Quote from: RPGPunditPoint-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

Huh, I've played a lot of point buy games (Shadowrun included) and never encountered more than a passing instance of min-maxing. In fact, I've found that point buys often lead further in the direction of very balanced characters.

On the other hand, nearly every D20 player I've talked to or even listened to constantly talks about their "character build" - what Prestige Classes they want, the Feats they want, when they can get them, the number of devastating attacks they get, and so on. In other words, min-maxing.

Quote from: PhishStyxHuh, I've played a lot of point buy games (Shadowrun included) and never encountered more than a passing instance of min-maxing.

I don't have the latest edition, but from my experience with earlier edition, making new shadowrun templates is structured.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't have the latest edition, but from my experience with earlier edition, making new shadowrun templates is structured.

Nah, not in any real sense.  The basic system has been a choice of allocating priorities across skills, stats, money and magic, with point spending within each of those categories, with an optional system for pure point buy.  It's certainly much closer to gurps than it is to say D&D.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't have the latest edition, but from my experience with earlier edition, making new shadowrun templates is structured.

It's also a system that PUndit cites as an exemplar of an inherently undesirable game based due to his point-buy = min-maxing supposition.

The new edition of Shadowrun got rid of the whole "Priorities" system, and has no character archetypes, making the whole thing entirely point-buy. One of the biggest mistakes they made in a new edition that was otherwise an improvement, given that in theory they were trying to make a system that was more friendly for new players, and considering that without any structure to the character creation process it makes it much harder for newbies to create a good character, and the whole process takes longer too.

RPGPundit

I'd agree that there's no excuse for not having a few ready to go pregenerated characters in any game that has a time-consuming generation system.  That said, it's presumably the work of 5 minutes for a GM to throw together a basic character in shadowrun, as it's really not all that complicated.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe new edition of Shadowrun got rid of the whole "Priorities" system, and has no character archetypes, making the whole thing entirely point-buy.

They didn't do either of those things. There are priorities. The difference is that the priorites aren't laid out so explicitly in a table like in previous editions; they directly tied priorities into the character creation.

Also, there are exactly the same number of archtypes in 4th (16 of them & they start on page 89), not fewer and certainly not none! I just now counted.

QuoteOne of the biggest mistakes they made in a new edition that was otherwise an improvement, given that in theory they were trying to make a system that was more friendly for new players, and considering that without any structure to the character creation process it makes it much harder for newbies to create a good character, and the whole process takes longer too.

RPGPundit

I bolded the only thing I could really pick out from your non-sentence there, and even there, you're wrong. If anything, character creation is more structured in Shadowrun, not less. What 4th edition does have is more structured mechanical options for players with the Positive and Negative Qualities.

Quote from: lacemakerNah, not in any real sense.  The basic system has been a choice of allocating priorities across skills, stats, money and magic, with point spending within each of those categories, with an optional system for pure point buy.  It's certainly much closer to gurps than it is to say D&D.

Much closer how? I may not be a huge step, but it's an important one. AFAIAC, it makes it different from GURPS in a way I consider most telling. Forcing you to stage your points instead of allowing you to allocate them all freely is structured design, which is an improvement compared to "free buy" AFAIAC.

While I certainly can live with point buy, it's not my favorite method. My dislike is not about the min/maxing, which is simply what happens in a game. Most of the point buy chargens I've seen are huge, with sometimes dozens of options to sort through and consider. I'm learning that I like my chargens to be more lean, mean and fast, and if they're going to be bigger, than they better be punchy and not full of pointless one CP modifiers having to do with small pets, scars, or shoe size.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe new edition of Shadowrun got rid of the whole "Priorities" system, and has no character archetypes, making the whole thing entirely point-buy. One of the biggest mistakes they made in a new edition that was otherwise an improvement, given that in theory they were trying to make a system that was more friendly for new players, and considering that without any structure to the character creation process it makes it much harder for newbies to create a good character, and the whole process takes longer too.

