poor bastard that was forced into GM'ing it.

GOD, been there done that. I finally told my group I was not GMing
again until I got to play at least ONCE.

[snip]

> One of the best Gamemastering experiances I had was with two of my
> old high school buddys. They created two elven characters. The
> setting was Tir Tan. They played college students (which in real
life
> they were) who had just undergone their right of passage. I set up
a
> system for each test that they rolled against. I kept the outcome
of
> the tests secret until their first roleplaying session.
>
> They started with little or no background or personallitys for
their
> characters. For the next year and a half. They created their
> characters before my eyes. Each character was definatly not an
aspect
> of the person playing; and was extremly fun.
>
> IMHO; I would much prefer a character that grew before my eyes. Not
> something that was initally created.

This is quite fun as a player too. I created a character for AGS
(another gaming system) that was thousands of miles from home. The
typical "fish out of water" character. He didnt know how he got
there, so the GM had fun revealing the elements of his life to me
little by little. Quite interesting, and lots of role playing
opportunity.

Sgt Pepper.

Visits Elfman's World at http://www.spots.ab.ca/~elf-dani
Message no. 9
From: Peter Leitch <pleitch_hpcs@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:42:00 +1100
At 18:20 25/10/96 -0700, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:
><super snip>
>
>> IMHO; I would much prefer a character that grew before my eyes. Not
>> something that was initally created.
>>
>> Vael Lashar
>
>Exactly.

Yeah, all well and good, guys. But if you don't put at least a little thought
into the motivations of the PC, IMHO you can never really get into the
character's mind and roleplay him/her/it properly. At least the following
question has to be asked and answered (at least, for Shadowrun):
"Why am I running the shadows?"

The answer to this provides the basis on which everything else can rest.
I hate to disagree (well...no I don't :-{) ) but I find character creation to be
the most stimulating time. I love it, all that anticipation of how the PC
turns
out.

I could rabbit on for pages here, but that would make me like
Pete Sims (God forbid :-{) )

Hey...no, Pete, put it down, man. Look, the carp's fallin' to
bits...no...no...stay back....

:-{)

PML

***************************************
Peter Leitch
<pleitch_hpcs@*******.com.au>
Canberra, Australia
Message no. 10
From: Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:50:24 +0000
In article <2.2.32.19961028054200.006ee80c@*****>, Peter Leitch
<pleitch_hpcs@*******.COM.AU> writes
>At 18:20 25/10/96 -0700, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:
>><super snip>
>>
>>> IMHO; I would much prefer a character that grew before my eyes. Not
>>> something that was initally created.
>>>
>>> Vael Lashar
>>
>>Exactly.
>
>Yeah, all well and good, guys. But if you don't put at least a little thought
>into the motivations of the PC, IMHO you can never really get into the
>character's mind and roleplay him/her/it properly. At least the following
>question has to be asked and answered (at least, for Shadowrun):
> "Why am I running the shadows?"

In an attempt not to go on at length over several pages (thanks Mr.
Leitch <grrr>) but.....

In the 25 years I've been playing RPGs and running them, the worst
characters at the table are the plain pieces of paper.... No history, no
background, no thought...

In RL terms, a baby is born with no personality (to speak of), very
little reason for acting in life, and wholly dependant on the parents.
IN SR terms, I defy anyone to play this character as a Shadowrunner.
Shadowrunners are born "of age", therefore they have a personality, they
have a reason to do things in life and they have an attitude.

Most of the players I've spoken to regarding characters, like to have at
least a roughly sketched background for their characters, so that they
have a basis for the character to act upon. Yeah it's OK for the
"experienced" roleplayer to sit there with his/her two dimensional piece
of paper, and decide "OK this character is going to be _mean_, or
_honourable_ or somesuch, but there is no justification for this
attitude other than personal choice, and unfortunately several
characters get played in the same fashion, becoming the same guy/gal but
with different skills and names.

So far, I've noticed that players who at least answer a few basic
questions about their characters, not only have a basis to work a
personality from, but also have a character that is at least believable,
and has room to develop from.

It's so easy to say... "I don't want to do a background because...", but
in all honesty this is just an excuse to not have to think about your
character, and then when he/she reacts to the gamesmasters storyline,
the GM is in fact building the character for you. A lot of people might
not agree with me, but in my humble opinion, that's just lazy.

Only two situations justify not bothering with a character background
and personality.... 1) If the player knows that the character isn't
going to live very long in a campaign because the GM is known as a
killer. 2) If the player is only going to play infrequently in the
game. At which point the character becomes a "guest star".

>The answer to this provides the basis on which everything else can rest.
>I hate to disagree (well...no I don't :-{) ) but I find character creation to be
> the most stimulating time. I love it, all that anticipation of how the PC
>turns
>out.

There are a number of simple ways to create a quick background for the
character, that gives a rough outline of past history and a quick
insight into the character of the character :) One way is the quick
generator that comes with CP2020, rough and ready but gives enough
information for the player to flesh it out once they've got an idea on
the history of their PC. The other, is a combination of a number of
other game systems, most of which have some form of background
generation available for players who's imagination is a tad tested for
PC creation. I personally use a re-written version of the CP2020 PC
generator tables, the players have fun rolling on the table, and after a
couple of game sessions, they have started filling in the gaps and
fleshing the character out. If there's something they rolled from the
table that they don't like, well, hell... it's only a guide, it can be
changed.

All of the characters and players in the game I run have very detailed
backgrounds and histories and personalities for their characters, it's
taken them a year to get there, but initially they started with a
character that my game world could react to, a character with a history,
and a small reputation. Someone in their home town/city, knows these
people, without that background, *I* don't know how people are going to
react to the character... because *I* don't know anything about the
character. Even a rough background, and a couple of years of history
are better than a blank sheet. Now I have characters that whole
campaigns can be based on, which helps me no end, as I don't have to
follow the FASA modules and can base the games on a more personal level.
Also, because I know the characters, and the PCs know their characters,
they know how certain parts of the world are going to react to them, and
can plan accordingly. It makes for a lot of roleplaying in the game,
rather than the FASA module style of play

Tell them the situation
React to situation
turn page...

My players have a *lot* of fun playing within the limitations they have
set for their characters, and my NPCs are able to have personalities,
because I know how they will react to the players, going by the PC
personality, and what is known about that PC. I can allow my NPCs to
raect with defiance, fear, anger, neutrality, superiority or
friendliness, the same way any NPC in any half decent movie does to the
prime characters. It helps the players, and myself, to suspend
disbelief, and act in a *real* world.

Each and ever person in RL, has a history, each person pretty much knows
how people will react to them in their local area, from the way they
have grown up in that area. Each and every player has a personality, a
history, a predictable way of reacting to certain given situations, why
deprive your character of that, and why make the GM's life more
difficult... Remember, bland characters make bland NPCs, if the GM
doesn't know anything about your character, then there is no way the
NPCs can react to that character, whether it be favourable or
unfavourable, it helps to flesh out the GMs world as much as the
players.

>I could rabbit on for pages here, but that would make me like
>Pete Sims (God forbid :-{) )

<ggrrrrrr> <scrabbles on floor looking for fish>
No come on PML, don't hold back, tell 'em what your *really* mean :) :)
>
>Hey...no, Pete, put it down, man. Look, the carp's fallin' to
>bits...no...no...stay back....

I know it's falling to bits, that's why I still use it... So that parts
of it stick to the offending personage... branding them for days as
having been soundly thwapped. (and the stink) <evil grin>

And on that note. I'm going to shut up. :)

--
Pete Sims
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we
can perform without thinking about them.
Message no. 11
From: Vael Lashar <ltwiss@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 12:13:06 +0000
>>>>[ In the 25 years I've been playing RPGs and running them, the worst
characters at the table are the plain pieces of paper.... No history, no
background, no thought... ]<<<<<
-- Pete Sims

The following is not ment to be written as bitter. It just seems that
way. 8o)

From the first minute you pick up any roleplaying book; flip through
the pages and decide to play a character. You've already established
<in your mind> what kind of character you are going to run. (and why
they are there) It doesn't need to be written down for it to be
thought.

I've said before. I've never played SR as a pc but as the GM. I <as a
GM> dislike character creation. You've got a table full of rules
ignorat players who: saw a cool picture of "Dred" The Urban Shaman.
and decided he was thier man. But wanted to create "Dred" rolling
their own dice. Not wanting the template. There tends to be a general
disregard for the spirit of the game in early character creation.

As a GM it takes one or two sessions just to create the archetype
with the PC. I hate the rolling. Yes it is nessisary for game
balance. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As a GM; I roleplay, as much if not more than my
PC's. I don't care about the PC's background or why they are running the
shadows. (I only would need this information if I was to run a
campaign that involved a characters past. I stay away from these
adventures because; as a whole I want the past staying there. It's a
new world with endless possiblitys.) I want to play my NPC's with no
knowledge of the PC's past.

I've played under GM's who throw out a set of precreated characters
and say "You and you're party are on a grassy knoll...."

This is bad. The players have in their hands - numbers - not
characters. This is not thought. And tends to quickly turn into
munchkinist play. "My character's got a bigger Strength stat than you
- whimpy " "oh yea! My character has more charisma and gets laid
more often than your's!"

IMHO the most important aspect of character creation is your
perception of the character played.(general disposition etc.) Not the
thought gone into his background. (this is important - but only to the PC
and does not need or warrent a finite outline)

I dislike rolling up characters. Sorry.

Vael Lashar
Message no. 12
From: Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 01:20:19 +0000
In article <m0vHy3n-00223yC@********.com>, Vael Lashar
<ltwiss@********.COM> writes

>The following is not ment to be written as bitter. It just seems that
>way. 8o)

I take everything pretty easy so don't worry about it, it usually takes
a lot to get me worked up <not that you'd notice> :)

>From the first minute you pick up any roleplaying book; flip through
>the pages and decide to play a character. You've already established
><in your mind> what kind of character you are going to run. (and why
>they are there) It doesn't need to be written down for it to be
>thought.

Agreed.... but a lot of new players only have a vague idea of what they
want to play, and that idea is usually based around some unsuitable film
character. Like Conan, or Cobra, or The Incredible Hulk (yes I've seen
this one).. I've even had one want to play a Ninja, though he had no
idea what a ninja was, it was just a cool picture :) <groan>

>I've said before. I've never played SR as a pc but as the GM. I <as a

Neither have I , I'm still waiting my chance to play, people prefer me
to GM, so I rarely get the chance to indulge, and then only usually in
something completely different, mostly I'm GMing, either my own games,
or with a club.

>GM> dislike character creation. You've got a table full of rules
>ignorat players who: saw a cool picture of "Dred" The Urban Shaman.
>and decided he was thier man. But wanted to create "Dred" rolling
>their own dice. Not wanting the template. There tends to be a general
>disregard for the spirit of the game in early character creation.

Yes I agree, some of the pictures and stuff available for Shadowrun, and
if they're around the Cyberpunk manuals do create a vision of something
that is a little false of the game, I had one player ( a long time ago)
want to have a character like the one on the cover of Sprawl Sites, he
had the impression that the skull was the end product of the lightning
spilling from the mages' hands, this created the somewhat false
impression that Mages kill everything they meet instantly and without
trouble, ergo he wanted one.

As for a disregard for the game, this is dependent on what previous RPG
experience the player has... If he/she is completely new, then they have
little or no idea at all, so can't disregard much of anything, it is
these types of players especially that I like to allow the character
creation for, as it gives them something to get their teeth into.

>As a GM it takes one or two sessions just to create the archetype
>with the PC. I hate the rolling. Yes it is nessisary for game
>balance. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I have to admit I don't like the rolling much either, and tend to avoid
it as much as possible, Under normal circumstances I will let the player
choose an archetype, and play that for a couple of sessions to get a
feel for the character type, if they want something else, then no work
has been wasted, and the player understands a little of the game.

For a more experienced roleplayer I would expect them to have at least a
basic grasp of what the game was about, and if not I will spend some
time talking to them about it. having said that, *I* have a *lot* of
time on my hands so I can do this. I know a lot of GMs don't and are
very limited in the time they can devote.

>As a GM; I roleplay, as much if not more than my
>PC's. I don't care about the PC's background or why they are running the
>shadows. (I only would need this information if I was to run a
>campaign that involved a characters past. I stay away from these
>adventures because; as a whole I want the past staying there. It's a
>new world with endless possiblitys.) I want to play my NPC's with no
>knowledge of the PC's past.

This is where I differ in my style of GMing, I find that the characters
backgrounds allow them to interact with my world on a much more personal
basis, and I like them to put a little thought into it. It gives me
plot hooks, so I can ignore the modules from time to time, and it allows
certain of my NPCs to react in particular ways... Obviously not all of
them, as many will never have met or heard of the PC, but certainly
some.

>I've played under GM's who throw out a set of precreated characters
>and say "You and you're party are on a grassy knoll...."

So have I, <yawn>

>This is bad. The players have in their hands - numbers - not
>characters. This is not thought. And tends to quickly turn into
>munchkinist play. "My character's got a bigger Strength stat than you
>- whimpy " "oh yea! My character has more charisma and gets laid
>more often than your's!"

I can't say it's bad, because I would be talking from a heavily biased
personal view and I don't want to slam into GMs like this... they're
trying, (in more ways than one). Though this example does help to
promote munchkinism, it's not a cause as such.

