Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Degausser Oct 17 2009, 10:25 AM

Okay, so I am starting a new game soon, and some of my players are OBVIOUSLY min-maxing the crap out of their characters. They are reaching for every rules supplement in order to get some more points, and it's starting to worry me. Am I overreacting, or have others had problems with these issues?

Issue 1) Negative qualities.

The two players have scowered the books for some negative qualities (particularly from Runner's companion) and I am scratching my head at them. One player has chosen "Prejudice-Technomancers, Closet" meaning he gets 5 BP (for hating a small group) and his social dice suffer no penalties, and he auto-succeeds on his willpower-intuition checks to resist acting on it. Isn't this like free BP? I mean, he has to role-play that he doesn't like 'mancers a bit, but suffers no game penalties for it.

The other player took Debt and Day Job. Debt seems a little broken, it GIVES you 5,000 AND 5 BP, and it only adds a bit to your cost of living. Sure I can pull super-dick moves like saying the mob "Never received this month's payment" but, really that's me clearly breaking the rules set down by the game.

The player also took a 5 point day job. That gives him money AND BP, and locks out 10 hours worth of work a week. Really, that's nothing. Unless I am a complete dick and make all their runs during his job's hours (and then he would just quit, and have his 5 BP for nothing.) In fact, what if he does that? First session, just declares "I quit my dayjob." and BOOM, 5 BP for nothing.

Issue 2) Customized lifestyle

Okay, at first, this one seems like a no-brainer. Just a bit more versatility to control your lifestyle, but it can be really cheesy really fast. Just buy Neghborhood-Low, Necesities-Mid, Security-High, Entertainment-Squatter, Comfort-Squatter, and Boom, super-secure apartment for much cheaper than a normal lifestyle. All you have to do is say that you "enjoy X, which doesn't require money" (like coding, or art, or talking to spirits) and you have stupidly cheap setup. Seems kinda Cheesy to me.

Posted by: remmus Oct 17 2009, 10:36 AM

all RP makes it clear the rules are more guidelines then stone hard rules so I see no problem with you using the debt quality to dick around with the player, heck I think the designers want gm to use it to throw sand in the players cogs




you must remember this is a corporate driven world where jobs aren´t given nor lost in the turn of a hand, I wouldn´t be supriced that the boss of a corp would have the power to refuse employees who want to quit. Also again as the GM you have the power to bend those 10 hours a week if you feel the quality needs a bigger impact on the player.

Posted by: Traul Oct 17 2009, 11:22 AM

This is not being a dick. The points for the disadvantage are just here because things can turn ugly. By taking this your player is begging you to screw him. Now there are several ways to do it. Just having the money disappear is pretty weak. But what about the good old double-cross? The runners are sent as baits. They do not fulfill the run because it could not and Mr J. knew it, so in the end they don't get paid.

Or simply a low month. No calls at all. It's getting a bit tight for the other players, but the one in debt has to find something.

Or have the runner wounded. Hospital isn't cheap.

1° Don't forget the cardinal rule: if a player gets rid of a disdvantage, he has to buy it back with karma. Any karma he earns go to the payback until complete. This is also the case if your player finally reimburses his debt.
2° What's his job exactly? You need to know that to turn it against him. If he has no idea, just refuse the disadvantage.
3° This is not being a dick. 10h per week is a quarter of a full time job. Once every four runs, he cannot attend.

That does not sound like a problem to me: security is just here to protect against burglars. There is no security high enough to stop an HTR team, so this is just a waste of money. If they find where you live, no matter how high your security is, you don't stand you ground. You run away.

Bot once again, if you don't want it, just say no. If they complain, show them the line in the rulebook that states any PC has to go through GM approval. This is not you being dickish, this is how any RPG is suppose to work.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 17 2009, 11:53 AM

Why does he auto succeed? Only if it is not a stressful situation you may buy hits. So sooner or later he will fail. Another option is to use more than average technomancers in your game. Make some of the Johnsons mancers, or important sources of information which cannot obviously be forced to cooperate. Another more heavy-handed option would be to tell the player that technomancers simply are too insignificant as a group to be worth the flaw. have him choose another larger group, but still in the uncommon category.

500¥ extra a month may not be much but as you said, it may offer storytelling opportunities. Not only can the creditors screw the runner, but the can also offer jobs or try to getr additional leverage on the character. Also the 500¥ he will have to pay for the rest of his life, depending how scarce money is for him this may become a problem in the future.

As with all qualities (including In Debt) they have to be bought off with Karma or the GM can assign another negative quality to the character. Otherwise if he tries to be a good employee, just have the time constraints come up sometimes. A flaw especially one for only 5 BP does not have to be debilitating. Also have the player describe the job so that you know what you have to deal with. You may be able to use this job for all sorts of illegal activities. Let the character be approached by unsavory types which offer him money on the side. Deal with either reply.

Well so what, just have that character pay cash for anything other than the cheapest food. Give him a -1 for all dice rolls from time to time because he couldn't sleep well on his flea infested mattress. Check if his electronics are in a watertight container because the roof is leaking again.

Just loosen up a bit, neither quality is gamebreaking or probably has allowed them to buy a significant power upgrade. With either you can work without screwing the character too much.

Just to pour oil in the flames, haven't they found incompetence (aerospace mechanic)? The incompetence flaws are much less fun to use, because you cannot do anything about it. The character simply cannot do a certain task, no roleplaying or storytelling opportunity at all.

Posted by: Synner667 Oct 17 2009, 11:53 AM

Remember the old saying...
...If the Disadvantage doesn't disadvantage the Player it's not a Disadvantage.

He has prejudice to Technomancers ??
How does he know someone is one ?? Maybe he'll suspect anyone who's good with a computer ?? Maybe he'll just gain a reputation for attacking computer users ?? For look at people a bit funny ?? etc...

Player takes Day Job as a Disadvantage, make him work for it.
What's his job ?? What are his hours ?? Is he doing 2 hrs a day, 5 days a week or 10 hour for 1 day a week ??
Remind him that he can't be there because he needs to be doing something covert.
If he has to be there, he'll have to miss group meetings, information gathering time, meeting contacts, etc.
Do that more than a couple of times and he'l have no job, or a rep for not turning up for runner activities.
And will then he'll have to either pay back the character points or take another Disadvantage to replace his job.
If he doesn't do the background, then you do it - and he'll have to suffer the results.

If Players want to push the envelope, rest assured there's more than enough for a GM to push back with - without being nasty or abusive.

Posted by: Marwynn Oct 17 2009, 12:39 PM

If he's prejudiced against Technomancers then I have to ask... how does he know? And he needs a good reason why.

If he insists on that quality then he should be suspicious of any hacker or anyone using an unseen direct-neural interface. Don't give him any outward signs that this fella's a mundane hacker or not, he has to make it work.

In Debt really is very good. But the Mafia can be cheesed off enough to want the whole amount back. And maybe a favour. Look at it as a source for a potential run that can get the guy burned.

Day Job is a very dangerous quality (also needs one good Fake SIN or the SINner quality). You have regular contact with people, during daylight hours, and you can be trailed there if you're not too careful. Blackmail is a possibility, ruining your real job, letting it get around that you're a runner will make jobs dry up fast.

Set limits to the Lifestyles. They have to be able to explain a very secure, with good necessities place with very little in the way of entertainment and the like. These are normally 'runner hideouts, safehouses not residences.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 17 2009, 03:01 PM

You are looking at day job the wrong way. Think of it as a roleplaying experience and bringing a more 3 dimensional character. If the character wants the job then he has to describe the job, the hours, the people he works with, etc. The character with dayjob 5bp is making about 8 nuyen per hour. Does he work at the local stuffer shack or does he load boxes, is he like peter parker taking pictures to sell freelance? Now if the player wants to quit then he either has to repay back the BP or he has to take a new flaw determined by the GM.

As for the prejudiced technomancer then to get a roleplaying award it has to come out during the game. If the choice is hire the technomancer or the hacker, he would hire the hacker. Again if the player does not roleplay the trait then feel free to remove it and make the player either get a different 5 point flaw or spend 10 karma to get rid of it.

As for debt. Low levels of debt aren't bad, but if the player misses a payment definitely have some thugs come by to explain what it means if he missed a payment (or just ignore it until the player is deeply in debt before beginning to have someone visit). A "friendly reminder" might be the first warning then knee cap breaking and there is always organ legging. It definitely gives some impetus for taking missions the character might not be comfortable with.

As for customized life style that should not be a problem. Just see if it makes sense. I looked at my personal lifestyle and if definitely varied between high and squatter. At the end it was middle class lifestyle. Again you can min/max, but at the end of the day see if it seems like such a place would exist before the residents do something about it. IE you don't live in a mansion in the barrens nor do you live street in a gated community with high security.

Posted by: DWC Oct 17 2009, 03:15 PM

Don't forget the best part of In Debt. He borrowed 5000. That means he owes 7500, which means he has to pay 750 per month. IF you really want to fuck with him, loan him more money. Let cash get tight and have the sharks decide that since he's been so good about making his payments on time, they're going to offer to loan him a bunch of cash for something he wants. Or have a rival loan shark offer to loan him 10 grand to pay off the other group. Then he owes the new guy 15000, or 1500 per month.

Once he falls behind, have a shark offer to let him off the hook if he screws over a teammate who did something that one of the shark's contacts doesn't like. Taking negative qualities is begging the GM to do something terrible to your character.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 17 2009, 03:16 PM

Prejudice gives a -2 modifier to social skills when dealing with the object of prejudice. The rules are for a PC trying to influence an NPC, but I would also apply it to any situation where the PC has to be other than hostile towards someone he is prejudiced against.

In debt gives the character money and build points to begin with, but the character needs to pay 1.5 x that money plus interest, then pay Karma, to get rid of it. You don't need to create any special situations to exploit this flaw - it's already balanced. Although it is well within reason for the character to occasionally feel the pinch, or occasionally be pressured by the people who lent him the money.