I'm curious, have you played it?  In practice it is less encouraging of min-max than SR3. Priorities or the optional SR3 BP rules. I laud the death of Priorities because of the royal pain in the butt they were to move around, and their relative lack of extendibility. I had just stopped using them at all. See me dance on Priority's grave!  I had considered using the fan created BeCKs, but never had games where the desire for that much customization came up. I'm not sure that a BeCKs for SR4 would work as well in this edition since they have done a pretty good job of tuning the system as-is, and a lot of what BeCKs was about was compensating for some of the more brutal min-max problems in the SR3 character creation.

In SR4 the Flaws, aka Negative Qualities, also got a much needed clean-up. There are still some in there that are fairly high maintenance. The very worst of the worst is out, and they all are actually are pretty well balanced on cost. If they are enacted in the game. But that's the rub, and that's why they have to be watched carefully. Because everyone at the table has to be okay with their implications and the direction they will take things.

P.S.  In truth if you build a 5th or 6th level D&D character and you build a SR4 character you have roughly the same level of min-maxing capability. A far more comparible situation since D&D 1st level characters are pretty feeble in relative terms, min-maxing or not.

I'm a big fan of point-buy systems ... but I like structure as well. In most of my actual games the kinds of characters that'll be legal are usually specified at least somewhat before the game begins.

I don't mind package-deals or priority systems: I think that, like a "pure capitalist economy" a pure-point-buy do-whatever-you-want game is often sub-optimal.

But I like it as an underlying engine since it does give me some power as a GM to specify what will be legitimate rather than needing to modify a tightly coupled complex system.

-Marco

Quote from: PhishStyxThey didn't do either of those things. There are priorities. The difference is that the priorites aren't laid out so explicitly in a table like in previous editions; they directly tied priorities into the character creation.

Really? Could have fooled me. If they did that, they've done a really top notch job of hiding it. Because what I saw was fuck all for priorities. Unless you call a mere points-expenditure-cap a "priorities" system, which I guess it is if everyone has the same priority.

QuoteAlso, there are exactly the same number of archtypes in 4th (16 of them & they start on page 89), not fewer and certainly not none! I just now counted.

No, there are 16 SAMPLE CHARACTERS in the book, in lovely full colour, that are just about fucking useless for anyone who doesn't want to play that exact character exactly as written, or with the tiniest most cosmetic of changes.

An "archetype" is more like what you see in Feng Shui, where you have a guy ("Kung Fu Cop") and in every step you are told "choose A or B", for skills, or "You get kung fu A, but can substitute it with GUNS A and Kung Fu B", etc etc.

In other words, something that gives you a structured build for a character skeleton that can then be filled in. Not a fucking pre-made character that you pretty much have to play as is, because the alternative (of trying to recalculate everything to make changes) would take longer than making the fucking character from scratch.


RPGPundit

Don't get me wrong, on the whole I think SR4 is a vast improvement over SR3.  Its just that this happens to be one of the few areas where I think they royally fucked up, especially considering their purported goals of making it more user-friendly and accesible to newbies.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MarcoBut I like it as an underlying engine since it does give me some power as a GM to specify what will be legitimate rather than needing to modify a tightly coupled complex system.

What do you think about a system like Spycraft 2.0, wherein the structure applies mainly to players, and the GM pretty much gets carte blanche?

(Speaking for myself, I find it a bit curious, but I don't exactly have to police myself as GM, and I can still use existing classes as "templates" for NPCs.)

QuoteIts just that this happens to be one of the few areas where I think they royally fucked up, especially considering their purported goals of making it more user-friendly and accesible to newbies.

Maybe that's the essential conflict here: Newbie-friendly versus veteran-friendly? Either you bewilder the newcomers who aren't quite sure what they want with the sheer number of options or you frustrate the vets with the strict framework that they have to struggle to fit their already crystal-clear and probably esoteric character concepts into.