>IMHO the most important aspect of character creation is your
>perception of the character played.(general disposition etc.) Not the
>thought gone into his background. (this is important - but only to the PC
>and does not need or warrent a finite outline)

In many cases it is the thought of the history of the character that
helps to create the disposition. When I create my NPCs, which is a
similar path to the PC creation, I like to know why the NPC is doing
what he's doing, is he happy in the job, what does he dream about, where
does he drink, what do his associates/friends think of him, etc., it
helps me to breathe life into the NPC, and I've found - albeit from my
own rather than other's experience - that a similar procedure works for
PCs. One thing that is very helpful and involves no Dice rolling at
all, is the 20 Questions section of the SR Manual, it helps to flesh a
character out.

>I dislike rolling up characters. Sorry.

Don't apologise Vael, many people here are the same, the less
rollplaying, the more role-playing, the more the game... It's a gate
that swings nicely.

We disagree on character creation, but then a lot of people here will
also disgree with me. No sweat, that's life, I don't want anyone to
think I'm trying to force my ideas on anyone else, I'm not, I'm just
making my own observations. But I don't like to hand a player a
pregenerated character, I feel, and my players feel, somehow... cheated
of the feel of that character, this is one of the reasons I let them
develop the history themselves, I can alter my world according to the
way they feel and think, but they can't alter their minds to think like
mine. Hell, sometimes even I have trouble thinking like me. :)

P
--
Pete Sims
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we
can perform without thinking about them.
Message no. 13
From: Peter Leitch <pleitch_hpcs@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:26:07 +1100
At 13:50 28/10/96 +0000, Pete wrote:
>I know it's falling to bits, that's why I still use it... So that parts
>of it stick to the offending personage... branding them for days as
>having been soundly thwapped. (and the stink) <evil grin>

Bloody hell!! The stink is killin' me. Never mind, I'll go have another
shower & I'll be okay again. But did the rest of you see? He couldn't help
himself...:-{)

Seriously, everything you say I agree with, Pete. We use a number of
different techniques, starting with the basic stuff in the SRII main rules
and going on to include the 20 questions I posted to the list some time
back. You sometimes invent bits of your character's background to suit a
run, as well. I did this extensively when the PCs went back to my
character's home town to help clean out a nest of BTL chip makers in the
Cascades. But all of this hinged on the fact that my character had an
identifiable home town. He already had family and relatives in the area he
could call on for assistance, and he already had a semi-serious rivalry with
one of the town's police lieutenants (which made for some interesting
role-playing). Without these elements, the game would have been a lot more
flat and lifeless, particularly for me, but also for the other players.

As I stated in my previous post, I love the character creation process.
There is something I find very stimulating about the process. You are,
after all, creating a new person. They may be fictional, and really a part
of you, but they feel different -- like a shard of something special. I
don't exactly know how to describe it. I just know I love doing it.

Hey, Pete! You must be an old f@** if you've roleplayed for 25 years. I've
only been at it for 19 years (more than half my life), and I thought THAT
was a long time. :-{)

PML

***************************************
Peter Leitch
<pleitch_hpcs@*******.com.au>
Canberra, Australia
Message no. 14
From: Peter Leitch <pleitch_hpcs@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:26:09 +1100
At 12:13 28/10/96 +0000, Vael Lashar wrote:
>
>The following is not ment to be written as bitter. It just seems that
>way. 8o)

<big snip>

>As a GM; I roleplay, as much if not more than my
>PC's. I don't care about the PC's background or why they are running the
>shadows. (I only would need this information if I was to run a
>campaign that involved a characters past. I stay away from these
>adventures because; as a whole I want the past staying there. It's a
>new world with endless possiblitys.) I want to play my NPC's with no
>knowledge of the PC's past.

Hmmmm...Vael, I believe you are missing out on some extremely interesting
possibilities with this attitude. However, it's yours and you are entitled
to have it (the attitude, that is). I think, however, that if the players
don't have a past upon which to base their character's current motivations,
they can't role-play their character properly. Let's use an example:

One of the players has a character who was a hit man for Mitsuhama, called
Mace. He is Yakuza, Japanese-American, extremely paranoid, and married with
two kids. On the whole, he is cold blooded, logical and merciless. One of
his major peeves is people who mistreat the young (of any species). He will
kill these people without a second thought, in cold blood and with
malice-of-forethought. The PCs were boating down the Amazon (the first
Har-le-quin module) when we were attacked by a river serpent of some kind (a
big aquatic monster anyway) which lasted about ten seconds. When it was
dead, three baby serpents popped up, crying for their mother. Mace asked
the rest of the party if they thought the babies were old enough to fend for
themselves, and after a short up-link to a paranormal animals guide, we
discovered they were only just hatched and wouldn't survive long without
their mother. Without another word Mace, without betraying a single
emotion, shot all three babies dead.

This may seem heartless (and the player has been endlessly ragged about the
incident) but, from Mace's perspective it was the only thing to do. It
would have been cruel and heartless to let the babies die of starvation or
by being eaten by something else. His way meant they died quickly and
(relatively) painlessly. This decision only stemmed from the fact that the
player had created a background for his character which included strong
feelings about cruelty to the young and helpless. It shocked the other PCs,
and revealed two things about Mace; the ability to make quick decisions and
the willingness to carry them out, no matter how morally suspect or gut
wrenching they may be. Great role-playing made possible because he had a
background.

<snip awful GM tale>

>IMHO the most important aspect of character creation is your
>perception of the character played.(general disposition etc.) Not the
>thought gone into his background. (this is important - but only to the PC
>and does not need or warrent a finite outline)

As I've said before, and the above illustrated (...I hope :-{) ) if you
don't have a background, you can't hope to have a consistent general
disposition. Your perception of the character is flawed. But that's my
opinion, of course.

Oh, well. If you and your players can 'Run this way, more power to ya. Me
and my chummers can't, we've got to know where we've been so we have an idea
of where we're going.
PML

***************************************
Peter Leitch
<pleitch_hpcs@*******.com.au>
Canberra, Australia
Message no. 15
From: BulletShower <nmatausc@****.CIP.FAK14.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:22:29 +1000
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996,
Vael Lashar wrote:

> As a GM it takes one or two sessions just to create the archetype
> with the PC. I hate the rolling. Yes it is nessisary for game
> balance. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

IMHO, rolling isn't necessary at all for game balance. The only
person who's able to unbalance the game is the GM. You are the one to
interpret all the rolls. Personally (I think you sould know that),
our group is playing completely diceless. Call it storytelling game,
call it what you like. The years of fun we had playing diceless! No
arguments about RL things like modificators or other similar drek.
Just pure, intense (very intense) gaming experience.


> As a GM; I roleplay, as much if not more than my
> PC's. I don't care about the PC's background or why they are running the
> shadows.

I don't want to insult you, Vael, but have you ever thought why
certain characters, e.g. in novels, are considered to be "deeper"
than others, why they feel "more real"? Read Tolkien, for instance.
His protagonists seem to be real. And why? Because Tolkien had given
them hundreds and hundreds of pages of background. A good background
makes for a good character. This is true for rpgs also.


>(I only would need this information if I was to run a
> campaign that involved a characters past. I stay away from these
> adventures because; as a whole I want the past staying there. It's a
> new world with endless possiblitys.) I want to play my NPC's with no
> knowledge of the PC's past.

Hm, this is your point of view, sure. But how do you explain your
character's emotions and likes and dislikes, then?


> "My character's got a bigger Strength stat than you
> - whimpy " "oh yea! My character has more charisma and gets laid
> more often than your's!"

Do it like we do: no player is allowed to see the other players'
sheets.



:)

BulletShower
______________________________________________________________________
"Gott wuerfelt nicht" (A. Einstein)
For More information on diceless roleplaying and own Shadowrun stuff,
jack into http://www.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~nmatausc
Message no. 16
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:00:34 -0500
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Vael Lashar wrote:

> I dislike rolling up characters. Sorry.

The beauty of Shadowrun is that the only "rolling" you need to do
is *after* the character is fully created, i.e. the starting money (which
is separate from resources). The endless variation in what characters
can have, or do, or be is what makes SRII such an interesting game.
As far as avoiding past histories and "keeping the past in the
past," to me, that throws one of the best sources of plot out the window
entirely. It also makes character motivation more than a little suspect,
and without motivation, a character is just what you describe: numbers on
a page. I definitely share your dislike of that.

Marc
Message no. 17
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:49:30 EDT
What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for there
characters then the GM makes the players based on the background, using the
stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it takes to get certain
skills, and stuff like that.

Dragon Claw
Message no. 18
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:17:45 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 5:53:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
DragonC147@***.COM writes:

> What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for there
> characters then the GM makes the players based on the background, using the
> stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it takes to get
> certain skills, and stuff like that

Actually I started doing this after I let my new players attempt to make
champion characters and I got some rather non-cohesive characters. I later
abadoned the idea since I was never starting any new campaigns. Two years
later I inherited a group of players affectionly known as the newbies. After
my newbie team of shadowrunners died, I had them do just this as well. Mostly
beacuse they had wierd ideas about what skill levels they should have.
(Example, one guy was playing an 18 year old street rat so he should have Corp
Ettiquette at 6 beacuse his father worked for a corp and he ran away at 12.
Does it make sense to you? It sure dosen't to me.)

I find that making a player come up with a background so that he or she can
play in a game, or more importantly have a character made is the only way to
go. All my games are most likley gonna be run like this. Also in some ways the
GM can ensure the players will be balnced for his game and there should be no
errors.

My newbie group is very, very happy with their Shadowrun characters at this
point. I am also happy with them, now if they would quite doing silly things
like drive through buildings....::sigh::

-Bandit
Message no. 19
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:13:40 -0500
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 4:51 PM

>What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for
>there characters then the GM makes the players based on the background,
>using the stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it
>takes to get certain skills, and stuff like that.

I think it's a bad idea designed to make that much more work for the GM, who
in this case already has enough to do, thanks anyway.

And if I were a player I'd absolutely hate it.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 20
From: "O'Mordha, Michael" <michael.omordha@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:57:38 -0700
>>What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for
>>there characters then the GM makes the players based on the background,
>>using the stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it
>>takes to get certain skills, and stuff like that.
>
>I think it's a bad idea designed to make that much more work for the GM,
who
>in this case already has enough to do, thanks anyway.
>
>And if I were a player I'd absolutely hate it.

I did this with a group I GM'd for a while. Yes, they hated doing it, and
yes, it was more work for me, but the return was worth it. As Bandit
indicated, the characters created were much stronger, and while my group
didn't have any vehicular difficulties, they each decided to follow their
original paths instead of team goals, which eventually killed the game.
Will I use that method again? Yes. Next time, however, the characters will
be in open discussion with each other prior to putting anything on paper.
Message no. 21
From: rook <rook@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:28:59 -0700
i too have used this method. with a starting group of 5 chars made up of
various but no real deckers, just part-timers (the decking just isn't for
us).
made up histories and everything as well. left them some parts to
customize. they did not like it at all at first.
BUT, in the end they loved it. one of the chars stories was that he was a
traitor. he was the leak and subtly screwed the group on seveal occasions.
it was quite good in the end.

david aka rook
rook@***.net
Message no. 22
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:05:04 -0500
From: rook <rook@***.NET>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 12:37 AM

>i too have used this method.

I guess I'm just not that much of a control freak.

>made up histories and everything as well. left them some parts to
>customize. they did not like it at all at first.

Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be creative.
Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own wouldn't do a
thing for me.

As a GM, I've got enough work to do designing my world and my NPCs without
going in and creating the PCs as well. My players are capable of
independent thought; I don't need to take that away from them.

The whole concept just strikes me as a way of stroking the GM and screwing
the players by taking part of the game away from them.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 23
From: David Blank <XRacer8654@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 03:19:35 EDT
In a message dated 10/17/98 1:07:14 AM Central Daylight Time, remo@***.NET
writes:

> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
> yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be creative.
> Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own wouldn't do a
> thing for me.

That is not a fair statement. The player creates the personality and
background. Just because the GM does up the stats on a character doesn't mean
it's HIS character. For as long as the player is the one that comes up with
the personality and background of the character, then it is his character. The
player will be the one determining how the PC acts and grows.

Even if a GM doesn't actually sit down write up the characters, he still has
to go over the stats of the characters with the players. He is still going to
need to make sure that their skill sets fit together well and that they have a
reason to work together. He still has to try to work the PCs into his
campaign. It would sure be a lot easier if he was working with the player to
created a PC that fitted in to the campaign.

I know it is more work for the GM, but consider all the work wasted if the
group of PCs doesn't gel.

I wouldn't suggest it for all campaigns, but I think that any group made up of
"Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get over it quickly
and enjoy
the benefits.
Message no. 24
From: rook <rook@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 03:35:58 -0700
>"Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get over it
quickly and
enjoy
>the benefits.

exactly my point! take most of the tournaments that are run at cons.
except for virtual seattle from the rpga, all tourneys use pre-generated
chars. this is to put everyone on an even footing. make you work to
role-play. that is the challenge.

besides money, why do you think actors act?? it is the challenge of
roleplaying someone else as put down on paper by a writer. you do not
dictate how to portray a character in a movie, the writer and director do.
i think it is so similar to roleplaying as to be almost the same.

david aka rook
rook@***.net
Message no. 25
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 11:11:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/17/98 2:07:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, remo@***.NET
writes:

> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
> yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be creative.
> Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own wouldn't do a
> thing for me.