Day job takes up a character's time. It should occasionally get in the way of a meet, legwork, or some other portion of a run. It also makes a character easier to track down. And like any flaw, you have to buy it off with Karma if you lose it.

The lifestyle is no biggie. So they want to play someone who lives in a cruddy apartment with first-rate security. So what? So their stuff is a bit more protected against casual theft. And it fits certain personality types - a lot of runners should be paranoid types who have lots of security and not a lot of bling in their place (which they will need to leave in a hurry if someone finds out where they live).


Honestly, it does sound as if you are overreacting. There's nothing wrong with people scrounging up a few extra points for their characters, and they have the same 35 point limit as everyone else. At least the flaws they picked all have good roleplaying/story hooks that you can use.

Posted by: vladski Oct 17 2009, 03:45 PM

I would say you are worried for no real reason. The flaws are all legitimate and you can hardly blame the players for trying to score a few more build points to get a little edge or to design a character as they envision him. The key thing as a GM is to utilize those flaws. Force the players to truly define their characters: What is the day job; what are the hours? Co-create a floorplan and detail all the security for the doss. As a GM, figure out who the neighbors are and have fun with it. Everyone has had a snoopy/obnoxious neighbor in their life at some point. How about hte old lady that calls hte cops all the time because of hte suspicious people she sees coming and going next door? Or, just for fun, at some point have a kid hacker npc that gets introduced along the way in some adventure anonymously start screwing with the play just for hte fun of it. Break into the apartment and rearrange the furniture. Leave little obnoxious notes. Do this privately witht he player. Make the PC even more paranoid than he already is, all the while his associates simply think he's going off the deep end. "But, WHY would someone break in and move all your furniture around and not take anything? C'mon dude, you need to lay off the novacoke."

As far as the technomancer thing goes... play with it! Design situations where the dude has to deal with technos and his predjudice gets in the way. Make him work for one. Or make one of hte first runs a situation where he has to bodyguard/rescue/help one. Later one, offer a job where the technomancer is the target and let the character's flaw be involved.

Seriously, as long as the characters are getting legitimate build points to build their characters, the game is not broken or unbalanced. It's up to you as the GM to make sure that a flaw is indeed a flaw. It doesn't mean overwhelm them for doing things you wouldn't have done, but it does mean that their flaws will get in the way sometimes. Use them as hooks for gameplay. That's well worth the few extra dice they will get to toss around occasionally.

Vlad

Posted by: Stingray Oct 17 2009, 05:17 PM

IMO.. waayy over-reacting!! if your player wanted really min-max..taking 7xprejudiced
(biased)..
customized livestyle: others are living with one person
(paying only +10 % of costs/month)..

..if so.. i would REALLY say something ugly..your player's negative
qualities are very light comparing of what i have seen..

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 17 2009, 09:39 PM

I disagree with the charging them with karma to buy off this flaw. It is like charging them karma for earning money on a run or allowing them to convert Nuyen to karma. Once the player pays off his debt off then it is gone. It could also be like charging players for night vision (5bp) when they get cyber eyes.


But as a GM I would conveniently ignore the debt then after several months spring it on them (but it was 7500 nuyen and now it is 15000). This is if they take a low level debt. The compound interest is 10% per month so given 7 or 8 months it doubles the debt. Once it gets high enough then you as a GM start brining in some muscle. Now if they max out debt (30bp) then the player is basically doing runs just not to end up in a wood chipper...

Posted by: Synner667 Oct 17 2009, 09:54 PM

Welcome to the world of proper points based RPGs [SR v4 is only a partially points based RPG, which is one reason it has these issues].

Properly done, cybereyes, etc could have a points cost - based on their ability.

But if you give them points for having a Disadvantage, the obvious balance is to make them pay an equiv to lose the Disadvantage - surely ??

Whether that's in character points, cash, favours, etc should be the question. If there's a standard value to that [1 character point = £xx = 1 favour = etc] , it's easy.
Which in proper points based RPGs, there is - because you can point cost everything [should you so wish]

Well, getting benefits from finding cash has a long and glorious past...
...From gaining XP just for finding money in a rubbish heap in D&D to turning down Knighthoods in GURPS because the recipient would have to pay character points for the gift !!]

Posted by: flext Oct 17 2009, 10:36 PM

Maybe it's time to have a chat with the players. What are they expecting out of this game? Maybe they expect to need every single point of BP they can grab to survive. I think clarifying the objective of the game, not the plot just the purpose, can help players design characters that fit in well. If you are expecting more role play let them know same for combat, hacking, driving, or even a decent balanced group. Also, I would ask "Why?" for every quality and even skills sometimes. Why do you have a debt? Where did it come from? What caused you to pick it up? Why did you start running with a day job? Who do you work for? These can all create really good hooks in the game, and not to screw over the player but to tell a good story. I think we sometimes see games like GM vs. Players when it really should be a team effort to create a good story. (I'm not assuming you have this view) I would suggest discussing it with them more than anything.

Posted by: Synner667 Oct 17 2009, 10:38 PM

>applauds<

Posted by: Chrysalis Oct 17 2009, 10:54 PM

I Debt also means someone else can buy the debt from the Mob.

You now no longer have to deal with the mob, but some other force. Maybe it's a technomancer who is cheesed off with their behavior, or something similar. having to pay back 10,000 nuyen PLUS interest in a week may be a bit harsh, but it creates an amazing roleplaying opportunity. If they do well his 5BP disadvantage may even be swapped out.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 17 2009, 11:21 PM

Those are some awful analogies. What you're conveniently ignoring here is that the build points that come along with the flaw have value as well. A build point at chargen can be used to purchase 5k worth of resources, so even a 5 point In Debt flaw can put 30k worth of goods on your character sheet. For that ratio to work out equitably, you need to acknowledge that the PC is not just borrowing money, they're borrowing build points/karma. If they didn't have to pay back the karma cost, then suddenly a manageable amount of debt would be virtually a no brainer decision for any build you care to name. A bit of smart accounting here and there and you could feasibly pay off such a small debt simply by fencing some of the stuff you came out of chargen with at a tidy profit, which is the issue the OP had with Day Job.

Anyway, to the OP: Depending on how well the min-maxers spend their ill-gotten points, it may not really be worth getting worked up about where those points came from. A lot of rookie power gamers tend to overestimate the value of things like multiple combat skills, for example. If the team's Samurai can already wipe out the goon squad with Pistols and Automatics than it probably does not matter much if he picks up some cheesy flaws just so he can afford to be able to kill people with Longarms too. Hell, if anything, it might encourage him to blow nuyen on some superfluous hardware, in which case he might end up balancing himself for you. The real thing to keep an eye on is dicepool sizes, not negative qualities, since it's entirely possible to make a surprisingly powerful character without indulging in more than a flaw or two.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 18 2009, 12:50 AM

Ok does a guy with amensia who finds his records need to buy off the flaw? Does the player even want to buy off the flaw even if he found all of his records etc?

Again it is if the flaw can be used as a plot hook to create a story then it should be allowed as long as the player is willing to deal with it. If the player is not willing to treat it as a flaw then the GM has every right to deduct karma or replace with a new flaw. Not all flaws have to be bought off with karma and this one in particular never states it does. There are ways to game the system where running is effectively pointless for the cash. Even then it gives motivations and reason for the character to be involved in shadowrunning. Why would the famous CEO and family man with a trust fund ever get into shadowrunning?

I also look at the fact that significant disadvantages come with it as well, including wanted and enemy if not paid off. The real point is if the player can pay it off during play then let him off the hook without the karma. Unless you feel that adding karma for things like enemy, wanted or record on file deserve to be given to the player. I have no problems for players buying off flaws for psychological issues such as amensia, addiction, compulsion, or prejudice as that is supposed to represent self improvement like skills. However, flaws that can be addressed under roleplaying given several sessions should be allowed to move on. Same with cash, contacts, gear, etc.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 18 2009, 12:53 AM

And by the way fencing gear gives you .3 of its base cost. While a player may get some money for taking the flaw, he does not get much unless he really does some tricks with character gen.


That said the GM is well within his right to deny certain things such as high lifestyle, day job and fame so the flaw is effectively meaningless.

Posted by: Synner667 Oct 18 2009, 01:01 AM

So, in effect, "here's loads of character points because the game gives them to you, but they actually mean nothing, so just ignore them whenever you like".

Again, one of the big problems with point based RPGs - more so with a partially points based RPG.

Ads and Disads are bribes to get characters to behave...
...People who want to roleplay a crippled, but genius hacker, will do so - regardless of the bribe.

If you bribe people, they take the bribe and ignore the reason.
If you make them define their character and roleplay, you get the same character - but done because that's what they want to play.

SR [and other RPGs] didn't used to have Ads and Disads, but didn't lack characters with the Ads and Disads people now expect to get character points for.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Oct 18 2009, 02:17 AM

Errr on thing to keep in mind, that custom lifestyle build is not legal. THere is a cap on your security level based on other factors. I don't have my books in front of me right now but that doesn't look like it's within the rules.

The cardinal rule: If you don't like something your players are doing from a character build standpoint then JUST SAY NO.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 18 2009, 03:06 AM

It's not illegal. What you are thinking about is how Entertainment can only be one increment more than Comforts. The GM can limit implausible combinations, but someone is a bad neighborhood, living in a spartan apartment with paranoid security, certainly fits the mindset of many runners. That high of a security rating might be counterproductive, though. Rating: 4 security is conspicuous. Having it in a Low Neighborhood might make a lot of those poorer folks curious as to what the character is going to so much trouble to protect.

