Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5033874" data-attributes="member: 22424">Well, yes, fair enough. The problem I described only existed because of this:(And, yes, d6 Star Wars was the same - a character could be well-rounded, but I rarely found that to be the case. The system didn't require specialisation, but it definately rewarded it.)Works in theory. However, the difference between theory and practice is this: in theory, theory and practice work the same; in practice they don't. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The vast majority of player groups I have encountered will look at a system like Shadowrun, identify the key roles (cyber, wizard, decker...) and then build a team of ultra-specialists in their fields. The result is that most of them will be bored most of the time, which sucks. Far better, IME, for the system to limit specialisation so that they can all at least contribute somewhat in every situation.IOW: I have never seen a Shadowrun decker who did not suck outside of the Matrix. And I've certainly never seen a non-decker character who would even enter the Matrix, never mind thrive there. (It is, of course, possible that I've been 'doing it wrong'.)</blockquote>