I think you misunderstand what we are talking about. The player still creates
the character concept, the GM just makes the stats. This would ensure that the
characters are balanced and virtually error free. (I found only one mistake on
the 6 newbie characters I made, which was easily correctable)

In my expereience it forces players to come up with a background and a
personality that is good and well thought out. As a GM I looked at the
backgrounds the players gave me and I made suggestiopns so that they made more
sense. Since the players were new to Shadowrun they really needed some help.

My wife has been having me make stats for her characters for years.

> As a GM, I've got enough work to do designing my world and my NPCs without
> going in and creating the PCs as well. My players are capable of
> independent thought; I don't need to take that away from them.

I do not mind the extra work if it ensures a good game session.

> The whole concept just strikes me as a way of stroking the GM and screwing
> the players by taking part of the game away from them.

I disagree. All the GM is doing is helping the players make better characters.
Number crunchers are gonna hate it, as would players who follow the "GM verses
Player" mentality.

-Bandit
Message no. 26
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:40:38 +0000
and thus did Andrew Spurgeon speak on 16 Oct 98 at 17:49:

> What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for there
> characters then the GM makes the players based on the background, using the
> stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it takes to get certain
> skills, and stuff like that.

I like this idea! No more worries about maxing chars or catching
cheaters allocating 2 million, plus as GM you can far better see what
is needed for a campaign.

Good idea, once I get a group together again, I'll give it a try.



Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 27
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:07:27 -0400
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Andrew Spurgeon wrote:

->What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for there
->characters then the GM makes the players based on the background, using the
->stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it takes to get certain
->skills, and stuff like that.

Wait.... you mean you don't already do this? }:-)
Most of my players ask me to generate their characters. I'm a
role-playing numbercruncher so my PCs tend to be good at what they do, and
not bad at everything else, plus they have 'friends' and 'associates' who
occasionally call the PCs and harass them. }:-)

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 28
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:05:18 -0700
> What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for there
> characters then the GM makes the players based on the background, using the
> stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it takes to get certain
> skills, and stuff like that.
>

This is one of those things I walk on. Unless it's a one shot game such
as those at a con; where I expect pregens.
As a 'plumber' I get a lot of enjoyment out of delving into the depths
of designing my character.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 29
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:14:53 -0700
> I find that making a player come up with a background so that he or she can
> play in a game, or more importantly have a character made is the only way to
> go. All my games are most likley gonna be run like this. Also in some ways the
> GM can ensure the players will be balnced for his game and there should be no
> errors.

I always require extensive concepts and / or background story details.
But I also feel it's important for each player to do the mechanics
design as well. It's makes them feel more of a sense of ownership and
helps them understand what the character can do.
With a new player I will sometimes go through the steps with them
telling me what it is they want to do and have and me doing the
mechanics. But I feel it's very important in these cases to let them
redesign it later when they understand the game.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 30
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:26:34 -0700
Patrick Goodman wrote:
> From: rook <rook@***.NET>

Hmm. Another person who goes by Rook... I need to get that new account
I've been planning with the new nick...

> >i too have used this method.
> I guess I'm just not that much of a control freak.
Me either.

> >made up histories and everything as well. left them some parts to
> >customize. they did not like it at all at first.
> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
> yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be creative.
> Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own wouldn't do a
> thing for me.

I have to agree here. I would and have walked out on such games before.
It only works for me in one shots where there is a limited time frame. I
recall one cyberpunk game where the GM was so much a control freak he
changed my character's ethnicity, personality, military career, personal
habits and appearance. I got my things together and walked out after
saying how insulting I felt he was being.
> going in and creating the PCs as well. My players are capable of
> independent thought; I don't need to take that away from them.

Yes. I wouldn't bother to game with players who weren't creative. I
could take up knitting and have more fun if I needed something to do.

> The whole concept just strikes me as a way of stroking the GM and screwing
> the players by taking part of the game away from them.

Most definatley

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 31
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:34:55 -0700
> > Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
> > yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be creative.
> > Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own wouldn't do a
> > thing for me.
>
> That is not a fair statement. The player creates the personality and
> background. Just because the GM does up the stats on a character doesn't mean
> it's HIS character.

A GM often gets it wrong when they try to translate a concept down.
Only the most bland of my character designs could be described in words.
Most of them are 90% feeling and 10% wordable. Anytime anyone has tried
to put any of my creative processes into words or concrete terms other
than me it has been drasticly wrong with me unable to explain exactly
why. I trust this is true of any really creative person.

> I wouldn't suggest it for all campaigns, but I think that any group made up of
> "Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get over it
quickly and enjoy
> the benefits.

Often it is just the opposite. I find the phrase 'Role-Player' vs.
'Roll-player' being used to justify all sorts of heavy handed behaivoir.
This is just another example.
What's being said is that "Only a roll-player wants creative freedom. A
roleplayer wouldn't object to no say in things." Which to me just seems
false.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 32
From: rook <rook@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:47:21 -0700
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
>Patrick Goodman wrote:
>> From: rook <rook@***.NET>
>
> Hmm. Another person who goes by Rook... I need to get that new
account
>I've been planning with the new nick...


actually, i have been using this nick for quite a while and when i left the
list just over a month and a half ago i was still using it.

not that i care, really, about having the same nick. with this many people
in the world it is mighty difficult to come up with a pertinent and
meaningful nick for yourself which is also original and not thought of yet.

david aka rook
rook@***.net
Message no. 33
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:41:50 -0700
> >"Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get over it
quickly and enjoy
> >the benefits.
>
> exactly my point! take most of the tournaments that are run at cons.
> except for virtual seattle from the rpga, all tourneys use pre-generated
> chars. this is to put everyone on an even footing. make you work to
> role-play. that is the challenge.

My experience at cons is that the games resemble video games. No one
has any emotional investment in the characters so they simply dungeon
crawl.

> besides money, why do you think actors act?? it is the challenge of
> roleplaying someone else as put down on paper by a writer. you do not
> dictate how to portray a character in a movie, the writer and director do.
> i think it is so similar to roleplaying as to be almost the same.

This is why roleplaying is superior to acting. Acting involves much
less creativity. All you have to be able to do is read lines with false
emotion. Most actors jump at the chance to do a 'situation drama' where
there is no script. Such things are extremely rare though. I can recall
one movies that came out a few years ago like this. And no of no other
examples off the top of my head. Nor do I recall that movies name.

The director set up a corner store and each actor would simple act out
someone who entered the store or worked there.
I remember it got top reviews but I missed seeing it due to travel.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 34
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:48:34 -0700
> In my expereience it forces players to come up with a background and a
> personality that is good and well thought out. As a GM I looked at the
> backgrounds the players gave me and I made suggestiopns so that they made more
> sense. Since the players were new to Shadowrun they really needed some help.

I like to get a complete background first, approve that, then send the
player off to design it. Though I always do get at least one player who
tries to get a finished character to me at the very last second with no
background yet. Despite this I still prefer the overall results I get
and am not about to kill the patient to cure the cold.

> > The whole concept just strikes me as a way of stroking the GM and screwing
> > the players by taking part of the game away from them.
>
> I disagree. All the GM is doing is helping the players make better characters.
> Number crunchers are gonna hate it, as would players who follow the "GM verses
> Player" mentality.

Or people who enjoy the creative process.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 35
From: Penta <cpenta@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:21:40 -0700
Clerks!

Rook wrote:

> > >"Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get over
it quickly and enjoy
> > >the benefits.
> >
> > exactly my point! take most of the tournaments that are run at cons.
> > except for virtual seattle from the rpga, all tourneys use pre-generated
> > chars. this is to put everyone on an even footing. make you work to
> > role-play. that is the challenge.
>
> My experience at cons is that the games resemble video games. No one
> has any emotional investment in the characters so they simply dungeon
> crawl.
>
> > besides money, why do you think actors act?? it is the challenge of
> > roleplaying someone else as put down on paper by a writer. you do not
> > dictate how to portray a character in a movie, the writer and director do.
> > i think it is so similar to roleplaying as to be almost the same.
>
> This is why roleplaying is superior to acting. Acting involves much
> less creativity. All you have to be able to do is read lines with false
> emotion. Most actors jump at the chance to do a 'situation drama' where
> there is no script. Such things are extremely rare though. I can recall
> one movies that came out a few years ago like this. And no of no other
> examples off the top of my head. Nor do I recall that movies name.
>
> The director set up a corner store and each actor would simple act out
> someone who entered the store or worked there.
> I remember it got top reviews but I missed seeing it due to travel.
>
> --
> Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
> __ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
> /.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
> \(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 36
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:58:48 -0400
Andrew Spurgeon wrote:
>
> What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds for there
> characters then the GM makes the players based on the background, using the
> stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about how long it takes to get certain
> skills, and stuff like that.


I don't generate my players' characters for them, but I *DO* require them to
create a thorough background for their characters, and submit a 20 Questions
variant on the character to me for approval, before they ever get to put down a
single number.

Given the nature of the campaign (ordinary people thrown into the shadows), I
also put in various restrictions on the stats they could buy at first; e.g., no
one could have a combat skill higher than 3. All of their skills needed to be
thoroughly justified by the character's background, as well. (E.g., Sean's
character had Armed Combat at a low rating since he was a corporate climber,
and was learning kendo to impress his Japanese prospective employers.)

Since my players all know the system and are pretty sharp role-players, this
came out much better than if I'd tried to generate their stats for them as
well. Everyone got what they wanted most; but the restrictions were such that
none of the characters could start exceptionally high-powered. Learning and
improving skills is going to be a big deal in this game.


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 37
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:48:46 +0200
According to Rook, at 0:41 on 18 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> My experience at cons is that the games resemble video games. No one
> has any emotional investment in the characters so they simply dungeon
> crawl.

Having just spent 2 days GMing SR at a con, I agree, and add that my
particular experience is that most of the players don't even have a clue
what an RPG is, plus half of them are Magic-ers out to kill things (too
bad the woman they were thinking about having their way with wanted to
bite their heads off... And did :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A grizzle scene on my electron beam told a story about human rights.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 38
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:48:46 +0200
According to Patrick Goodman, at 1:05 on 17 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
> yours.

I don't think you would be playing someone else's character, at least not
as long as you've written up a good description stating the character's
strong and weak points, and the GM did a good job creating stats for that
description.

That is the real point, IMHO -- can you do a good job communicating your
wishes to the GM, and can the GM do a good job interpreting those in game
stats? If both are yes, then this can be a good way of generating
characters, if you like the "storytelling" approach over more rules-heavy
roleplaying anyway.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A grizzle scene on my electron beam told a story about human rights.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 39
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:13:08 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-17 02:07:12 EDT, you write:

<<
Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing one of
yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be creative.
Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own wouldn't do a
thing for me.
>>

But the fact of the matter is that you ARE making your own character. You
decide what he got for cyberware, where he got it, why he got it. You decide
what your character's weapons are, where he got them, and how he got them.
And to an extent you decide what skills you have and at what level you have,
for example a character that started martial arts as a kid and has done it for
10 years now might have a skill of 8 or so, unless you play maximum is 6 for
starters, or that a character that has hunted all his life would have a
firearms of 5 or 6 or higher.

Dragon Claw
Message no. 40
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:44:36 -0500
I can tell already that I'm in the minority on this subject, but I'll get
over it.

From: David Blank <XRacer8654@***.COM>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 2:20 AM

>> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing
>> one of yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be
>> creative. Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my
>> own wouldn't do a thing for me.
>
>That is not a fair statement.

How so? From where I sit, it's a perfectly valid one.

>The player creates the personality and background.
>Just because the GM does up the stats on a character doesn't mean
>it's HIS character.

Well, yeah it does. It might be my idea, but it's his execution. With it
being his execution, it's his character. I've got nothing to attach it to
me emotionally, since I had a minimal input into the execution and creation
of the character. I don't like that situation as a writer, and I don't like
it as a player.

>Even if a GM doesn't actually sit down write up the characters, he still
>has to go over the stats of the characters with the players.

Yes, and this is something that a GM should do. He shouldn't be making up
the characters for his players, though, and if the GM tries to force it on
his players, they should protest and if necessary they should walk.

I've got my own set of assumptions about how to design a character. The GM
is going to have a different set. I don't want to play something based on
someone else's set of assumptions.

>He is still going to need to make sure that their skill sets
>fit together well and that they have a reason to work together.

Why? It would certainly be nice...but it's also a challenge for the players
to overcome the problems. Friction between group members makes for good
roleplay opportunity, and it's not the GMs fault if the characters take a
job they're not qualified for.

>He still has to try to work the PCs into his campaign.

Yeah. This has what to do with the GM generating the PCs?

>It would sure be a lot easier if he was working with the player to
>created a PC that fitted in to the campaign.

The operative word here is "with." The PLAYER should generate the PC, with
the GM providing input...thus the term PLAYER character. The GM should be
providing input, not the stats.

>I know it is more work for the GM, but consider all the work wasted if the
>group of PCs doesn't gel.

That's not necessarily going to be aided by the GM creating the PCs. That's
at least as much a problem of the players' and how they play as it is of how
the PCs work together. And as I said, it doesn't matter who generates the
PCs with problems like that.