Posted by: Omenowl Oct 18 2009, 03:23 AM

That is wonderful except if you have a lot of players who expect the GM to do everything. They have no family, no weaknesses and lack any depth because there is no advantage to take any of those things. Look it is another mysterious brooding stranger who carries a gun and is overly serious, or the person weaved a story about themselves to give a leg up such as I am the daughter of the president, etc... Then you have the 1 player who does the 3 dimensional Ex cop, alcoholic whose wife mysteriously disappeared, is in debt to the mob, works part time trying to keep a roof over his head and Vinny from breaking his kneecaps. Without flaws mechanically the 3d character is still just the same as the other characters with no incentive not to suddenly decide he will stop drinking, move on from his wife to find a new lady. You still have that option without flaws, but you have no constraint from breaking that basic idea.

So are you saying that karma rewards for roleplaying should not be factored in because it bribes players to act in character? Merits and flaws whether you like the mechanical effects or not give incentive to the player to take both a more unique character and one that gives the GM a mechanical method of encouraging character concept (addiction, allergy, unlucky, etc). The player has willingly entered a pact with the GM and other players to have certain quirks and is expected to play them. It also gives plot hooks and if enforced and does help round out a character along with encouraging a player to have some kind of depth. The nice thing about SR4 is that players are not automatically given a fatal flaw (looking at you White Wolf).

Lots of games had Advantages and disadvantages. Top Secret (TSR) being one from the early 80s which had quirks and flaws and merits that was point based. Other games had random advantages where you rolled to see what you got such as WFRP. The reason random dice rolling gave way to a point system was so characters would start off at roughly an equal footing.

Posted by: Cain Oct 18 2009, 03:41 AM

I'm somewhat dismayed at the number of responses that say: "Screw the players".

You never screw your players. You work with them, to create a more enjoyable game.

Have you tried talking to your players? Tell them honestly: "I don't know how to balance this flaw in game. I might skip past it, or I might go overboard trying to bring it into play. I don't think either one would be fun, so what do you think should happen?"

Try and see how the players want these flaws to play out. Work it into their backstories, and use other negative aspects of the flaw. For example, if everyone knows you're In Debt to the Mafia, you might take a hit to your reputation. Your Day Job might mean you're easily located. Or maybe the players have other ideas about how to make it work. If they don't, then you're justified in saying: "Since neither of us can balance this flaw, maybe we should choose one we can balance."

Posted by: Degausser Oct 18 2009, 04:28 AM

Thanks for all the responses. I wasn't trying to screw the players, or give them free BP, I was merely wondering if there was a consensus within the community if some stuff should be eratta-ed out because it was stupid powerful or whatnot. For example, the old "Agent Smith" thing, if I had a player trying to do that, I would ask you guys, and you would say "The Agent Smith thing is stupid powerful (when it worked) and don't let your player do it." That was the kind of info I was looking for.

Yes, of course my players all have backstories for their flaws, but by and large, I tend to ignore backstories AT THIS POINT. Yes, I can bring them into play later, but I have met too many players are are expert BSers and can spin a story about any flaw they want for any character. That's not the point, the point is "Giving players essentially free BP over other characters who decided not to be cheesy."

As for the least-addressed issue, according to Runner's companion, a 5 point closet prejudice has an intuition+willpower threshold of 0, meaning it is an auto success. There is literally NO downside I can see for that negative quality, any help?

Posted by: Falconer Oct 18 2009, 04:31 AM

I'm going to make a solid point here... you can pay off in-debt w/o paying off karma. Yes if you want to COMPLETELY eliminate the quality then you do that. But the amount owed and the quality aren't linked.

Even if the player does pay it off the nuyen, he still has the quality... by definition whomever he owes has the power to collect (or make the runners life absolutely miserable). There's nothing wrong w/ having said source be a problem in the future, they're probably more than willing to sell his information in the future (or sell their ritual link sample to some pissed off mage). Basically they're a people who know enough about the character and should be willing to make a fast buck off him. Even enough to blackmail him into doing things he wouldn't rather do grata. The link isn't broken til the karma is paid... until then even if the money is paid they can still extract a price.


I once made a decker/rigger character w/ maxed out in-debt... and his life was miserable... between SOTA lifestyle costs (which I FULLY agree with), replacement drone costs (even stealing drones, you need to bloody arm them... white knights let alone ammo aren't cheap!), etc. He could barely afford an actual low lifestyle while everyone else was living high on the hog. Some of the above was used against him, w/ the creditor selling his information to the highest bidder to make extra money on him, even after the debt was paid down a little. (the original loan was for a cyberarm after it got amputated after a smuggling run gone bad... which left him badly short on cash)


Same goes for prejudiced... if the character is setup like that, then it's not a drawback. I have a dwarf zoroastrian mage who can easily make the higher DC check to avoid it. He doesn't, he's convinced that all orks are agents of Kahriman (the evil side of Zoroastrian... sorta like Sauron's pawns in Tolkien). He roleplays it as such, and even worked to screw other players orc contacts and not taken contacts when they've come up as orcs. When critical healing has come up... he's taken tons of drain to heal the non-orcs while leaving the orc for the first aid to barely patch. The other players joke about him pulling a beer hall putsch.


I'm not saying the OP's cases aren't cause for concern. A drawback is only a drawback if it's played as such. But I think the above illustrates good uses of those negative qualities.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2009, 04:34 AM

I would say that a good background is NEVER Cheesy... if the players do not want to take extra negative qualities, then good for them, that is their choice; and players who are invested in their characters that DO want to have more in-depth backgrounds should never be punished...

As for the Prejudice... have you never come across someone who is prejuduce to that small of a degree... they are rarely outrspoken, but they take almost every opportunity to make life difficult for those that they are prejudiced against, most times in very subtle ways... I knew several of these types of people in the military... and they would argue till they were blue in the face that they Were NOT being prejudiced, but their actions always spoke louder than their words ever did...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Glyph Oct 18 2009, 07:02 AM

That test is only to successfully back down from a confrontation with a member of the hated group. I would still apply the -2 penalty for social skills to their interactions with a member of the hated group.

I am rather easygoing about flaws, but I do agree that a negative quality should have some quantifiable disadvantage, or it isn't really a flaw. It doesn't have to be much, but it should still be something.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 18 2009, 07:12 AM

Look them in the eye and tell them - 'Is this a 5BP bonus with no game mechanic disadvantage? Because if there's not, I'm going to have to get creative and find a way to make you earn those BP. Whatever I come up with is going to be at least as painful as Weak Immune System, Gremlins, or Astral Beacon. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm just telling you the way it is.'



Just to add my two nuyen, Day Job can really flesh out a character if done properly. My Rigger owns an autoshop, and without at least 20 hours a week handing the manager stuff people are not going to get paid. I took a Custom Lifestyle to indicate that I had a shabby apartment installed in the shop, and took Home Ground to indicate that I'm well equipped and good at working from the shop. I still wind up paying a grip of cash for lifestyle to account for the resources and security of the shop, but it makes a pretty good synergy in my mind.

Posted by: Stingray Oct 18 2009, 07:32 AM

..another no game mechanic disadvantage flaw (for mages/shamans/adepts) is seemingly almost
"automatic take" :sensitive system 15 bp... there is also thin line between restraining min-maxing
and "handing out" preferred characters to players by GM..

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 18 2009, 11:17 AM

That's true for any Prejudice of that level - and, honestly, mistrusting Technomancers is a game penalty, as he will simply prefer to work with hackers, ignoring the absurd power of TMs.

Personally, that's less "BP for free" than "Prejudice - Homosexuals, Closet" or "Prejudice - Orks, Closet".

Noone told you yet that you can spoof whole lifestyles for free? Or parts of them... spoofing entertainment really is a no-brainer.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2009, 02:59 PM

This is true...
Our Technomancer habitually spoofs his Full High Lifestyle... nothing like getting it for free...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 18 2009, 03:05 PM

And those with the Alias Paragon are not even allowed to pay for Lifestyle. Given that they get +2 dice on Spoof Tests, however...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2009, 03:07 PM

Yep... Our technomancer subscribes to Alias...
go figure...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Oct 18 2009, 03:38 PM

The threshhold 0 on that flaw simply means they have to have at least 1 success. A failed, glitched or critically glitched roll still matters in those situations. If he rolls and fails, he doesn't back down, but doesn't escalate either. If he succeeds with a glitch, then he backs down with a badly timed remark (which could of course re-escalate things again). A critical glitch, he likely mouths off and decks the guy or somesuch. The point is, he still *has* to make the roll, which means there is always a chance things go badly. Don't let him buy successes there, as it'll always be a "stressful situation" as he's confronting that which he hates.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 18 2009, 03:42 PM

No, that would be Threshold 1.

So only Glitches are relevant.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Oct 18 2009, 03:49 PM

Crud, you're right. Stupid me.

Posted by: Falconer Oct 18 2009, 06:46 PM

Did they change that... IIRC from the perception rules... that if something has a threshhold of 0 to notice it... you still need a hit to notice it. Just that that is 1 net hit now on the perception test detail chart. If it has a threhhold of 0... you noticed it but don't get any details.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2009, 07:26 PM

Yes, More Hits generates more information...
But then again, I would almost go with threshold 0 equates to no roll... Minimal effect for minimal effort

Posted by: Falconer Oct 18 2009, 07:35 PM

Unless if you're in combat or a similar situation... in which case you still need to roll perception to avoid the 'tunnel vision' problem and generate one hit. (think I'm paraphrasing Synner from a long ago thread on that one).

This shows up elsewhere as well... threshhold of 0 just means the first hit counts as a net hit, it doesn't mean a test isn't required (or circumstances may dictate a test is required).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2009, 07:36 PM

Makes sense, I could see it going either way actually, but I can get on board with that...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Glyph Oct 18 2009, 08:54 PM

But if that interpretation is correct, then a threshold of 0 is exactly the same as a threshold of 1, because you only need 1 hit to succeed when the threshold is 1. I think Rotbart's interpretation (only Glitches are relevant) makes more sense.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 18 2009, 10:02 PM

There is no Threshold 0 in the Perception rules.

And yes, the use of thresholds in the Perception rules is FUBAR - especially since those don't apply to opposed tests, or are overdefined when it comes to silenced gunfire or concealability.

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 18 2009, 10:11 PM

I just force my characters to have some cyberware installed before they can take that flaw. Otherwise, how would they know?

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 18 2009, 10:29 PM

Pre-operative diagnosis.

And, contrary to popular belief, it is quite a disadvantage for awakened not to get some implants.

Posted by: cndblank Oct 18 2009, 10:34 PM

I agree that the player should have the choice of paying it off with Karma or getting a new Negative Quantity.

These flaws help define the character and tell the GM what type of problems the player is expecting the character to encounter and over come.

If a character gets rid of an addiction he may pick up a compulsion to take its place.

The point is that as characters grow their negative quantities are going to change.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 18 2009, 11:42 PM

You're very clever. Now sit down a second and listen to what he's saying.

The issue is that a mage who does not want cyberware of any kind gets 15 points free, and some GMs (myself included) think that's exploiting the rules in a way they weren't intended. You get the points for having a flaw, but know it's never going to disadvantage you; it would be like getting 5 points back for not speaking Aramaic or Sumerian. It's up to the DM if he wants to allow this kind of exploit in his game or not.

The house rule that he's suggesting strikes me as a pretty good optional balance mechanism with a good explanation for why it works that way. In fact, your idea that they got a pre-operative diagnosis means they wanted cyberware at some point; if the character was a purist who would never get cyberware, why would he be in pre-op in the first place?

The way it works is this: If you want those 15 points under the house rule, you have to already be suffering some kind of ill effect (essence loss) or you simply haven't earned those points.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 12:17 AM

Not quite, it's more like, for him it is more difficult to learn those languages than for everyone else.

While it is unlikely to have undergone the diagnosis, it is possible that the character evolves and revises his principles or simply decides that cyberware is a necessary evil to survive and/or get the job done. In that case he is at a disadvantage compared to a mage without the flaw. The only thing that is different from other flaws is that the player decides when and if it comes up. That is, I guess, what irks some GMs.

But even if the character never has ware installed, it is a real disadvantage, because any installment has a much bigger impact on him. How about you rename the flaw to Holistic Purist or something like that? Would the flaw then still be "points for free". What about the pacifist flaw? Does the character have to kill, and feel bad for it, to get the points?

Not my cup of tea.

Posted by: toturi Oct 19 2009, 12:25 AM

A mage that doesn't want cyberware of any kind would get those 15 points in return for him paying double essense should he choose to change his mind. Just like any other Negative Quality, if the player is smart about it, he can get ahead; some people term it being cheesy, I just see it as both practical and pragmatic.

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 19 2009, 12:37 AM

I've got this mage concept I've been toying around with...

Scorched [10]
Sensitive Neural Structure [10]
Sensitive System [15]

And this is all perfectly valid even though I've got no cyberware installed, because if I ever decided to give up magic in the future and turn decker, I'd be in a really rough spot when it came time to get those implants...

-----

Some people think this is perfectly valid, and by the rules it is. Some of us think that, without a strong explanation via backstory, this is an excessive exploitation of the rules. We're in a thread that has 'Problem Players' in the title, so I assumed we were looking for rational ways to mitigate abuse of oversights in the rulebook. Instead, it looks like we're trying to find reasons to enable this behavior.

I guess all I can say is, to each their own. That's why each group has their own set of house rules.

Posted by: toturi Oct 19 2009, 01:09 AM

Actually, I do not think it is a player problem or even excessive exploitation of the rules. I think it is a GM problem and such usage of the rules should be encouraged.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 19 2009, 01:12 AM

I'm in agreement with toturi on this one, except that I'd go so far as to argue that it's pretty darn tough to really get ahead with the Sensitive System quality. Yeah, sure, you'll have more points available than if you just went with no cyberware at all and skipped the flaw, but in my experience skipping cyberware entirely isn't really what it's cracked up to be anyway. Frankly, it takes a real effort for me to resist the urge to slap at least some cybereyes into every mage I make.

Posted by: toturi Oct 19 2009, 01:34 AM

I find it tough to resist the urge to slap in a nanohive and O-cells into every character, Awakened or not.

Posted by: Cain Oct 19 2009, 01:37 AM

Toturi is right, it's up to the GM to balance the flaw. If they can't, that's not a sign of a weak GM, but it is a place where you're going to have to come clean with your players.

For example, I despise the Day Job flaw. I cannot balance it out, no matter how hard I try. I've come to the point where that if a player tries and take it, I'll sit down with them and try and figure out an acceptable alternative. Usually it's not hard.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 19 2009, 01:45 AM

No, that's not a valid set of negative qualities by RAW. Scorched and Sensitive Neural Structure are only 5 points each, unless you are a hacker. The rules are explicit on this point. Not "I could be a hacker, eventually, if I wanted to" - the character must actually be a hacker to get the higher amount of BPs for the flaw. So unless that mage actually has a more than token amount of skills put into hacking, the character would only get 25 points for that combination, not 35.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 02:04 AM

Nice try. Was that a 'strawman'? It's been a long time since debate class.

Here's my assertion: Negative Qualities are intended to give the character a limitation or disadvantage in exchange for more points to spend on abilities or advantages.

For most archtypes in Shadowrun, Sensitive System is a major sacrifice, which explains why it is worth 15 points. For some archtypes, it is a minor inconvenience, if it even comes into play at all. If the character is playing an archtype where it is not a sacrifice, it should not be worth 15 points. It is.

The question that I raise is, do I have sufficient cause to implement some house rules if I feel a rule is being exploited? I say that in my game, I always have the right to implement house rules in the name of making the game more fun for myself and the players. Contest that if you like.

Given that:

A. The Negative Quality may not impact every player equally
B. The Negative Quality is worth a significant amount of points

It might appear that the simple solution is to either remove the Quality from my game, or to give it a graduated cost based on archtype, similar to how Allergy is handled. I think it's a good quality, and I'd like to keep it, and as has been pointed out not all casters are cyber-phobic.

Cheshyr's suggestion is elegant. In my games, only cyborgs may take a Sensitive System. Nobody here has convinced me that there's a good reason to allow it otherwise.



Okay, not to pick fights, but what does that mean exactly?

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 02:06 AM

How do you tell a hacker from a guy with an overpowered commlink in this edition, anyway?

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Oct 19 2009, 02:13 AM

I would simply ask a couple of questions to this:

First, are those 15 points *really* breaking the fun for you and/or your players? If 15 points are that big of a deal, maybe there are other underlying issues you need to look at.

Second, over the course of a campaign, how much are those 15 points really bringing to the table? Again, is it that much of a problem?

If it really is a gamebreaker for you and your group, then by all rights and means, ban, change or limit it as you need. That's the prerogative of every GM, and not something a single person on this board can reasonably argue against unless they are strict RAW adherents to the point of fanaticism. (not an overly bad thing, of course... everyone needs a cause)

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 19 2009, 02:20 AM

Only 25 then, for flaws that will never see the light of day. I'm certain I can find 10 more points of flaws that will be equally untouched. Even if I can't, 25BP isn't insignficant. This same run-around could be used with Cursed and Reduced Sense (Astral Sight) by a Street Sam. There are certain qualities where the developers didn't explicitly call out the limitations required for them to have an impact on the game. If a GM wants to allow freebie points like this, it's his perogative. There are those that don't that are looking for reasonable compromises to allow them to work with the player without it just being 'because I said so'.

And no, in the long run, 15 points isn't that big of a deal. It's only about 6 runs worth of Karma. This isn't entirely about game-breaking qualities... it's about encouraging the characters to make well rounded, interesting characters, starting with a level playing field and fixed amount of recources. If that's not really important to you, you could just tell the players "You have anywhere from 365 to 435 BP to use to create your character. Have fun."

This may be appropriate for your campaign. Again, GMs call.

Posted by: toturi Oct 19 2009, 02:22 AM

Exactly as it says? Like Cain said, it is up to the GM to enforce the Negative Quality.

Sensitive System, for example, makes you pay through the nose for the useful cybernetics that do not have a magical counterpart. In essense(forgive the pun), he is cut off from having those cyber. You may think that you should not have Sensitive System unless you have cyber but the problem is that with Sensitive System and if you do want quite a bit of cyber, you are essentially shooting yourself in the head, it is quite suicidal to take Sensitive System and try to implant a basic Rating 2 wired reflexes. My take is that Sensitive System is precisely there to provide points to non-cyber characters. Then when they do find that they want a cyber implant, they have to weigh the pros and cons very carefully indeed.

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 19 2009, 02:30 AM

Sensitive System doesn't impact Bioware. If you've got a Bioware heavy player with Sensitive System, you've got a rational character concept. If they decide to add cyberware later, and their bioware essence costs are greater than their cyberware essence costs, the cyberware is 50% essence cost. Sensitive System would make this 100% again... so those Cybereyes or wired reflexes would go back to normal essence cost. There are situations where the flaw makes sense, and adds depth.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 19 2009, 02:36 AM

And then there are examples like this that seem positively ludicrous to me... Apples and Oranges... the Drawback has absolutely no real detrimental effect in the above example and you have a "freebie" Negative Quality... Using that argument, the guy with all the Bioware never buys cyberware... is he now "cheating" to get those 15 freebie poiints?

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 19 2009, 02:41 AM

I'd personally consider just giving my players 35 extra BP. Really, players who don't want to have actual disadvantages will be allergic to stuff they don't care about, and players that do don't need to be nerfed for no reason.

Seriously, there is literally no viable character archtype for which sensitive system is ever going to be a material disadvantage.

Any sammie would have to be mad to take it, mages can minimise the impact and faces/riggers are not impacted materially.

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 19 2009, 02:41 AM

Heh... yeah, I'd say he was. Hence why I suggested the 'If you want it, buy some cyberware first' limitation on Sensitive System. It was a suggested check-and-balance to make sure a flaw the GM has no in-game influence over has some effect on gameplay. And it does have a significant impact... without the flaw, the guy might not have purcahsed the ridiculously expensive bioware in the first place.