>I wouldn't suggest it for all campaigns, but I think that any group
>made up of "Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get
over
>it quickly and enjoy the benefits.

Maybe it's just the way these last few days have gone for me that's making
me overly sensitive, but it sure as hell looks like you just took a potshot
and called me a munchkin. Tell me I'm wrong here.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 41
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:50:52 -0500
From: rook <rook@***.NET>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 5:34 AM

>>"Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get over it
quickly
>>and enjoy the benefits.
>
>exactly my point!

What point, and what benefits? I've yet to see any.

>take most of the tournaments that are run at cons. except for
>virtual seattle from the rpga, all tourneys use pre-generated chars.

Pre-gen characters at cons have a point, as you pointed out: It starts
everyone on an even footing.

>make you work to role-play. that is the challenge.

It doesn't have that effect, however, in my experience. The players have no
attachment, and are generally so rushed that roleplaying is a secondary
consideration. It's a video game with real people rushing to meet an
objective, with no real opportunity for roleplay.

>besides money, why do you think actors act?? it is the challenge of
>roleplaying someone else as put down on paper by a writer. you do not
>dictate how to portray a character in a movie, the writer and director do.
>i think it is so similar to roleplaying as to be almost the same.

It's not, since as you yourself pointed out, the actor doesn't have much
input on what the character does, or says, or is. As a roleplayer, you do.
And if someone takes part of the process away from you, it takes away from
the desire to do a good job.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 42
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:03:21 -0500
From: M. Sean Martinez <ElBandit@***.COM>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 10:17 AM

>> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing
>> one of yours.
>
>I think you misunderstand what we are talking about. The player still
>creates the character concept, the GM just makes the stats.

I understand, Bandit, I just don't agree with the concept. The GM will be
making that character's stats with his own set of assumptions about what the
player had in mind, instead of the player's assumptions.

>This would ensure that the characters are balanced and virtually error
>free. (I found only one mistake on the 6 newbie characters I made, which
>was easily correctable)

I tend to disagree. It's just as easy to make check the player's math and
provide input to the player as he does his own stats. That way you can
check on the balance while not railroading the players. And that's what I
think this concept does.

>My wife has been having me make stats for her characters for years.

That is something that *she* wants you to do. If the player wants you to do
it, fine, go for it. If the player is new, sit there and coach them, but
unless they specifically ask you to do it, DON'T MAKE THE CHARACTER FOR
THEM.

>> As a GM, I've got enough work to do designing my world and my NPCs
>> without going in and creating the PCs as well. My players are capable
>> of independent thought; I don't need to take that away from them.
>
>I do not mind the extra work if it ensures a good game session.

I do mind the extra work, since the GM generating the PCs won't ensure that
the game session is a good one. That depends on the players and the GM and
how they play, not who generates the PCs.

>> The whole concept just strikes me as a way of stroking the GM and
>> screwing the players by taking part of the game away from them.
>
>I disagree. All the GM is doing is helping the players make better
characters.

No, all the GM is doing is making the charcters for the players. Helping
them is answering questions for them as they create the character.

This whole concept stems from the argument that the GM automatically knows
more and is better than the players, and this is not always the case. This
isn't even often the case.

>Number crunchers are gonna hate it, as would players who follow the "GM
verses
>Player" mentality.

I don't subscribe to either of those schools, and I hate it.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 43
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:01:06 +1000
At 16:44 18/10/98 -0500, Patrick Goodman wrote:
>I can tell already that I'm in the minority on this subject, but I'll get
>over it.

Well, maybe - but I'm with you. :-)

>I've got my own set of assumptions about how to design a character. The GM
>is going to have a different set. I don't want to play something based on
>someone else's set of assumptions.

That's fundamentally the issue for me, as well. Sure, playing a character
is fun, but so is creating the character in the first place. (Especially
that little tingly anticipation as you go through the creation process,
thinking "oh, this character's so cool, s/he's going to be so much fun to
play!) Take away that process and, for me, you've taken away some of the
fun. :)

>>It would sure be a lot easier if he was working with the player to
>>created a PC that fitted in to the campaign.
>
>The operative word here is "with." The PLAYER should generate the PC, with
>the GM providing input...thus the term PLAYER character. The GM should be
>providing input, not the stats.

Hear hear!

>>I wouldn't suggest it for all campaigns, but I think that any group
>>made up of "Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would get
over
>>it quickly and enjoy the benefits.
>
>Maybe it's just the way these last few days have gone for me that's making
>me overly sensitive, but it sure as hell looks like you just took a potshot
>and called me a munchkin. Tell me I'm wrong here.

I will say, too - maybe I'm being oversensitive, but it does seem to be
everybody's defence that 'oh, you're just not a good roleplayer then' if
you disagree with something they do or say.

And I take issue with that - I consider myself a _good_ roleplayer; I
_like_ to roleplay, and I like RP-heavy games. That has NOTHING to do with
the fact that I would _not_ like having to play a character that I didn't
create.

Yes, you do that at Cons - well, for one, I've never played at a Con. For
two, Cons are widely acknowledged as being quite a different style of
gaming. They're a one or two session game, instead of a long campaign. And
they use pregenerated characters, instead of letting you make your own.

Yes, I've played GM-created characters - for one-shot adventures (amnesia
games and the like). I haven't done it for a long campaign, and nor would I
want to - and that does _not_ make me a 'rollplayer', thankyou very much.


Lady Jestyr

- In the force if Yoda's so strong, then construct a sentence -
- with words in the proper order why can't he? -
- jestyr@*******.com.au URL: http://www.geocities.com/~jestyr -
Message no. 44
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 18:25:28 -0400
Okay. First, I think people are taking this topic a little too
seriously - what works in one game with one set of gamers may or may not suit
another game or another set of gamers. It's not much of an answer, but I think
it's the truth: in some games, having the GM create the stats will be
perfectly appropriate, and in others, it's not a good idea. For new players -
and I mean mostly new to roleplaying in general, but to a lesser extent new to
given system - it can help, because they're sometimes so busy dealing with
creating stats that they forget to create a personality. Lord knows I
probably would have been better off if Steve had created my first SR
chracter for me...I got too distracted by toys, and I've been gaming forever.
If you're going to try it, I'd recomend making it a more interactive
process, however. The GM should sit down with the new player and go
through the creation process, asking the player questions as they go - not
mechanical questions, but questions about the character. Have the player
pick priorities and such, but abstract out the rules. "Would you say he's
more gifted with natural ability, or training and experience?" Then, when
you're all done, show them what you've got and explain what it means.
For more experienced players, I'd probably avoid it as an
unnecessary bother, unless there was a particular reason to do it. For
instance, I played in one campaign where we ALL played pre-generated
characters. In fact, we didn't even get our stats right away...the
characters had been subjected to Evil Mind Control, and weren't really
exactly sure who they were or what they could do. We were given physical
descriptions, some general traits ("You have a violent temper", "You're
very intellectual, and rather arrogant"), and some gut reactions to
the other characters ("You have a nagging dislike for Joe's character,
and you think that Nancy's character might be your friend"). It was
actually fun, especially since this was a group of folks who'd been together
for a while, and the GM made characters that were very typical of each of
us...and given them to someone else :) It worked, though after a while
we moved on to something else.
Basically, though...if it works for your group, do it. If it doesn't,
don't. And don't try to convince people that it shouldn't work for them if
it does, or vice versa. You're just wasting your breath :)

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 45
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:47:39 -0500
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 10:41 AM

>> What do you guys think about having players make only backgrounds
>> for there characters then the GM makes the players based on the
>> background, using the stuff from the shadowrun campanion book about
>> how long it takes to get certain skills, and stuff like that.
>
>I like this idea!

Oh, Martin, not you too....

>No more worries about maxing chars or catching cheaters allocating 2
>million...

Which can also be, and should be (IMO), caught and corrected after the
character is generated by the player.

>...plus as GM you can far better see what is needed for a campaign.

Yeah, but it leaves you open to the subconscious idea of either tailoring
the team to the mission(s) you have in mind, or subconsciously screwing the
players by making the characters ill-equipped to handle anything.

I'll stick with what works, thanks.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 46
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:52:55 EDT
In a message dated 10/18/98 6:54:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, remo@***.NET
writes:

> Yeah, but it leaves you open to the subconscious idea of either tailoring
> the team to the mission(s) you have in mind, or subconsciously screwing the
> players by making the characters ill-equipped to handle anything.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that to me it really appears that
as a whole you do not trust GMs since you assume they are all gonna to attempt
to screw the players over. Is this the case or are you having a bad week?

When I and my wife sat down with each of the Shadowrun newbies to get their
character concepts down we spent easily 2 hours with each player talking about
how he sees the character. I had them describe the character in terms of
strength and endurance, reflexes, personality and background. I also went as
far as to get hobbies and intreasts and a gear wish list.

In general the players got 90% of the things on their lists. The 10% that they
did not get was things that they would not be able to buy anyway. They also
got gear they would not have thought to buy for themselves.

I then spent about 3 hours making sure each character fit the discriptions
given. The process was time comsuming on my part, but in the ned the players
liked their characters better than they would have if they made it themselves.
(That is what THEY told me and what I have heard from others.)

> I'll stick with what works, thanks.

It worked out rather well for me.

Are you saying that only your way works? I do not think that is a fair
statement. I have used this method before and it works out just as well as
letting players make their own characters. I personally have had good
expereinces with the former, but that is just me.

I think it would be best to say that we agree to disagree and that GMs should
do what they feel is best in their games. I may not do this everytime, but you
never know...

-Bandit
Message no. 47
From: Sempai Arishu <radowshun@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:52:06 PDT
Personally i have no problems having a player make his character however
he wants, the more munchkin the better. I gives me a better excuse when
i whip them off to a secret corporate testing facility and use them as
lab rats in some freky experiment where their soul is merged with a free
spirit....not that i would ever do that of course. I mind control my
players, the more i like the character the better and easier and safer
the time they have with the character. There's always a player who wants
secondhand move by 3 and a synpatic 1, i let em have it, then when
something hoopy happens i say, youve had your fun now let me have
mine....he he.
sempai

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 48
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 00:54:56 -0500
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.COM.AU>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 5:05 PM

>>I can tell already that I'm in the minority on this subject, but I'll get
>>over it.
>
>Well, maybe - but I'm with you. :-)

It's lonely in this corner, but it's nice to see you, Lady J. Game of rummy
while we wait out the attackers? <g>

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 49
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 00:52:24 -0500
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 4:17 PM

><<
> Neither would I. I wouldn't be playing my character. I'd be playing
> one of yours. Where's the fun in that? I roleplay so that I can be
> creative. Playing one of the GMs characters instead of creating my own
> wouldn't do a thing for me.
>>>
>
>But the fact of the matter is that you ARE making your own character.

Eh? How am I making my own character if the GM is doing everything?

>You decide what he got for cyberware, where he got it, why he got it.
>You decide what your character's weapons are, where he got them, and
>how he got them.

Er...according to your original message, the GM makes all those choices.
Where in this am I supposed to have all this input? Your original scenario
didn't call for much in the way of player input into "his" character.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 50
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 02:15:42 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/1998 1:01:22 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
remo@***.NET writes:

> >>I can tell already that I'm in the minority on this subject, but I'll get
> >>over it.
> >
> >Well, maybe - but I'm with you. :-)
>
> It's lonely in this corner, but it's nice to see you, Lady J. Game of
rummy
> while we wait out the attackers? <g>

(*K walks on by, hands the two would-be players a deck of cards, still in the
wrapper, then keeps on going with a well intended smile ;)
Message no. 51
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:22:43 -0700
> >The player creates the personality and background.
> >Just because the GM does up the stats on a character doesn't mean
> >it's HIS character.
>
> Well, yeah it does. It might be my idea, but it's his execution. With it
> being his execution, it's his character. I've got nothing to attach it to
> me emotionally, since I had a minimal input into the execution and creation
> of the character. I don't like that situation as a writer, and I don't like
> it as a player.

Exactly. I tell you to "write me a book about two young lovers in a
semi-fantasy setting struggling against an evil prince in the name of
true love. Give it a lovable giant and a swashbuckling spanaird". You
respond with several hundred pages of something like "The Princess
Bride". Who wrote the book? Me or you?

> I've got my own set of assumptions about how to design a character. The GM
> is going to have a different set. I don't want to play something based on
> someone else's set of assumptions.

This is a very true statement. Creative ideas rarely translate well
into the hands of others.

> >He still has to try to work the PCs into his campaign.
>
> Yeah. This has what to do with the GM generating the PCs?

This is best handled by giving the players clear guidelines before they
come up with their concepts. It's much an issue with concepts than it is
with numbers.
I set a game onboard a Korean pirate ship in the Sea of Japan and which
is going to be more of a problem with the game:
The Japanese PC.
The guy who's gun skill is 3 more than I think it should be?

> >I know it is more work for the GM, but consider all the work wasted if the
> >group of PCs doesn't gel.

This again goes back to concepts and not numbers. If the GM is doing
the numbers he can't fix any problems here. This can only be fixed by
helping them understand what concepts will work.

> >I wouldn't suggest it for all campaigns, but I think that any group
> >made up of "Role-players" rather than "Roll-players" would
get over
> >it quickly and enjoy the benefits.
>
> Maybe it's just the way these last few days have gone for me that's making
> me overly sensitive, but it sure as hell looks like you just took a potshot
> and called me a munchkin. Tell me I'm wrong here.