What is it everyone here says?.. YMMV.

Posted by: toturi Oct 19 2009, 04:24 AM

So? In the first place if he didn't have the Sensitive System, he would have a 50% reduction in Essense costs and that kind of reduction is comparable to having Delta Grade. So he trades off the 50% essense to his cyber for the 15 BPs of Sensitive System. I would think that that is a bad trade and a stupid move unless that piece of cyber is absolutely essential to his continued survival.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 19 2009, 04:53 AM

Sensitive system is only one of many negative qualities that fall under "lateral limitations", flaws that might not affect your initial character concept, but limit ways in which that character can improve. With hard-wired limits that can often be reached at char-gen, lateral limits are not insignificant. If a mage with sensitive system is cheesy, then so is a bunker rigger with infirm, or an assault-cannon toting minotaur with uncouth, or any character with incompetence.

Of course, people will tend to get these kind of flaws when they aren't that interested in that particular area anyways. Any flaw a player takes for a character will generally either fall under 1) Doesn't mess up my character, or come up too often; or 2) Fun to roleplay, even if it gets my character into trouble. I don't have too much of a problem with 1) if it is something that at least comes up occasionally. Now, if someone tried to take severe allergy: dinosaur poop, or a mundane character tried to take incompetence: spellcasting, then I would disallow it. Things like weak immune system, allergy: silver, or nano-intolerance might not come up much, but at least the possibility is there and the effect is quantifiable.

Remember, the last stage of character creation is GM approval, so if you are more stringent on flaws, simply let the player know.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 19 2009, 05:39 AM

Also, flaws like sensitive system aren't nearly as toothless if the DM in question is willing to forcibly implant some cyber if it is realistic to do so.

Posted by: kzt Oct 19 2009, 05:58 AM

There is no threshold 0 in the game. People are confusing net hits with the threshold. You always need at least one success. One success is zero net hits. The SR4 writers occasional get this wrong too. This produced the crazy example in SR4 magic (p174) where they redefined a "success test" as requiring one net hit on page 173, then used a threshold per the regular game mechanics in the example. In SR4a page 183 they seem to have fixed this, as they now only require a net hit for an opposed test.


"The standard threshold is 1 (so only 1 hit is
necessary to succeed), though other tests may have thresholds as high
as 4 or more. The Success Test Difficulties Table lists a range of difficulty
levels along with a standard threshold for each. In some cases,
a threshold modifier may apply to an action, raising or lowering the
threshold by the stated amount.

"The more net hits a character scores (the more hits exceed the
threshold), the more the task was pulled off with finesse and flair. So
a character who rolls 4 hits on a threshold 2 test has scored 2 net hits."

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 06:31 AM

Wow, that *really* changes things. In our first SR4 game, somebody got 2 successes on an attack roll and added 2 to his DV; we couldn't find a rule in the SR4 book that said it didn't work that way, so that's been how we've been handling it. Being able to quote chapter and verse will really help me reign that in. Thanks, Kzt!

Posted by: Glyph Oct 19 2009, 07:04 AM

How you've been handling combat is correct. Combat is an opposed test. On page 57 of the SR4 book, it plainly states:


I don't have SR4A, but I doubt it changes anything, since the quote kzt gives is exactly what my basic SR4 book says on page 56.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 07:07 AM

If the defender didn't score any hits that's indeed correct. In an opposed test like combat the net hits however are equal to the attacker's hits minus the defender's hits. The relevant passages are on p. 149 of SR4A or p. 139 f. of SR4.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 07:31 AM

Oh, I see...because in this case the Threshold is the Defender's Dodge roll - or at least, that's one way to look at it.

Let me make sure I've got this:

I'm shooting a DV6 weapon at a Merc.
I get three hits; he gets three hits; I miss.
I get four hits; he gets three hits; I hit for DV7

Is that right?

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 07:57 AM

Yes.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 19 2009, 08:25 AM

what a dick move. "I'm going to make you lose 30-50 karma in one GM fiat move, resulting in you losing 6-10 sessions of progress. BL"

I'd seriously get annoyed if someone pulled that on me! Invalidating 2-6 months of gameplay in one fell swoop is just not nice.

Posted by: kzt Oct 19 2009, 08:48 AM

Yup, that was the text from success tests. Opposed tests are different, as the combat opposed tests (note that there is a special "combat opposed test" vs regular "opposed test"- I have no idea why) redefine net hits as successes [A-B=successes] (which I think is unfortunate - the game would be cleaner if they used the same definition as success tests - but they don't).

However some of the optional rules do actually use thresholds for combat, though by turning combat into success tests. Plus, on step 3 of the combat sequence, they say that you can succeed on a tie in certain cases - like touch only attacks, plus on page 159 they give you a +2 die pool for touch only attacks... I hate special rules like "but you succeed on a tie".

There is nothing wrong with any GM choosing to use thresholds for opposed tests, as long as the GM understands this is a variant rule, has told everyone how stuff will work up front, and uses them appropriately. Every point of a threshold has the same effect (in theory) as reducing the attackers pool by 3 dice, but in practice I'd expect it to be harsher. (This is kind of what they do with mana barriers in SR4a, though only for success tests)

I've toyed with having wards impose their force as a threshold on spells that target or affect targets inside a, as I think the protection they provide in the rules is too wimpy. But that is definitely not RAW.

Posted by: kzt Oct 19 2009, 08:52 AM

Luckily for you, Cranial Bombs cost no essence!

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 19 2009, 09:04 AM

That's fine, doesn't trigger sensative system either. Win/win.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 19 2009, 09:07 AM

Since the Prejudice NQ in RC, there is.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 19 2009, 09:09 AM

And the person never wanting to shoot a gun gets 15 BP for being incompetent in every of the 3 skills - more if he goes on with the rest of the shooting stuff. And he doesn't even have to pay for shooting skills.

The issue you claim to be there - isn't. Because there is a big difference between not wanting to, and not being able to. Especially when your life is on the line.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 19 2009, 09:14 AM

It's totally bizarre. Allergy: Gold is straight up there in the book on the sample characters. They WANT you to get free BPs from meaningless disadvantages. Don't worry about it.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 09:36 AM

If you want to go all out, take Incompetence(Heavy Weapons) and Incompetence(Gunnery) as well, and while your at it pick up Incompetence(Aerospace Mechanic).

QFT. Sensitive System is a bit different however, as it does not prevents you from taking cyberware, but makes it much more detrimental to your essence. But that is a disadvantage nonetheless.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 19 2009, 10:55 AM

First off, OP:

1) Technomancers aren't uncommon. They are statistically insignificant. They may be uncommon in the shadows if you want to play it that way, but, to me, uncommon is greater than 1:100. Less than 1:100 is rare. I'd make him pick another group or make him assume 1 in every 100 people is a "sekrit technodevil".

2) In debt. I don't want to tell you how to play your game, but you're on a forum looking for advice, so.. I think of "In Debt" to be more than the sum of some money and some points. To me, In Debt is historical - Not like, T -20min runner K borrowed some money. A guy doesn't just decide to go to a loan shark. That guy has to have a relationship with this loan shark. The size of the debt reflects the size of that negative relationship. -5bp means that this guy, K, owes a guy money, has owed him money, and likely will owe him money again as soon as he falls on hard times. Meanwhile, this Shark is thinking of ways to exploit his relationship to K to make it pay out in his favor. Maybe he sells some info on K. Maybe he asks K to do something which K can't rightly refuse. The point is, the debt means that his guy is under someone else's thumb. He can pay off the money, but he can't get rid of the negativity without paying off the karmic debt.

3) Lifestyle - Who cares? Is this the Sims now? Get to the action!

Now, others.

4) Sensitive system. First point, Cyber is awesome. Nanoware is awesome. Of course, you can still pack a lot of bang in even half a regular point of essence, but you're only considering the obvious here. You're still thinking on the build and not on the runs. It's like this, cyber sams are made of parts. Replaceable parts. If he catches a grenade and loses a limb, or the use of his eyes, he buys another set. The first time some street punk takes an aimed shot at your sensitive mage's face and connects, so much for seeing again. Unless he wants some shiny new eyes - the ones with protective covers and built-in magnification.

5) Scorched + Sensitive Neural Structure = SPAM ME. Scorched means that someone already has his number. SNS means that his number is up. This is a terrible combination. Walking around with a comlink on active is going to be a real problem for this guy.

6) O SNAP. Incompetence. "Treat as unaware for this active skill." I like to take that literally. I wouldn't allow a player to take an incompetence quality unless he can explain to me just how his character has come to be convinced that "them ratchets and wotnot what is used by mekaniks to make a whirlybird go is far beyond my ken." I mean how the hell are you going to roleplay a character to whom the idea of pointing a gun at something and making bullets come out is a COMPLETELY ALIEN CONCEPT. If you show it to wolf-boy of the amazon enough times, even he's going to figure it out eventually. Though, maybe he just spent the 10 karma to do so

Posted by: Ravor Oct 19 2009, 12:22 PM

Cthulhudreams, and what in in nine hells made you think that the Sixth World was a nice place where NPCs would decide not to screw someone over merely because the piece of cyber they would normally implant into anyone else happens to hurt more. As a player it is YOUR job to keep your character safe and not expect the DM to hold your hand and babysit you. Sometimes bad shit happens and you need to roll with the punches.


Yes, forcibly implanting cyber of any kind is probably really fragging rare, but there are times when it simply makes sense for an NPC to do so to a captured character, and I'm not only referring to bombs.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 02:00 PM

First of all permanent damage, such as loss of sight, is an optional rule, which should be discussed with the players beforehand. Secondly nothing forbids the mage who has just lost his eyes to perceive astrally until he gets to a clinic to have his eyes cloned. He is not obliged to buy cybereyes and IIRC cloned eyes are not much more expensive than the better cybereyes. while this has its own dangers, it is a viable and logical option for someone with Sensitive System.