I read it the same way. I feel the terms 'munchkin', 'rules-lawyer',
and 'rollplayer' are often used to describe people who are not these
things; but are just those with a different style than the person making
the accusation.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 52
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:22:44 -0500
From: M. Sean Martinez <ElBandit@***.COM>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 6:53 PM

>> Yeah, but it leaves you open to the subconscious idea of either
>> tailoring the team to the mission(s) you have in mind, or
>> subconsciously screwing the players by making the characters ill-
>> equipped to handle anything.
>
>I am going to go out on a limb here and say that to me it really appears
>that as a whole you do not trust GMs since you assume they are all gonna
>to attempt to screw the players over.

I would be lying if I said I didn't have some unresolved issues with a
couple of GMs in the past. However, I think that taking character creation
out of their hands, without a good solid reason (they're newbies to
roleplaying games in general, or they ask you to do it for them), is
screwing the player.

You'll also note that I said "subconsciously" up there. I don't think many
GMs out there deliberately try to screw over their players. But there are
some out there who overtly have the "tries to win" munchkin mentality, and
*all* of us on some level, I don't care how good a roleplayer you are, get
that way sometimes.

>Is this the case or are you having a bad week?

I believe that I've said this in a number of places, but yes, I am. Bad
month and a half, in fact.

>When I and my wife sat down with each of the Shadowrun newbies to get
>their character concepts down we spent easily 2 hours with each player
>talking about how he sees the character. I had them describe the character
>in terms of strength and endurance, reflexes, personality and background.
>I also went as far as to get hobbies and intreasts and a gear wish list.

So why not go all the way and actually let them generate the character?
They've already done the big part of the work. Let them go whole-hog, and
actually teach them the character generation system in the process. I don't
see that you're doing them a service by not teaching them.

>In general the players got 90% of the things on their lists. The 10% that
>they did not get was things that they would not be able to buy anyway.
>They also got gear they would not have thought to buy for themselves.

But they didn't learn anything about the game while they were doing this.
And they could have learned about that equipment with a suggestion from you
rather than you just loading it on them.

I fully appreciate the effort you spend, Sean. I just feel as if it's
misplaced.

>The process was time comsuming on my part, but in the end the players
>liked their characters better than they would have if they made it
>themselves. (That is what THEY told me and what I have heard from others.)

They don't know, though, do they, since they didn't make the characters.
They don't have a basis of comparison.

>> I'll stick with what works, thanks.
>
>It worked out rather well for me.

I'm happy to hear it.

>Are you saying that only your way works?

Only one that works here, for me. I wouldn't presume to take the process
out of the hands of my players, and wouldn't be too fired up about playing
for someone who does.

>I think it would be best to say that we agree to disagree and that GMs
>should do what they feel is best in their games.

I concur.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 53
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:24:11 -0500
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 1:15 AM

>> It's lonely in this corner, but it's nice to see you, Lady J. Game
>> of rummy while we wait out the attackers? <g>
>
>(*K walks on by, hands the two would-be players a deck of cards, still in
>the wrapper, then keeps on going with a well intended smile ;)

Oh, you're a world of help there, Keith....

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 54
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:31:01 -0700
> >Number crunchers are gonna hate it, as would players who follow the "GM
> verses Player" mentality.
>
> I don't subscribe to either of those schools, and I hate it.

As do I (despise Gm-created numbers on the characters).
And I despise Number Crunching enough that I removed points from my
Champions game (I just let them write whatever they want down and make
sure it fits a certain level of power).
I also despise the Gm vs. player mentality enough that I will walk if I
encounter it. I'd prefer to sit in the corner of a white room and stare
at the spot that the floor meets the two walls all day than play in such
a game.
Actually I'd also prefer that staring game over having a GM do my
character up. At least while staring at the corner my imagination isn't
being restricted.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 55
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 03:34:04 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-19 02:32:43 EDT, you write:

<< >> It's lonely in this corner, but it's nice to see you, Lady J. Game
>> of rummy while we wait out the attackers? <g>
>
>(*K walks on by, hands the two would-be players a deck of cards, still in
>the wrapper, then keeps on going with a well intended smile ;)

Oh, you're a world of help there, Keith....

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive. >>

Hey guys, have room for a third while this thing makes like the engergizer
bunny?
Message no. 56
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:44:22 -0400
Quoting Patrick Goodman (remo@***.NET):
> > Andrew wrote:
> >You decide what he got for cyberware, where he got it, why he got it.
> >You decide what your character's weapons are, where he got them, and
> >how he got them.
>
> Er...according to your original message, the GM makes all those choices.
> Where in this am I supposed to have all this input? Your original scenario
> didn't call for much in the way of player input into "his" character.

I think, Patrick, that we've sort of lost the thread of this
conversation. You don't want to ever play in a game where you don't design
your character's background and stats both, and that's fine - it's a very
reasonable position, and not one you should have to justify.
Actually, I think it's useless to TRY to justify it, because the
criteria for something feeling like 'your' character varies from player
to player, so you're just going to go around in circles.
Folks (not just you, Patrick)...let's just accept that the sort of
game described appeals to some people and not to others, and move on. If
you try to defend the position that "it ought to work for everyone, and if
you don't like it, you're a munchkin!" or "no one anywhere should like it,
and if you do, you're a tyrant!", you'll be wasting your time.

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 57
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:55:58 -0400
Quoting Patrick Goodman (remo@***.NET):
> It's lonely in this corner, but it's nice to see you, Lady J. Game of rummy
> while we wait out the attackers? <g>

If I can interupt your card game for a second... :)

Since you two have the strongest feelings on the negative side of the
GM-character-creation issue, I'd be interested in your opinions on a milder
version. How would you feel about a game in which you got to make MOST of
your character? What I'm thinking of here would (depending on gaming system)
be the player either getting some percentage of the build points or equivilant,
of the player going through the normal chargen system and additions being made
afterwards by the GM. These might be shared with the player, or they might be
kept secret until the appropriate time....

DocWagon Clerk: "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Your retrieval and
revivification were successful, and of course will be covered
by your contract with us. *Stern look* However, an additional
charge for treatment suitable to magically active patients
will be imposed. In the future, Mr. Smith, you should be
certain to inform us of any such medical requirements, or we
cannot be held responsible for the result."
Troll Ganger: "Magically active? Da frag? You talkin' to me?"

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 58
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:19:55 -0400
Sean McCrohan wrote:
>
> Since you two have the strongest feelings on the negative side of the
> GM-character-creation issue, I'd be interested in your opinions on a milder
> version. How would you feel about a game in which you got to make MOST of
> your character? What I'm thinking of here would (depending on gaming system)
> be the player either getting some percentage of the build points or equivilant,
> of the player going through the normal chargen system and additions being made
> afterwards by the GM. These might be shared with the player, or they might be
> kept secret until the appropriate time....

Egad! While I'm not Patrick or Lady Jestyr, I've got to opine that that
this sort of compromise is WORSE than either full player creation or full
GM creation. At least in the latter case, you know that the GM's
responsible for doing you some good.. If you only get "most" of your
build points, and you've got no idea what the GM is going to do to "screw
up" the character you've TRIED to build, you're entering into a potential
back-and-forth with the GM that's bound to create adversarial or resentful
feelings.

I'm not against the GM *suggesting* additional ideas or statistics for a
character; but those suggestions should be made interactively with the
player, and it should be the player who actually makes the changes. (The
exception, of course, is GM veto of stats or character goodies that he/she
doesn't want for power-level or campaign reasons.)


> DocWagon Clerk: "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Your retrieval and
> revivification were successful, and of course will be covered
> by your contract with us. *Stern look* However, an additional
> charge for treatment suitable to magically active patients
> will be imposed. In the future, Mr. Smith, you should be
> certain to inform us of any such medical requirements, or we
> cannot be held responsible for the result."
> Troll Ganger: "Magically active? Da frag? You talkin' to me?"

While I can't argue with that particular plot complication -- because I've
done it myself in a previous game >8-> -- I do think those sorts of
surprises should be role-playing decisions, and not something bound into
the mechanics of character creation.


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 59
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:32:55 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 2:38:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rook@*******.COM
writes:

> I also despise the Gm vs. player mentality enough that I will walk
if I
> encounter it. I'd prefer to sit in the corner of a white room and stare
> at the spot that the floor meets the two walls all day than play in such
> a game.

I can agree with that. As a GM I really hate it when I start a new game to see
that the players are already in the "Player vs. GM" mode. Usually they get
argumentitive on target numbers and such. Such a game is silly to play since
the GM can kill at at any point. Its no fun to play and it is no fun for me to
run.

All I really want to do is tell a story.

-Bandit
Message no. 60
From: Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:38:08 -0700
>
> Since you two have the strongest feelings on the negative side of the
> GM-character-creation issue, I'd be interested in your opinions on a milder

What? My email's aren't getting out? :) I've only sent off some 5-10
on this subject. :)

> version. How would you feel about a game in which you got to make MOST of
> your character? What I'm thinking of here would (depending on gaming system)
> be the player either getting some percentage of the build points or equivilant,
> of the player going through the normal chargen system and additions being made
> afterwards by the GM. These might be shared with the player, or they might be
> kept secret until the appropriate time....

I tend to walk the moment any GM starts changing my character without
my consent. Now if I ask for secret stuff that's ok. But if that's not part
of the concept as I imagine it then "hands off buddy".
I do accept and myself practice the idea of a GM going through and
stating what's needs to be changed to something else due to the needs of the
game. But the player should make the changes in a manner they see fitting and
submit a new proposal.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 61
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:27:38 -0400
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, M. Sean Martinez wrote:

->In a message dated 10/19/98 2:38:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rook@*******.COM
->writes:
->
->> I also despise the Gm vs. player mentality enough that I will walk
->if I
->> encounter it. I'd prefer to sit in the corner of a white room and stare
->> at the spot that the floor meets the two walls all day than play in such
->> a game.
->
->I can agree with that. As a GM I really hate it when I start a new game to see
->that the players are already in the "Player vs. GM" mode. Usually they get
->argumentitive on target numbers and such. Such a game is silly to play since
->the GM can kill at at any point. Its no fun to play and it is no fun for me to
->run.
->
->All I really want to do is tell a story.

You can do what I do, don't tell them the TN. Just have them roll
dice and tell them a description of what happens.... don't give specifics
(except how much damage they have taken themselves, etc.) It's worked for
me for the past seven years, good luck with it.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 62
From: Drea O'Dare <dreaodare@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:13:54 PDT
I'm snipping all the stuff from before, which I do disagree with, but
right here is my biggest prob.

>Why? It would certainly be nice...but it's also a challenge for the
players
>to overcome the problems. Friction between group members makes for
good
>roleplay opportunity, and it's not the GMs fault if the characters take
a
>job they're not qualified for.

Not, not really. However, most players (myself included) tend to get
mighty irked when they've come up with a really neat thing, or they've
settled down to a nice game of SR, and in the middle of the run that
they thought they could do - since the GM didn't provide any other one -
their characters are dead? Who do they blame, themselves? Nope.
There's no "Well, I guess if I'd done this instead of that, we would've
been okay" or something like that. It's the GM's fault for making it
"too hard."
Personally, I am not all for a GM making the stats for someone's
character. Which was what this was originally about. While I am for
checking out your history with the GM, and for checking out your stats
with the GM as well as cyber, spells, etc etc, that's just checking
stuff. That's not making up your character.
If your GM gave your all of your character's history, then yes, that's
a bit or railroading. If your GM gives you a few guidelines to work
along and a list of things that he doesn't want, that's okay too. If
your GM decides that she doesn't want you playing a combat monster and
hands you a character sheet, well, that's kinda a personal problem.
Note, I'm not calling a munchkin, I don't even know what kind of
characters you play. Just expressing my little opinion.

Pink`

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 63
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:10:33 +0000
and thus did Patrick Goodman speak on 18 Oct 98 at 17:47:

> From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
> Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 10:41 AM
> >I like this idea!
>
> Oh, Martin, not you too....

Yep, 'fraid so :)
I'll explain below.

> >No more worries about maxing chars or catching cheaters allocating 2
> >million...
> Which can also be, and should be (IMO), caught and corrected after the
> character is generated by the player.

Yeah, I'll tell you how char-gen usually went with me:
Players start making characters +- 1 hour.
Players fine-tune characters +- rest of the evening
GM helps players to create characters they want, up to a point where
he just starts reading books or play computer games.
After a player finishes I usually don't check them, since I trusted
them, plus I want to get started with actually playing.
The cheater was caught after the first session, since I always take
the PC's with me (primarily to help me tailor the adventures better
to the skill set available). He kept trying though...

> >...plus as GM you can far better see what is needed for a campaign.
>
> Yeah, but it leaves you open to the subconscious idea of either tailoring
> the team to the mission(s) you have in mind, or subconsciously screwing the
> players by making the characters ill-equipped to handle anything.

Not a problem with me. New teams always got to run Dreamchipper so
far, and based on how that went, I started mapping out a campaign.
Plus if a player gives a well worked out description, there's only
that much "screwing" or "tailoring" you can do. Not that I do that,
since that's not my style.

> I'll stick with what works, thanks.