I'm not sure what you mean. Scorched only applies to Black IC and BTLs, and Sensitive Neural Sructure only to simsense based damage. The normal matrix user would never encounter those dangers.

@Ravor: While it is true that the GM should not go soft on PCs, he should tell the players beforehand that there is a possibility that he will permanentely gimp the characters. Implanting 'ware into an awakened character is just that. There is no way to get the Magic point back. Essence can be regenerated, Magic can't. If the players are fine with that, go ahead.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 19 2009, 02:16 PM

I might possibly be slightly inclined to agree with you Dakka Dakka IF losing some magic through implanting cyber actually permentally "gimped" a character. Since doing so is merely painful in the short term but opens up other pathways of advancement in the long term I have no qualms at all about it.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, the Sixth World is not a nice place populated by nice people and if the players are counting on their DM to hold their hands and go easy on them when logic dictates otherwise then everyone involved might as well simply engage in a circlejerk or go play video games with liberal save functions.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 02:34 PM

Well let's see, you have one mage with Sensitive System, one without and a mundane character. Each is implanted with 0,6 points of cyberware. The sensitive mage loses 2 points of magic, a significant setback which cannot be removed. The normal mage loses 1 point of magic, still a disadvantage but only half as bad. The mages could at a later point replace the ware with something more beneficial to them, but they would have to spend a lot of Karma (especially with the rule changes of SR4A) to get their magical power back to before the implantation.
The mundane on the other hand suffers almost no drawbacks unless the implantation kills him outright. Should he wish to later get his lost essence back he can do that. Its expensive but possible.
So now the mages are behind the mundanes powerwise. Why would the mundanes still work with them if they become a liability? As You said shadowrunners are not a bunch of nice people gallivanting through a nice world filled with other nice people. And why would the mages still work with the mundanes on jobs that become more and more difficult when they cannot keep up?

Singling out the mages or even the one with the negative quality sounds unfair towards the player and not logical in game.
BTW about what kinds of wares are we tralking anyway? I have yet to find an IG reason to implant stuff like that.

As I wrote above, if everybody is fine with either style, go ahead.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 19 2009, 03:29 PM

As a character looking at the numbers, I might think that, but not as a GM dealing with a character who takes those two qualities in combination. You are forgetting that Qualities are History and whatever history the player provides isn't going to be as complete as the history I give him. You're saying, "I'm not playing a junkie or a hacker, why would I ever run into Black IC or BTLs?" when the question isn't "why would I," but "why did I."

What I mean is that Scorched implies that the person in question was digitally compromised, and Sensitive Neural Structure means that they had their legs over their head with their hands tied to the headboard when it happened. Especially so in the case of a complete amateur computer user. So, as a GM, I wouldn't assume that their happy ass bumbled into some Dangerous IC and got fried in their daily business. When would that ever happen? Black IC is only legitimately found in the most secure corporate systems. The only thing that makes sense to me is that this character is a victim or an ex-user. Now, what would be the purpose of victimizing some random person so much that it shorted their brain out? Player didn't bother to come up with a satisfactory explanation? How about brainwashing? Turns out that the player and the character both don't know that I've just translated their 10bp from Scorched and SNS into 10bp from Judas by making them a sleeper agent or getting 5bp from a compulsion they don't understand and 5bp from flashbacks every time they see a NERPS advert. Also, that's in addition to being vulnerable to further brainwashing. Or, if they say they're an ex-BTLhead who got hooked hard and fast then got dried out by someone. Looks like that's 5bp for Big Regret, and, who's this on your doorstep? 5bp for Enemy or Dependent. Point is, there's going to be unresolved circumstances for a character with those two qualities bunched up like that. Someone has got their number, and it's only a matter of time before problems arise. As a GM, it's my duty to make sure they do.


edt: Ah yeah, I always thought cloned parts were basically like bioware since you'd have to fiddle with major nerve clusters. Especially eyeballs. Still, cloning means natural as science can be, so no essence loss. Fair duce. As for the idea of revitalization restoring essence, but not magic, man, give the guy a Geas. It's good for players and for plots.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Oct 19 2009, 04:07 PM

Wow Saint. So you take your player's existing flaws, extrapolate and *add* flaws without giving them the bonuses from them or even telling them? Those 2 flaws suddenly spawn into 10pt Judas negative quality, 5bp compulsion, 5bp flashbacks? Really? Because those are *not* the qualities they chose. I can honestly say if my GM did that, I'd hand him the sheet, tell him to enjoy his NPC and make a new character. If you approve my character as is, then despite you being a GM, you have no right to change my stats or qualities without first talking to me about it. If it happens during the course of play, fine, I can accept certain things. But to approve qualities and secretly say they're something else and hit me with that later is complete bull.

Point being, if I wanted to play a sleeper agent or have compulsions or somesuch, I'd damn well take the flaws. If I don't, I won't put those flaws on my sheet, and I certainly don't expect you to arbitrarily assign them to me because you don't care for the qualities I put down that you friggin' approved at character creation.

Chargen is the time when the GM is supposed to say "Uh, no, I don't think so." or bring up reservations or problems. Doing it in the game, for no reason than your own whim, without telling the player is just wrong, in my opinion.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 06:55 PM

This thread has been pretty educational for me about the general opinion of 'harmless' negative qualities. It seems like a lot of people on this board are prepared to fight pretty hard for Negative Qualities that the GM thinks don't fit the character, since they're RAW and they're in the character's best interest.

Jhai brings up some interesting points here: The time for making sure a character concept fits your GM's world is during the GM Approval phase. This is when these issues should be discussed, and characters that the GM doesn't want to deal with get shot down, figuratively speaking.

However, especially after the heated discussion in this thread, it seems clear to me that lots of players will insist on taking flaws regardless of how exploitive the GM claims they are. There are a lot of right honorable rules lawyers in this thread, and a lot of very passionate and intelligent players who will fight for their right to take the Negative Quality. Not every GM is prepared to deal with a constant onslaught of complaints about the build getting nerfed(NERPSed?) and I'm sure lots of GMs would just give in.

If a player in my game took a flaw that I had advised him against, specifically because he thought it would never come up, the simple fact is it would come up. I'm sure Superman thought that Allergy:Kryptonite was a safe bet, but somehow the stuff is all over the place. Why? Drama. The writers want to challenge him, so they put him in a position where his weaknesses come into play. I reserve the right to do the same - not to punish the player or to be a dick, but to make the game interesting. Indiana Jones' phobia about snakes has never kept him from being a hero...but you know what? That's exactly why it had to be snakes.

Posted by: kzt Oct 19 2009, 07:06 PM

"Any disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth any points."

I agree, if someone takes something that he's sure will never come up and insists on getting points it's the GMs obligation to make it come up from time to time. Typically at terribly inconvenient moments.

Posted by: milk ducks Oct 19 2009, 07:47 PM

^ this.

-milk.

Posted by: Degausser Oct 19 2009, 07:48 PM

My general theory when it comes to negative qulities, are that they should be restrictive, but not moreso than RAI (NOT RAW.)

For example: A player decides to try and be 'cheesy' and take, scorched: Non-hacker for a street Sam. Okay, fine, but one run requires him to go ride-along with the team's hacker into the matrix. Suddenly a flaw that he thought would never come up, comes up!

Or a Mage Player takes "Incompetent: Gunnery." Fine, stick him in a few (note, only a few) situations where that comes up.

The problem I had with my OP was that I couldn't find a way to make Day Job and Prejudice(5 point, threshold 0) come up in a game without making them worse than any other 5 point NQ

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 07:53 PM

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
(Henry Jones, Sr is riding in the rear of a biplane being shot at by the Germans. He grabs the machine gun and sends a burst at the enemy, missing the German and shredding the plane's tail)
"Junior...they got us."

Posted by: Marwynn Oct 19 2009, 08:00 PM

GM reserves the right to call into question any silly or inexplicable Negative Qualities, and punish accordingly. Incompetence (Artisan), for example, will result in your GM forcing your character to literally sing as if his life depended on it. Because it does.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 19 2009, 08:33 PM

What's the point? He'll fail, as he isn't even allowed to default.

But keep in mind there are... people... areound for whom the complete inability to perfom anything artistic is quite a stigmata... one that means they won't have any business with the character whatsoever.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 08:45 PM

And how would anyone find out outside an arts contest?

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 08:47 PM

...then his team is going to have to save his silly ass.

If you take a Negative Quality, even one you think the GM can't use against you, the GM can use it against you. If you want to insist taking it is RAW, then remember that the GM using it in the adventure is equally RAW.

Play *with* your GM, not against him. He's got more imaginary guns then you do.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 19 2009, 09:10 PM

He can't even tell a story or draw a straigth line.

People find out pretty fast - each and every incompetency gets you Notoriety.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Oct 19 2009, 09:16 PM

Why?

The GM can use the fact that your character exists against you.

What's the point making everything a life & death situation?

It's usually just plain GM fiat.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 19 2009, 09:32 PM

So would that character get negative dice pool modifier to forgery, con, the mechanics group and other skill that require some kind of creativity? as a side not I don't like how incompetence works mechanically. I would prefer if the book used a system similar to that of Infirm but that is a different problem.

But Notoriety only has an effect if a) you use this system which in my impression not too many groups do and b) the NPC must know about the character's reputation, which is exactly what I doubt to be obvious unless the PC actually tells everyone that he couldn't dance even if his life depended on it.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 19 2009, 09:33 PM

Because he'll die otherwise? I mean, I guess they don't have to save him. I'd hate to railroad the plot, you know? Do what feels right for your character.


I'm pretty sure he does that every time he targets you with a spell, weapon, or hack. Come to think of it, a character who didn't exist would be pretty much invincible. Maybe I'll roll a character who doesn't exist for my next game. I'll get permission from my GM first, of course.