Oh, sure, I don't think anyone wanted to force anyone else to admit
this is better or worse. It's a different way to handle it, and it
does only work with some players, while in other groups it might not.
I could see it working in my former groups, but that doesn't mean
that I'm going to use it every time. Right now in my current game I
don't need to, or feel the need to control that aspect of char-gen
for example.



Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 64
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:25:21 GMT
I guess I should offer my take on this, just to be original. ;)

I have not done designing for the characters beyond offering suggestions,
or sometimes 'suggestions'. It is acceptable in the group with some
min/max'ing, but it's also not encouraged. I try to discourage it and
says something between 'I'd prefer you didn't do that' and 'NO!' fairly often.

I can clearly see the attraction of having the players make detailed
backgrounds, and then make characters that fit the BG they make, number - wise.
It would eliminate all those minor inconsistencies that intrude because they
consistently want to have maxed firearms (pistol, whatever) or other skills
simply because it's 'better', number - wise. It would probably also pay off
in game balance, making sure noone has too overlapping skills, all has their
strengths, etcetera. Since the players makes all the BG and a fairly strong
outline of how the character is, it should be fairly clear how he should
be designed.

On this level I like the idea. In the local campaign, though, I think the
players would consider it a lack of trust in their integrity, and it's not
worth that. For that reason I think I'll not use this option. I might try it
as an experiment, though, and it might be successful. We'll see, eventually.

BTW, anyone around planning to start a PBEM campaign anytime soon?

Regards,
Fade

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 65
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:53:55 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-19 02:02:13 EDT, you write:

<<
Er...according to your original message, the GM makes all those choices.
Where in this am I supposed to have all this input? Your original scenario
didn't call for much in the way of player input into "his" character.
>>

NO, the GM does NOT make those choices for the player. This is the way i
understand it. The player makes a background for his character, somewhat like
Hatchet Man's background in the Cybertech book, but more detailed to include
skills and attributes. They also include weapons and stuff they got. This is
not the twenty questions, this is like a autobiography.

Dragon Claw
Message no. 66
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:40:14 -0500
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 10:05 AM

>> It's lonely in this corner, but it's nice to see you, Lady J. Game of
rummy
>> while we wait out the attackers? <g>
>
>If I can interupt your card game for a second... :)

Sure, what the hell. I was losing anyway. It's what I get for suggesting
rummy when I know I can't play rummy to save my own life....

>How would you feel about a game in which you got to make MOST of
>your character? What I'm thinking of here would (depending on gaming
>system) be the player either getting some percentage of the build
>points or equivilant, of the player going through the normal chargen
>system and additions being made afterwards by the GM.

I'm not inclined to like it, for many of the same reasons Steve outlined
earlier. It gives too much room for unnecessary friction between player and
GM, which I think would have to be my biggest objection to it.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 67
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:50:18 -0400
Ok, I'll throw in my two cents on char gen too.....

For several of my players, they ask me to create their characters
because, well, I'm good at it and I enjoy doing it. I also tend to make
their characters exactly how they wanted them, within the bounds of the
rules, which is another point they like. I also try to get each of them
to specialize a little because, frankly, the runner with the 'all-around
skillset' would leave the rest of the group. My players (not characters)
are a rather squabbling bunch (half the time it's my wife and someone
else's characters arguing over some detail) and would probably split up if
they didn't 'need' each other for the run. My players' characters never
spend time with each other 'between runs' for just this reason. When a
run comes up, they all get connected again, grumble greetings, and then
get to work. Needless to say, when bad feelings occur between characters,
I have to run one, two, perhaps as many as five seperate characters all
doing different things.
Funny part is, after the game's over, the players are usually
laughing with each other or cracking jokes, no hard feelings. I suppose I
have a good group then.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 68
From: Kama <kama@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:36:13 -0400
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Rune Fostervoll wrote:

> I guess I should offer my take on this, just to be original. ;)
>

Me too!

I have particiapted in games that used "both" methods of generating
characters. I have sat down and built a character including both
background and stats. I have written a background and character history
(including family tree, contacts list, and descriptions of a few neighbors
and other individuals who were not contacts) and had the GM generate the
stats with little to no imput from me and have generated a background and
history then gome back and forth with the GM (he creates a set of stats
and skills, I modify them, he plays with them a bit more, until we get
something that fits the character and is balanced).

I like the third method for several reasons. First, while I produce
interesting personalities and backgrounds I am not a good number cruncher.
This is not too big of a problem in Shadowrun, where good states and a
respectable firearms skill, stealth and unarmed will keep you alive even
with no other advantages (other than a player who thinks). In other games
it can be fatal. In particluar I am thinking about Champions where I had
numerous well ROLE-played characters with interesting backgrounds, REASONS
for all of thier disads and well developed DNPCs. However, becuase I did
not number crunch and the other palyers were math and physics geeks, my
characters were usually GM optioned in the first combat round by attacks
that were appropriately aimed for the other player characters, even though
we were all built on the same number of points {Eventually the party
leader started assigning one of my characters to "watch for and evacuate
any innocents who end up in the wrong place at the wrong time - DON'T
ATTTACK THE BAD GUYS!" That really killed any fun I was having and was
MUCH worse than having lost a bit of developmental control by building the
character with the GM}

In Shadowrun this same effect can exist when a character concept (a
mundane magical researcher who spent all his life in academia until he was
falsly accused of plagerism) includes a lot of skills that don't enhance
the survivablility of a character. In a case like this, with a well built
and thought out background, I have known GMs to build a character WITH THE
PLAYER that technically overspends the allotted number of skill points but
is balanced to the rest of the characters (after all, how often will the
Etiquette (university) or Knowledge skill (library policies) come up?)

In addition, because player and GM are talking bout and working on the
character together you can hash out together how to put into game terms
any unusual traits or skills you want a character to have. Briar (a rabbit
shaman) was conceived as having an instinctive ability to recognize
predators. This is nto exactly combat sens, but more of an ability to read
people. It is not clearly covered by a rule or skill listed in the rule
book. If I had built the character alone and presented it to my GM fully
built I either would have had to give up the ability or come up with some
way of representing it that the GM did nto like. Because we built the
character together, we were able to come up with a solution that we both
can enjoy playing with, that isn't out of balance, and which we both
UNDERSTAND. That is I didn't waste points on ability that I thought would
work one way and the GM interepreted in another way becuase of the amount
of communication that occured during the process of building the
character.

Oh. Two finally points. Lena, my longest running character, who is now one
of the more powerful contacts used by the new generation of players,
started life as the ganger archetype (we were in a hurry to get started
and I didn't think the campaign would run this long). However, if you have
visited the webpage you will find that she became a very rich character
BECAUSE after the first gaming session I sat down and figured out why she
had those skills, where she had come from and what she wanted out of life.
The numbers on the paper remain a very small part of the character. Their
hopes, fears, experiences, likes, dislikes and friends are what make them
interesting and unique.

Secondly, I guess what I am arguing for is an interactive approach to
character building. I find either the con mehtod of "here it is, play with
it" and Rook's method (or at least how I interpreted what Rook wrote)
"Here it is, I'm running her as is or I walk" dissatisfactory. Afterall, a
role playing game is a shared fantasy and both player and GM have to work
with the characters.

Oh, and naturally, YMMV, and whatever works . . . :)

- Kama
Message no. 69
From: "Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon" <lopus@********.COM.PH>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:45:32 GMT
At 04:44 PM 10/18/98 -0500, Patrick Goodman wrote:
>>The player creates the personality and background.
>>Just because the GM does up the stats on a character doesn't mean
>>it's HIS character.
>
>Well, yeah it does. It might be my idea, but it's his execution. With it
>being his execution, it's his character. I've got nothing to attach it to
>me emotionally, since I had a minimal input into the execution and creation
>of the character. I don't like that situation as a writer, and I don't like
>it as a player.

Excuse me for butting-in but in the last several years of RPGs I've had this
tremendous problems with my players min/maxing their characters, ESPECIALLY
in SR. So far their most (in)famous method is:

"My character was a UCAS Special Forces trooper who was given a lot of
cyberware and training, but was presumed dead during a mission in (Country
of Choice). He did not feel like returning to UCAS as a soldier so he
became a shadowrunner. He hates (Item1-100), is incompetent with (Skill
1-10), and is phobic about (Choose: Buddhist Monks from Tibet, Wild Water
Buffaloes, Bengal Tigers, or assorted wierd things that have a snowballs
chance in hell of ever being in the American continent ... much less in
Seattle.)

How do you control people like that? I use the SR Companion Building Point
Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older players aren't
so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about 150 to 300 points of
flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions, Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or
2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that are really bad (Ever heard of
Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it exists, but he took it as a 1 point flaw.)

So now I've begun implementing the make a story ... I do the points based on
the story. It may take a hell of a lot longer but it's more satisfying to
me and as far as I can see, to the players themselves (except for 1 or 2
supermunchies).

Now not ALL of my players require this method, a couple are far enough ahead
that I allow them to submit a story and a character because they don't abuse
the system that much. (I wonder if the fact that they are the only
Non-GURPS players in my group pertinent?) The supermunchies I watch like a
hawk while the rest are beginning to attempt to make decent storylines and
characters.

BTW the reason I feel so strongly about this is because in the previous
campaign (under another GM) I and the two oldtimers made characters with a
beautiful history, granted we took flaws (but only about 3 to 7 points
each), they was still well made characters. Four of the other players tried
making semi-decent characters (WOW only about 20 to 30 points of flaws),
while supermunchy 1 took 250 points of flaws and supermunchy 2 got a
whopping 350 points of flaws, both including eight Hunted 6 (CIA, FBI, KGB,
Mafia, Yakuza, Seoulpa Rings, Catholic Church, and IIRC SPCA.)

One hour into gametime, shortly after concluding the deal with Mr. Johnson,
we got attacked by Yaks, the 3 oldtimers carried hold-out pistols, the 4
moderates had heavy pistols, Supermunch brothers packed SMGs w/ APDS. To
keep the threat level consistent, the GM made sure that the Yak soldiers
were designed to take out the Supermunch brothers.

Obviously we died. Not our flaws, we tried to back away and not get
involved but it didn't matter, when you are facing twelve guys with rotary
miniguns on gyro-mounts I guess you'd die anyway.

So I guess this ain't business. It's personal.


LOPUS

!!!A DOG WITH AN ATITUDE!!!
LOPUS:

!!!A DOG WITH AN ATTITUDE!!!
Message no. 70
From: Tim Burke <ranger@********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:20:29 +1000
> (WOW only about 20 to 30 points of flaws),
>while supermunchy 1 took 250 points of flaws and supermunchy 2 got a
>whopping 350 points of flaws,

What the f&*k kind of a tool was your GM? 20-30? 250?? 350??!!!!

Any kind of halfway decent GM would put a stop to this BEFORE
gameplay began. As a general rule my group never allows edges
or flaws to excede + or - 6. Any more than this tends to make the
character unbalanced, unplayable and just downright stupid.

Your GM was also negligent in taking out you guys that weren't munchkins
because the other players were. In game terms these guys are what
would be known on the street as "Ground Zero" as every damn bomb in
Seattle (or wherever) would be targeting their sorry asses.

Obviously I can see why you are now GMing.
If I were you I would of just packed up and gone home.

Tim Burke
Brisbane, Australia
#950 of 1000
ranger@********.com.au
Message no. 71
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:32:01 +1000
> Excuse me for butting-in but in the last several years of RPGs I've
> had this tremendous problems with my players min/maxing their
> characters, ESPECIALLY in SR. So far their most (in)famous method is:
>
> "My character was a UCAS Special Forces trooper who was given a lot of
> cyberware and training, but was presumed dead during a mission in
> (Country of Choice). He did not feel like returning to UCAS as a
> soldier so he became a shadowrunner. He hates (Item1-100), is
> incompetent with (Skill 1-10), and is phobic about (Choose: Buddhist
> Monks from Tibet, Wild Water Buffaloes, Bengal Tigers, or assorted
> wierd things that have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being in the
> American continent ... much less in Seattle.)
>
> How do you control people like that? I use the SR Companion Building
> Point Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older
> players aren't so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about
> 150 to 300 points of flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions,
> Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or 2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that
> are really bad (Ever heard of Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it
> exists, but he took it as a 1 point flaw.)
>
> So now I've begun implementing the make a story ... I do the points
> based on the story. It may take a hell of a lot longer but it's more
> satisfying to me and as far as I can see, to the players themselves
> (except for 1 or 2 supermunchies).
>
> Now not ALL of my players require this method, a couple are far enough
> ahead that I allow them to submit a story and a character because they
> don't abuse the system that much. (I wonder if the fact that they are
> the only Non-GURPS players in my group pertinent?) The supermunchies
> I watch like a hawk while the rest are beginning to attempt to make
> decent storylines and characters.
>
> BTW the reason I feel so strongly about this is because in the
> previous campaign (under another GM) I and the two oldtimers made
> characters with a beautiful history, granted we took flaws (but only
> about 3 to 7 points each), they was still well made characters. Four
> of the other players tried making semi-decent characters (WOW only
> about 20 to 30 points of flaws), while supermunchy 1 took 250 points
> of flaws and supermunchy 2 got a whopping 350 points of flaws, both
> including eight Hunted 6 (CIA, FBI, KGB, Mafia, Yakuza, Seoulpa Rings,
> Catholic Church, and IIRC SPCA.)
>
> One hour into gametime, shortly after concluding the deal with Mr.
> Johnson, we got attacked by Yaks, the 3 oldtimers carried hold-out
> pistols, the 4 moderates had heavy pistols, Supermunch brothers packed
> SMGs w/ APDS. To keep the threat level consistent, the GM made sure
> that the Yak soldiers were designed to take out the Supermunch
> brothers.
>
> Obviously we died. Not our flaws, we tried to back away and not get
> involved but it didn't matter, when you are facing twelve guys with
> rotary miniguns on gyro-mounts I guess you'd die anyway.
>
> So I guess this ain't business. It's personal.
>
> LOPUS
>
Errr...

GOD, boy! Either you're exaggerating or you've actually found the worst
roleplayers in the entire universe.

If you want to control people like that, there's two ways to do it.

1. Go with the GM making characters based on backgrounds. Chances are
your munchies will object strenuously and refuse to play anymore. If
that's your objective, then good, go for it.

On the other hand, if you want to teach your players to be good gamers,
try...

2. Set some limits, damn it! Say, "Alright. No more than 20 points of
edges and flaws may be taken." or the like. Say, "What, you want to be
hunted by that many people? Sure - but your character's dead already."
(Hey, if they're trying to say that they're wanted THAT badly by THIS
many people (to quote Lopus, "eight Hunted 6 (CIA, FBI, KGB, Mafia,
Yakuza, Seoulpa Rings, Catholic Church, and IIRC SPCA.)"), there's no
WAY they'd still be alive. They would've been caught years ago.)

Or if you don't want to forbid things outright, tell them they have to
justify all their edges and flaws in their background and that you get
to decide whether the reason is good enough or not - and whether the
reason is, in itself, reasonable.

Personally, I'd prefer to use the second method, mainly because people
who are that munchie in character generation are going to be awfully
munchie in the game, too - which is not a good thing. If you teach them
that having the most pounding character isn't the be-all and end-all of
gaming, they might mend their ways somewhat, and you may actually get
some good games happening.

*Doc' tumbles with the grace of a ballerina, lifts cars with the muscles
of Arnie, repels bullets with the constitution of Superman, solves
problems with the wit of Sherlock Holmes, dazzles socialites with the
charisma of a supermodel and is sneakily stabbed in the back by the KGB,
CIA, FBI, FDA, DEA, NRA.........*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 72
From: "Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon" <lopus@********.COM.PH>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:04:17 GMT
Tim says,

>Any kind of halfway decent GM would put a stop to this BEFORE
>gameplay began. As a general rule my group never allows edges
>or flaws to excede + or - 6. Any more than this tends to make the
>character unbalanced, unplayable and just downright stupid.

It was one of those nights when I didn't have a game ready (This was my
BTech group as I was semi-retired in running SRun from my regular group) and
this guy said that he had a SRun game prepared. So we all played.

>Your GM was also negligent in taking out you guys that weren't munchkins
>because the other players were. In game terms these guys are what
>would be known on the street as "Ground Zero" as every damn bomb in
>Seattle (or wherever) would be targeting their sorry asses.

Actually, I sort of agreed with the GMs decision to use those two as Ground
Zero, it was just our misfortune to be within the blast radius is all.

>Obviously I can see why you are now GMing.
>If I were you I would of just packed up and gone home.

I can't pack up and go home because of two rotten apples out of 9 players.
(BTW ... Is it just me or is nine a really big headache in Shadowrun more
than in AD&D or BattleTech.

Doc' says,

>GOD, boy! Either you're exaggerating or you've actually found the worst
>roleplayers in the entire universe.

Pretty close to the worst ... the worst group here in the area is one where
FIVE of the players are walking Murphy's Laws. You know the one, "if
anything can go wrong, it will."

>Or if you don't want to forbid things outright, tell them they have to
>justify all their edges and flaws in their background and that you get
>to decide whether the reason is good enough or not - and whether the
>reason is, in itself, reasonable.
>
>Personally, I'd prefer to use the second method, mainly because people
>who are that munchie in character generation are going to be awfully
>munchie in the game, too - which is not a good thing. If you teach them
>that having the most pounding character isn't the be-all and end-all of
>gaming, they might mend their ways somewhat, and you may actually get
>some good games happening.

Actually this is what I've been trying to do, it's just getting harder and
harder to control those two combat monsters (Except in BTech where they tend
to be VERY protective of their 'mechs ... spare parts for their Victors
being few and far between.)

This particular group (2 supermunchies + 5 semi-munchies) was a GURPS group
I inherited from another friend who had to stop playing (Is studying again),
I took them in as an orphan and placed them in a new BTech group with two
old players (I still have another BTech group) to help them out. We sort of
stumbled over to SRun when I had GM Block for a couple of weeks. (Can't
help it, I work 10+ hours a day, cook + take care of 2 kids + 1 bnew baby +
3 gaming groups (GM 2 weekly, play 1 monthly) + helping out in family
business.) Anyway I've been sort of out of touch with SRun since '95
(started in SR1 in '87) so any advice I read here is good advice as far as
I'm concerned.

Thank you all, you may not all agree on everything, but your arguments tend
to be very stimulating to read and I am enjoying the repartee between you guys.

Thanks again,

LOPUS

!!!A DOG WITH AN ATTITUDE!!!
LOPUS:

!!!A DOG WITH AN ATTITUDE!!!
Message no. 73
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:02:21 -0700
> "My character was a UCAS Special Forces trooper who was given a lot of
> cyberware and training, but was presumed dead during a mission in (Country
> of Choice). He did not feel like returning to UCAS as a soldier so he
> became a shadowrunner. He hates (Item1-100), is incompetent with (Skill
> 1-10), and is phobic about (Choose: Buddhist Monks from Tibet, Wild Water
> Buffaloes, Bengal Tigers, or assorted wierd things that have a snowballs
> chance in hell of ever being in the American continent ... much less in
> Seattle.)
>

Tibetan Buddhist monks are all over California and the west coast in
general these days. I imagine there's a few inland as well. Bengal
Tigers can be found at select zoos. How an awakened one?
Wild Water Buffalo might be in a zoo as well; if you assume wild just
means it isn't tame.

So the runner's get hired by a Tibettan Buddhist Monk to go to the San
Francisco Zoo which is not in a walled off zone since half the animals
went paranormal in 2011. The mission is to get a blood sample from a
certain strain of buffalo that was being kept there before the change.
No-one's gone in since; but something that may have been a buffalo was
spotted from a distance recently. It's only hoped that the pack of
paranormal Bengal Tigers that was recently dumped in there after they
got out won't be too much a threat...

> How do you control people like that? I use the SR Companion Building Point

My point? If the players give you an extreme character; put it into
extreme situations.

> Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older players aren't
> so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about 150 to 300 points of
> flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions, Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or
> 2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that are really bad (Ever heard of
> Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it exists, but he took it as a 1 point flaw.)

How does one possibly manage to get that many flaw points? I had
trouble coming up with 4.

> BTW the reason I feel so strongly about this is because in the previous
> campaign (under another GM) I and the two oldtimers made characters with a

> So I guess this ain't business. It's personal.

It always unwise to over-react and or punish one group for the actions
of another.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 74
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 02:05:01 -0500
From: Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon <lopus@********.COM.PH>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 11:01 PM

>Excuse me for butting-in but in the last several years of RPGs I've had
>this tremendous problems with my players min/maxing their characters,
>ESPECIALLY in SR.

From the sounds of this, you've had a rough time. You need to impose some
controls of some sort on your players.

>So far their most (in)famous method is:
>
>"My character was a UCAS Special Forces trooper who was given a lot
>of cyberware and training, but was presumed dead during a mission in
>(Country of Choice). He did not feel like returning to UCAS as a
>soldier so he became a shadowrunner.

You know, to this point, you're describing Dancer, more or less. Dancer was
a CAS trooper who got hung out to dry by the CAS Army in El Paso, which
happens to be occupied by Aztlan. CAS officials disavowed his entire team;
he was the only one who managed to survive, and then just barely. It made
hash out of his social skills for a while, and he wasn't a lot of fun to
hang around for a while.

What this translates to is: I think this is a perfectly valid background,
especially for a sammy or other highly chromed character.

>He hates (Item1-100), is incompetent with (Skill 1-10), and is
>phobic about (Choose: Buddhist Monks from Tibet, Wild Water
>Buffaloes, Bengal Tigers, or assorted wierd things that have a
>snowballs chance in hell of ever being in the American continent
>... much less in Seattle.)

The North American continent is rich in very weird things; none of these are
out of the question. Buddhist monks, Tibetan and otherwise, are all over
the place (there's a reasonably well-populated Buddhist temple on the north
side of Amarillo, for crying out loud, and next to Seattle, this is the
sticks). Water buffalo and Bengal tigers can be found at zoos, and there
are always eco-groups freeing zoo animals. The water buffalo could be being
raised as a food animal, and then you could have a whole herd of the things.
Some villains, especially the crazy ones, might have a Bengal tiger for a
pet.

This part's a little silly, but it's a silly world sometimes.

>How do you control people like that?

With the gentle power of a feather taped to a brick. Sometimes you've got
to put your foot down and say, "This is how it's going to be."

>I use the SR Companion Building Point
>Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older players aren't
>so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about 150 to 300 points of
>flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions, Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or
>2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that are really bad

First, you put a limit on the number of flaws that a character can have
(say, 15 or 20 points at the absolute maximum). And then you make sure that
the ones he takes wind up in game play.

Phobic about butterflies? Hurl him into an entire room full of the things,
and then make sure to enforce the penalties that go along with these flaws.

Enemies? Even lightweight ones should make a point of turning up at
inopportune moments and try to take his head from off his shoulders, or
something symbolic like that.

>(Ever heard of Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it exists, but he
>took it as a 1 point flaw.)

That's all it should be. Caffeine is addictive (I should know, I'm an
addict), but it's not going to end his life if he gets cut off for a day or
two. In the meantime, caffeine-withdrawal headaches are an absolute bitch.

>So now I've begun implementing the make a story ... I do the points based
on
>the story. It may take a hell of a lot longer but it's more satisfying to
>me and as far as I can see, to the players themselves (except for 1 or 2
>supermunchies).

As I said, I'm against this. My preferred method is, if I don't catch the
munchkins before play starts while I'm checking the character over, make the
character and the player pay for what he's wrought. The player will either
learn or leave; either way works for me.

>...supermunchy 1 took 250 points of flaws and supermunchy 2 got a
>whopping 350 points of flaws, both including eight Hunted 6 (CIA, FBI,
>KGB, Mafia, Yakuza, Seoulpa Rings, Catholic Church, and IIRC SPCA.)

They were allowed to live the day? At least 7 of those organizations have
the ability and the werewithal to end those characters' lives in about ten
seconds flat; the jury is still out on the SPCA.

Your problem, from where I'm sitting, isn't how the characters are being
generated, it's about how the games are being run and the GM not putting his
foot down.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 75
From: Carsten Gehling <alvion@****.UNI2.DK>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:48:53 +0200
Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon wrote:

> (BTW ... Is it just me or is nine a really big headache in Shadowrun more
> than in AD&D or BattleTech.

Yes it is. In BattleTech as a GM I would be very happy to have 9 players
(almost a complete lance?)

In Shadowrun, however, it depends a lot on your playing style. My
current campaign is rather sneaky-sneaky, so a team entering
Fuchi-grounds and stomping around making noise like 9 people are not
going to survive. Likewise 9 people walking around asking the same
suspicious questions will be noted by the various powerfactors in my
campaign.
Right now I have 5 runners. I'm introducing a new one, making it 6, but
ideally I would go for 4 or 5. It is also a question about, how many
people your average character will trust long enough to go running with
him.

- Carsten

<EGM>
Message no. 76
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:55:40 +0200
According to Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon, at 11:45 on 21 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> How do you control people like that? I use the SR Companion Building Point
> Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older players aren't
> so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about 150 to 300 points of
> flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions, Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or
> 2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that are really bad (Ever heard of
> Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it exists, but he took it as a 1 point flaw.)

If you have people doing this, you go out of your way to put them in
situations where their flaws fuck them over royally. Throw everything for
which they have a phobia into an adventure, and in such a way that the
greater the phobia, the greater the need for them to deal with the thing
they have a phobia for. (Say, someone has a major phobia for red cars; Mr.
Johnson hires them to steal a whole bunch of cars from a location.
Surprise, all of them are bright red...). Likewise, make sure they need to
use the skills in which they're incompetent, and try to avoid all
situations where the skills they are competent in are useful. Let them run
into everything they hate, and make sure they need to go through delicate
negotiations with the people they took Hatreds for. Use your imagination
and try to twist every flaw they take against them.

> So now I've begun implementing the make a story ... I do the points based on
> the story. It may take a hell of a lot longer but it's more satisfying to
> me and as far as I can see, to the players themselves (except for 1 or 2
> supermunchies).

I think they need to be shown that you can enjoy the game without making
super characters.

> while supermunchy 1 took 250 points of flaws and supermunchy 2 got a
> whopping 350 points of flaws, both including eight Hunted 6 (CIA, FBI, KGB,
> Mafia, Yakuza, Seoulpa Rings, Catholic Church, and IIRC SPCA.)