I'm sorry, I think you have this confused with the forum for http://www.hasbro.com/candyland/en_US/.



I usually get my GM Fiat with bacon and extra cheese.


You're quite welcome. I'm glad I could help you understand the game. Have fun!

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Oct 19 2009, 09:46 PM

It may seem obvious, but I've dealt with numerous GMs that played it as Me against the players. I've had players try to run it that way too. It's obvious to some, completely foreign to many others.

Posted by: Paul Oct 19 2009, 10:06 PM

A day late and a dollar short, but here's my two yen:

Power gamers, minmaxers and other types of douchebags end up doing one of two things in my game: quitting, because they can't stand that I don't care about how they raped the rules to get down-or conversely they learn to game. Take all the points you want homes, I'm the GM. I really am god. If I want you, trust me I got you.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2009, 12:08 AM

You know, You are really not being all that helpful...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 20 2009, 12:16 AM

Half this thread isn't being that helpful. I'd daresay, a good majority of the content is people being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I see no evidence that anyone has actually made an attempt to understand where the other posters are coming from. Their opinion is right, and they must convince the ignorant masses...

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 20 2009, 12:57 AM

I'm sorry, were we being helpful? I thought the thread had denigrated into name calling. Shall I pretend that was a serious post he made? Here's one without sarcasm.


Because he left an opening that the GM decided to take advantage of. As I have explained before. At length. Repeatedly. In very small words. But here we go again: If the CyberSam decides not to invest in ultrasonics, is it wrong for the GM to let the opposition use Invisibility? Is he morally bound to change the game so as not to exploit the player's weakness? Of course not. The player is responsible for making a character that can take what the GM throws at him. If he thinks the GM targetting his weakness is unfair, he should fix the weakness, not cry about it.



The point is to challenge the characters with an interesting story. If a character can't be beaten in a fair fight, the GM is going to come at him sideways to keep it interesting. I'm not talking about executing the problem character with a sniper, I'm talking about stranding the Samurai in a social situation for laughs. I'm taking about the hacker getting into a fist-fight with an elderly janitor. I'm talking about making the game interesting. That's the point, van Dainig: It's supposed to be a challenge.


GM Fiat is when he *changes* the rules to keep the story moving. In this case he would be obeying the rules and putting an obstacle in your way to be overcome - like the guy who took Allergy:Gold getting locked in the Executive Washroom and realizing he's going to have to deal with gold-plated everything. It's not the GM changing the rules, it's the GM being a dick. If you forced the issue when he asked you not to take the Negative Quality, then he's only responding in kind.




You're welcome, jerk.




Tymeaus, you seem like a cool guy. You've helped me out. I'm kind of surprised you're painting *me* as the guy trying to start a flamewar in this little exchange, but I honestly thought I was taking the high road. In the future I will crush those who oppose me with ruthless browbeating instead of cutting remarks.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 20 2009, 12:59 AM

Let's start right there. My suggestion would be to talk with the players [as has been mentioned]. Let them know you've noticed this, and talk about it. If I were you, I'd tell them, "Hey, you don't have to get out your copy of Min-maxing the Munchkin Way. You want 5 points? Take 'em. 10? Fine. What I want is for your sheet to reflect the actual human being you intend to play. If you need 10 more points to play the guy you want to play, that's no problem. But let's not be intellectually shifty about the whole thing over a couple of build points, yeah?"

The other solution, of course, is to simply not play with the people who have this mindset, whether it be because they feel small in real life and want to fantasize big, or because they feel roleplaying is an "Us vs the GM" kind of game, or just because they like "getting one over on the rules," or whatever their reasons are. This is usually not an option: you have the stable you have, so work with them. Over time, you can turn a munchkin into a deep, considerate roleplayer if you work at it.

My suggestion? Play a few sessions without dice or character sheets. Set the rules aside, and show them that these flaws are more than just dice, they're actual flaws possessed by the actual person being roleplayed. And always, always, always make it clear that good roleplaying earns way more karma than bullshit min-maxing. [Doesn't hurt to drop some lines here and there to stimulate the meme within your table-culture that "min-max" means "tiny penis," either.]


You shouldn't let it be. The rules are your bitch, not the other way around. If someone's getting something for nothing and you don't want them to, don't let it be for nothing. Insist he roleplay his disdain, and make it cost him. Not much - it's 5 damned points; he shouldn't get his legs cut off for it - but make it cost. If he just wants to ROLLplay, tell him there are some very nice wargames in the world, and he should consider those.


If roleplaying isn't a game penalty, you're doing it wrong. The dice and rules are just a tool; don't rely on them, and don't let them fuck up your game.


Debt in Shadowrun works more-or-less like debt in the real world: yes, at first you get ahead. But then you have to pay back what you got, plus interest, and in Shadowrun 4, you have to pay it back, plus interest, plus karma. For a few build points and some money up-front, he's cost himself much more money and karma as time goes on. That's no bargain, except in the short term...just like credit in the real world.


Well, RAW specify you have to buy off flaws, so if he's a rules lawyer [and won't listen to reason and can't be beaten about the head with a stick], point that out to him. Otherwise, I'd find some way to make those 5 points cost: a former co-worker sees him on a job and recognizes him, or he's constantly getting calls from them asking him to come back, or his boss is pissed that he quit on short notice and threatens to turn his SINless ass into the police for tax fraud. You don't want to penalize him, per se, but you do want those points to have some cost.


So he's never well-rested, because his neighborhood is loud and he has barely any soundproofing and his bed is an old Army cot with a broken leg. He gets weird illnesses from the parasites living in his building, and the roaches scare away all his dates. His friends don't really want to chill with him because his trid barely works, and with the water rationing, he smells like shit half the time. He's constantly bored because he has no money to go out, and he begins to feel a queer detachment from humanity...

Dude, this is roleplaying. If you're not helping to feed the role, many players will just take whatever they can and feel like kings of something. But if you make the game about the role, and not about the jobs [or the combat], suddenly the "victory condition" changes. As GM, you're the one setting that victory condition, and you can let the rules and the players make a bitch out of you, or you and the players can work together, with the rules as a guideline, to produce the maximum amount of fun for everyone at the table.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 20 2009, 01:04 AM

Bravo!

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2009, 01:16 AM

Naaaaaah... You don't need to crush anyone... sorry if I came off a bit harsh... have not had any sleep for the last 40 hours or so... Just having a tough night is all...

As far as Negative Qualities... they are there to foster quirks and roleplaying opportunities... using them should provide an abundance of hooks for which the GM to ustilize to hang you... in our games, anything goes, jut don't be surprised if your negative qualities get used against you...

I think that Negative Qualities are a very useful tool for botht eh player and the GM... You may just have to approach the use (or exploitation) of them a little creatively...

keep the Faith

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 20 2009, 01:24 AM

Man, I hear that. I'm going to be first in line for a Sleep Regulator when those come out.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2009, 01:30 AM

Ditto... at this point even the good drugs are refusing to work...

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 20 2009, 01:41 AM

You get insomnia too? It's a rough time some nights/days.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2009, 01:46 AM

Rarely, but I am going on 40 hours now, and still not out... Yep pretty rough...
In this case, I think that My mind is going at high speed processing all the things that I have been working on for multiple games (Shadowrun and Earthdawn) that I just can't slow it down enough to get any sleep...

Keep the Faith...

Posted by: 3278 Oct 20 2009, 01:57 AM

I find a good 10 or 15 miles of walking, or a few hours hard swimming, puts the lights out pretty quick.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2009, 02:06 AM

This is very true...

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Oct 20 2009, 04:50 AM

I play cribbage myself when I need to beat insomnia. Having to count up scores and playing cards seems to use just enough of both sides of my brain to ease it down and get me to a place where it can finally take a breather.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 20 2009, 07:02 AM

Sorry, every published adventure in any genre I have ever seen with the 'PCs get captured' explictly calls for GM fiat to do so. So lets be clear here, this is a move the GM is making happen because he feels like being a cock -> PCs typically go down fighting when backed into a corner unless you GM fiat it up and almost every PC carries basic defences against the inhalants, and carries guns against all the injected stuff. Realistic ally if you're capturing PCs you're saying 'hahaha, screw you' and bilking them way more BPs than they got from the disadvantage.

Secondly, why the hell would the corps ever implant cyberware into someone forcibly other than a cranial bomb? Seriously, what would be the point? The guy is a mage, and you know he gets punished as is for implanting cyberware. If you want him to do something for you (the ONLY reason to ever capture someone and then let them go), you need to install a compulsion (the bomb), but then you don't deliberately screw up the thing you want that you captured him for (the magic). You'd have to be some kind of retarded.

So basically, you're making the world's most contrived situation in a attempt to completely screw a player.

Most of the 'disadvantages have to mean something' people in this thread are just being passive aggressive. It's like drugs man, if you don't like it, say no. Don't:

A) Subtract 6 months worth of character progression

B) Impose 35 BP of negative qualities for no reason what so ever

C) Make extremely contrived situations to kill the character you don't like

Which is seriously what is being promoted here as 'good games mastery'

It's obvious to me that the problem with most games is the players and the GM don't talk to each other about expectations. Talk straight when you don't like something. Don't be two faced and let it into your game then screw someone for doing it.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 20 2009, 08:23 AM

I like your point about straight talk regarding expectations, and I agree that this is probably a case of the GM being a dick. However, you did ask why cyberware other then a cranial bomb would get implanted, and oddly enough I have an example. Mind you, it is heinous f*ckery most foul, but still.

I'd like to introduce you (if you haven't yet had the pleasure) to a man named George Alec Effinger. He wrote three books in the late 80's, the first of which is entitled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%AEd_Audran. It is one of the more influential Cyberpunk works - If William Gibson gave us the Matrix, Effinger gave us Skillsofts and Personafixes. His protagonist is a small-time hustler with a crippling drug habit that he seems completely unaware of.