Such a character would be DEAD before the first adventure is over.
_Everyone_ is after him, so no matter where he goes someone would
recognize him and get in contact with backup to take this character down.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A grizzle scene on my electron beam told a story about human rights.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 77
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:31:06 -0400
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon wrote:

->At 04:44 PM 10/18/98 -0500, Patrick Goodman wrote:
->>>The player creates the personality and background.
->>>Just because the GM does up the stats on a character doesn't mean
->>>it's HIS character.
->>
->>Well, yeah it does. It might be my idea, but it's his execution. With it
->>being his execution, it's his character. I've got nothing to attach it to
->>me emotionally, since I had a minimal input into the execution and creation
->>of the character. I don't like that situation as a writer, and I don't like
->>it as a player.
->
->Excuse me for butting-in but in the last several years of RPGs I've had this
->tremendous problems with my players min/maxing their characters, ESPECIALLY
->in SR. So far their most (in)famous method is:
->
->"My character was a UCAS Special Forces trooper who was given a lot of
->cyberware and training, but was presumed dead during a mission in (Country
->of Choice). He did not feel like returning to UCAS as a soldier so he
->became a shadowrunner. He hates (Item1-100), is incompetent with (Skill
->1-10), and is phobic about (Choose: Buddhist Monks from Tibet, Wild Water
->Buffaloes, Bengal Tigers, or assorted wierd things that have a snowballs
->chance in hell of ever being in the American continent ... much less in
->Seattle.)

Yeesh... talk about no character concept..... No friends, I
suppose....

->How do you control people like that? I use the SR Companion Building Point
->Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older players aren't
->so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about 150 to 300 points of
->flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions, Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or
->2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that are really bad (Ever heard of
->Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it exists, but he took it as a 1 point flaw.)

For one thing, I try to make it where 1) No PC may have more than
a total of 20 points of Edges or Flaws unless there is a REALLY good story
behind it. 2) If a character has a 6 point Edge, they must have a 6 point
Flaw, only the highest applies (If they have three six point Edges, they
still only need one 6 point flaw in my campaigns). 3) If you can't tell
me all your flaws without resorting to looking at your character sheet,
take some off until you can, you will be quizzed later (Because I can't
remember all the Flaws they have half the time, and I don't want them to
get away with anything). 4) Phobias: If an object of a Phobia is very
removed from the situation, it doesn't count for points, period (I also
interpret phobias very broadly, so a phobia to Tibetan Monks would cause
them to freak out every time they see a guy in a robe that looks even
remotely like a Tibetan Monk, like the character would know the
difference?) 5) Addictions: No more than one. Any more than one should
make a player unplayable, as addictions take up a great deal of time and
money (being addicted to coca-cola means they should have a 2-liter
strapped to them at all times, and they should probably be suffering from
kidney problems).

->So now I've begun implementing the make a story ... I do the points based on
->the story. It may take a hell of a lot longer but it's more satisfying to
->me and as far as I can see, to the players themselves (except for 1 or 2
->supermunchies).

On your supermunchies, you mght want to try my five checks,
they've worked well for me so far, on my 'reformed munchies'.

->BTW the reason I feel so strongly about this is because in the previous
->campaign (under another GM) I and the two oldtimers made characters with a
->beautiful history, granted we took flaws (but only about 3 to 7 points
->each), they was still well made characters. Four of the other players tried
->making semi-decent characters (WOW only about 20 to 30 points of flaws),
->while supermunchy 1 took 250 points of flaws and supermunchy 2 got a
->whopping 350 points of flaws, both including eight Hunted 6 (CIA, FBI, KGB,
->Mafia, Yakuza, Seoulpa Rings, Catholic Church, and IIRC SPCA.)

If this character somehow got in my campaign, he'd be arrested &
killed wherever he went. Rolling perception dice every moment, constantly
rolling Stealth, any failed roll indicates being identified and reported
in.

->One hour into gametime, shortly after concluding the deal with Mr. Johnson,
->we got attacked by Yaks, the 3 oldtimers carried hold-out pistols, the 4
->moderates had heavy pistols, Supermunch brothers packed SMGs w/ APDS. To
->keep the threat level consistent, the GM made sure that the Yak soldiers
->were designed to take out the Supermunch brothers.
->
->Obviously we died. Not our flaws, we tried to back away and not get
->involved but it didn't matter, when you are facing twelve guys with rotary
->miniguns on gyro-mounts I guess you'd die anyway.

Did you throw up your hands and yell "I GIVE UP!" I've had a PC
do this when they realized what I'd throw against them. The assailants
merely took him into custody (it's easier to interrogate living people)
and killed the people who were stupid enough to take on 6 trolls with
miniguns.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 78
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:43:47 -0400
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon wrote:

->Tim says,
->
->>Any kind of halfway decent GM would put a stop to this BEFORE
->>gameplay began. As a general rule my group never allows edges
->>or flaws to excede + or - 6. Any more than this tends to make the
->>character unbalanced, unplayable and just downright stupid.
->
->It was one of those nights when I didn't have a game ready (This was my
->BTech group as I was semi-retired in running SRun from my regular group) and
->this guy said that he had a SRun game prepared. So we all played.

Been there, can relate.

->>Your GM was also negligent in taking out you guys that weren't munchkins
->>because the other players were. In game terms these guys are what
->>would be known on the street as "Ground Zero" as every damn bomb in
->>Seattle (or wherever) would be targeting their sorry asses.
->
->Actually, I sort of agreed with the GMs decision to use those two as Ground
->Zero, it was just our misfortune to be within the blast radius is all.

I guess the "I give up" thing wouldn't have worked, then.

->>Obviously I can see why you are now GMing.
->>If I were you I would of just packed up and gone home.
->
->I can't pack up and go home because of two rotten apples out of 9 players.
->(BTW ... Is it just me or is nine a really big headache in Shadowrun more
->than in AD&D or BattleTech.

Any more than 4 or five PCs gets difficult, especially if you run
a combat-heavy campaign...

->>GOD, boy! Either you're exaggerating or you've actually found the worst
->>roleplayers in the entire universe.
->
->Pretty close to the worst ... the worst group here in the area is one where
->FIVE of the players are walking Murphy's Laws. You know the one, "if
->anything can go wrong, it will."

Whereas my group's the opposite, no matter what I throw at them,
they seem to figure out a way out of it (which doesn't upset me, I'll get
another shot... }:-) ).

<snip methods of making chars>
->Actually this is what I've been trying to do, it's just getting harder and
->harder to control those two combat monsters (Except in BTech where they tend
->to be VERY protective of their 'mechs ... spare parts for their Victors
->being few and far between.)

Hmmmmmmm..... tell them to play riggers..... explain it's a lot
like being a mechwarrior.... }:-) If they refuse, start invoking some
cyberware damage rules on them.... they'll learn to be more careful.

->This particular group (2 supermunchies + 5 semi-munchies) was a GURPS group
->I inherited from another friend who had to stop playing (Is studying again),
->I took them in as an orphan and placed them in a new BTech group with two
->old players (I still have another BTech group) to help them out. We sort of
->stumbled over to SRun when I had GM Block for a couple of weeks. (Can't
->help it, I work 10+ hours a day, cook + take care of 2 kids + 1 bnew baby +
->3 gaming groups (GM 2 weekly, play 1 monthly) + helping out in family
->business.) Anyway I've been sort of out of touch with SRun since '95
->(started in SR1 in '87) so any advice I read here is good advice as far as
->I'm concerned.

Actually, I've got a program that might help you. I'm a frequent
victim of GM-Block and I made a tiny program that generates a very vague
plotline. It'll give you a number of scenes which you can flesh out with
more details, and I've never had a problem making one flow into the next
(sometimes, towards then end, I start to ignore some, though, it's only a
guideline after all). It's on my SR page of my site, should be close to
the bottom. http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/8470/

->Thank you all, you may not all agree on everything, but your arguments tend
->to be very stimulating to read and I am enjoying the repartee between
->you guys.
->Thanks again,

Welcome.... wait, shouldn't that be witty repartee? Maybe? }:-)

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 79
From: "Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon" <lopus@********.COM.PH>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:37:28 GMT
At 08:31 AM 10/21/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
> On your supermunchies, you mght want to try my five checks,
>they've worked well for me so far, on my 'reformed munchies'.
Okay, I'll bite, what are your five checks?
LOPUS:

!!!A DOG WITH AN ATTITUDE!!!
Message no. 80
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:42:11 -0400
Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon wrote:
>
> How do you control people like that? I use the SR Companion Building Point
> Table for character creation, (because a couple of my older players aren't
> so munchkins as the rest) and these people take about 150 to 300 points of
> flaws in terms of Phobias, Hatreds, Addictions, Incompetencies, Enemy 1 or
> 2, Bad Karma, and other assorted flaws that are really bad (Ever heard of
> Addiction to coca-cola? I mean it exists, but he took it as a 1 point flaw.)

You control people like that with the word "NO." The GM sets a limit on
the number of flaws you can take (say, 6-10 points) and vetoes any that
are ludicrous. If he doesn't do this, then he *deserves* the utter
stupidity to which his game degenerates.

I don't even allow Edges and Flaws in my game. I somewhat like the
concept, but I feel that most of them are role-playing issues that are
*weakened* when you add game mechanics to them. A well-crafted background
offers ten times the opportunity of a "Phobia flaw," as long as the
players are sensible enough to play to their backgrounds. All of mine
are, so I don't see a reason to increase my bookkeeping by knowing a
myriad of little rules exceptions. If I wanted those, I'd be playing
Magic: The Gathering.


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 81
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:03:51 -0400
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Karl C. Hunting-Tuazon wrote:

->At 08:31 AM 10/21/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
->> On your supermunchies, you mght want to try my five checks,
->>they've worked well for me so far, on my 'reformed munchies'.
->Okay, I'll bite, what are your five checks?

They were earlier in the same Email.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 82
From: Joshua Mumme <Grimlakin@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:44:37 -0500
Steve Eley wrote:


<SNIP>

> I don't even allow Edges and Flaws in my game. I somewhat like the
> concept, but I feel that most of them are role-playing issues that are
> *weakened* when you add game mechanics to them. A well-crafted background
> offers ten times the opportunity of a "Phobia flaw," as long as the
> players are sensible enough to play to their backgrounds. All of mine
> are, so I don't see a reason to increase my bookkeeping by knowing a
> myriad of little rules exceptions. If I wanted those, I'd be playing
> Magic: The Gathering.
>

One thing that my GM did was we have done two runs and all of us have been given an
edge or an flaw. I got the hard to kill or whatever you want to call it. Two
more box's of overflow for my character. <because I was successfully dropped both
times. Grrr.> Another guy got the perception booster because he made a really good
perception check during the autofire of a minigun to look through some bulletholes
and see some people in another room. Just a good way that it turne out for us.

> Have Fun,
> - Steve Eley
> sfeley@***.net

Grimlakin
Message no. 83
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:20:24 +0100
According to someone other than Jinx, not at 12:25 on 20 Mar 00, the word
on the street was...

> >Somewhat related questions, how exactly do people go about making
> >characters? Stats -> background -> name? archtype -> name -> stats?

I tend to get an idea for a certain kind of character ("a dwarf street
sam," "an ork Snake shaman," "a decker with a free spirit
girlfriend"
etc.) and then start assigning priorities the way I think I'll need them.
Then I assign attributes and pick skills in a way I like, and buy the
stuff the character needs. If, somewhere along the line, things don't work
out I shuffle some priorities around to get things to fit what I want the
character to have or be like.

While all that is going on, I think about the character's background. This
is a two-way street, in that I adjust stats, skills, equipment, and so on
based on ideas I get for a background, but also build a background out of
the things I choose for the character. Once the character is finished, the
background is not usually very extensive, but this will develop while the
character is being played.

The name usually comes last of all, most often because I am absolutely
worthless at coming up with names in the first place. Often start up <plug
style="download it now">GameName, which is available from
http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/rpgsoftware/gamename.html
</plug> and keep hitting the buttons until I get a name I like. This can
lead to names such as (let's see if I remember the spelling) Poq' Ecubeyan
for an AD&D dwarf fighter :)

The other way is that I try to come up with a name when it first becomes
relevant in the game -- and I usually fail miserably :) My decker, for
example, went, during the first game sessions, through a series of names
that were all basically some variation on "anonymous" (including even "The
Doctor"), until I finally settled on ASDF, which I'd been using in Plastic
Warriors books for one of the commentators for years.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What a pretty life you have...
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 84
From: _hEx_ iti03678@****.co.za
Subject: Character Creation
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:02:54 +0200
> >Somewhat related questions, how exactly do people go about making
> >characters? Stats -> background -> name? archtype -> name ->
stats?

I had this idea for a character after watching the local version of
Gladiators the other night. BTW, it's amazing the crap you'll sit
through when you're ill. I even watched WCW Thunder :) Anyway, I am
convinced that one of the local female Gladiators used to be a man. So
I was thinking that this would be a great way to score a "female"
character with reasonably high Physical Attributes as well as some
interesting roleplaying possibilities. So, thats my latest concept.
>From here, I'll go on to background, to set up the psyche behind the
rather weird desicions that would have to be made to change your sex
:) After all thats in place, I'llthink mechanics and figure all that
out before finally going to the books for the numbers.

- -
Bruce
<hex@*************.com>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Character Creation, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!