Marid is unique in his world for being neither cybernetically enhanced nor controlled by the crime lord who unquestionably rules the city; due to a series of brutal murders both of those are going to change. The crime lord forcefully adopts him as an investigator, and makes sure he is augmented so as to stand a chance of success. The boss doesn't take no for an answer, and indeed never asks Marid's feelings on the matter. Marid is given a set of wires and a selection of chips, including one that completely blocks pain, and one that turns him into a feral killing machine. Both save his life. In the end, he's saved his neighborhood from a serial killer, and all it cost him was his self-respect, independence, a few close friends and possibly his soul.

In this case the upgrades were a matter of the boss making Marid his property - they combined significant upgrades with some terrifying loyalty compulsions, if I recall correctly. I've always thought a cranial bomb was a little crude; a permanent solution to a temporary problem. After all, if you give a man a Pain Editor, nobody says you can only reduce his pain. If you give a man a simrig, you decide what dreams he gets to dream with it. If you give a man a personafix, why would you let him take it out? A cranial bomb is the least of your worries.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 20 2009, 08:33 AM

Interesting and totally true in case of mundanes. Awakened Characters however would not completely fit this profile. While augmenting the cybernetically you reduce their magical power.

If a crimelord or any other antagonist would want something of the character and implants him to a) make him compliant B) ensure his survival against the opposition, he would probably weigh the pros and cons of this tactic and do pre-op diagnostics to find out if anyone has problems with 'ware.

Why would he use cyberware anyways, if the Influence Spell is available. Another possibility would be just plain lying to the characters as to what has been done to ensure their cooperation cf. Escape from NY/LA

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 20 2009, 10:25 AM

It's not clear a personafix even requires hardware in SR. The rules for that stuff are 'handwavium' which is the same as 'GM fiat'

Also, fitting a PC with a personafix is the same as killing him, so it's not like it matters.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 20 2009, 01:07 PM

That's a far more concise way of expressing point I was trying to make. Plot happens.
I'm certainly not going to destroy a player outright for his choices, but I'll attack 'em all right. I've got to make him defend those choices to help solidify the character. And if his history is a big blank, then I'll fill it in. And, despite how I may sound when I say so, I ain't mean about it. The reward for a GM is helping develop these characters so that they'll take the story in directions you couldn't even imagine.

Posted by: kzt Oct 20 2009, 04:43 PM

I had an NPC captured once and the plan was to have a simrig implanted in her so they could make "movies".

Posted by: Ravor Oct 20 2009, 06:50 PM

Ok I waited until this morning to respond figuring that you'd all get "mellow, happy Ravor" from flirting with a certain pretty young lady, sadly last night was "interesting" and my exwife is being more of a slitch than normal so ya'll get cranky Ravor instead.

Dakka Dakka your entire post just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. The only thing that I'm going to say about the nonsense of trying to compare the impact of Sensitive System between mundanes and the awakened is so what, take a look at any number of other flaws that effect the Awakened different than mundanes. The comparason between the two Mages is a good point, but my responce is simply to point out that the second Mage got the extra Build Points/Karma from taking teh flaw so it's time for him to pay the piper.

Oh and I frankly don't care whether or not Essence can be regained, with the existance of Essence Holes tis a moot point.


Cthulhudreams are you seriously gonig to claim that you can't think of any reason to implant cyber into someone other than a fragging bomb? Hell, just off the top of my head I can see wanting to implant eyes and ears in order to keep tabs on the perp, commlink/simmodule, 'jacks, and datalocks are also fairly good choices with very little imagination required. And the idea that no-one would do this because it lowers the Mage's Magic, excuse me? The implants I've mentioned have a fairly low Essence cost and the ability to keep your thumb over the Mage is a hell of alot more valuable than the lost Magic would ever be.

As for the idea that capturing someone is done via "fiat" I call bullshit and will leave it at that.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 20 2009, 07:20 PM

Data filters are another one that could easily be considered a mandatory part of an employment contract, particularly since mages are really good at seeing things they're not supposed to. After all, even assensing is pretty useless if you can't remember the results for longer than a couple of minutes.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2009, 07:33 PM

No Argument Here...

As an aside, My character was captured and was forcibly implanted Skill wires (Low Rating) with a Skill Chip and place into a work prison making electronic devices... what a bitch... Still waiting to escape that one...

Anyways... Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 20 2009, 10:57 PM

Well.... all that stuff can be carried externally, I'm not particularly sure why you'd cripple your asset to do that.

Plus, let's imagine you did install all that stuff into a sensative system mage 9remember, what we're discussing) means he's going to lose two points of magic - for the sake of argument taking him from 5 to 3. Costing him 57 Karma to recover from. At 5 karma a session, 1 session fornightly, you've just deleted 5 months of his character advancement.

That is a move I would characterize as 'being a jerk' Does anyone seriously think that taking away 5 months of progression is not a jerk move?



Please, point me towards a published adventure which doesn't explicitly call for you to railroad the PCs into being captured. I'd be extremely interested to see it, because I don't think it exists.

And yes, I call railroading PCs into inescape scenarios 'GM Fiat'

@whipstich - totally, but this discussion isn't about volutary arrangements for money, this is about GMs foisting stuff on players. Foisting data filter on a player mage costs 1 point of essence, or ~25 karma (there is an increased initation cost experinced which is going to be expensive). That's 5 sessions of progress, or 2.5 months.

Again, not a great move. Hell, if you did it to someone in the PbP forums, it means that you've removed more progression than they are likely to experience in the entire game.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 20 2009, 11:43 PM

Cthulhudreams you're kidding right? Are you seriously suggesting that I trust someone that I've captured and forced to work for me to carry around the gear that I'm using to keep tabs on him?

As for published adventures, not sure and I really don't care as I seldom use them and when I do I run everything through a blender at high speed, but as long as the players treat their characters as real people and not a bunch of video game sprites it hardly requires "fiat" to capture them.

And yeah, I consider Senstive System to be a very dangerous flaw for Mages to take, as long as they are able to remain at large it merely limits their growth, but thems the risk when taking a flaw that can directly screw you over so drastically.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 20 2009, 11:53 PM

Sure, you implant a cranial bomb that if it gets out of RFID range of the gear blows up. That's what we call in the business 'a strong incentive to keep carrying it'

This may not be the most mechanically optimal choice, but I'd certainly regard it as preferable to deleting a players character and telling him to restore from a 5 month old backup.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 21 2009, 12:02 AM

Uh-huh, that is perhaps one of the stupidest ideas that I've ever heard, and I used to read Emo's threads. There are so many holes in that theory that the only logical time it would ever be used is if the new bosses didn't have time to implant cyber, and even then it is next to useless.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 21 2009, 01:22 AM

Looking at it in terms of straight opportunity cost like that is a fool's errand though, since .2 Essence loss still leaves you with another .8 worth of essence you can use on other things without losing another die on Magic tests, which really, is often all that point of Magic is really doing for you. The question of whether it's a good idea or not becomes a lot tougher to answer when you consider that an employee with 3 Magic might not be as effective as an employee with 2 Magic, Cerebral Boosters, Retinal Mods and Data Locks and Filters. Not every mage is a unique and special snow flake who can live up to the potential their gift gives them. Some of them are just going to be gifted shlubs who are paid mostly to summon up something with the Movement power. Corps aren't interested in your personal growth as a Magician, they're interested in what you can do for them, which means they may not be willing to wait around to see if your next Astral Vision quest pays off or not.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 01:37 AM

We're not talking about random NPCs though.

We're talking about the actual players in actual games. And seriously, they are unique and special snowflakes, and are not shlubs.

The question is 'if a mage has no cyberware and sensative system, are you really going to enrage him by changing his magic skill from 6 to 4'

I am amazing that you are defending the position 'no, he won't be annoyed and that is totally okay and not a jerk move in any way'

I seriously did not think that anyone could reasonably defend subtracting (in the 6->4 case) 76 points of karma from a player.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 21 2009, 01:43 AM

Except that isn't what people are defending, they are instead defending the idea that flaws can and should have a bite to them in the situations where they come up in and probably that it isn't "fair" to treat someone with kid gloves merely because they decided to take a very bad flaw that they mistakenedly thought was "free points".

Should DMs also hold the hands of players who took other character killing flaws such as uncouth or infirm?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 21 2009, 02:12 AM

Wair... We went from altering one's essence (and subsequent magic rating) to altering skills?

When did that happen?

As an aside, if you don't want or expect your flaws to be used against you, don't take them...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: toturi Oct 21 2009, 02:15 AM

You are right. That is not what they are defending, it is worse, they are advocating what Cthuludreams is talking about.

The GM should enforce the rules. If the situation comes up, and the rule is pertinent, then it should kick in. What he shouldn't be doing is to engineer those situations in response to a perceived "free points" situation.

Perhaps you have an allergy to peanuts, does the divine being make sure every meal(or a significant number) have peanut in them? Maybe if you are in Chicago and the food sources are old, maybe.

You have Sensitive System. Must someone come along to implant you with cyber even if you are not looking for any?


So unless you are into SM, don't take flaws?

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 21 2009, 02:19 AM

I thought the purpose of enforcing a limited BP at character creation was to create a consistent resource pool with which the player expressed their character concept. Positive and Negative qualities can modify this limit to an extent, but in the end the player knows that the amge, street sam, adept, and rigger all had the same tools available during creation. The problem arises when qualities that give the same BP point adjustment have significantly differing impacts on the player character. This imbalance can create up a 70 point starting BP difference in characters, if optimized or exploited appropriately... and I use the word imbalance intentionally, because it isn't balanced across the 7 books available.

Personally, I believe this is ok, provided the GM can use these negative qualities to impact the character in some way. It doesn't have to be disasterous, or frequent, but there should be an impact, either directly through a limitation of the characters options, or a mechanism the GM can introduce in game. Sensitive System is not something the GM can introduce in game, so it has to be a limit the character in some way. As many have pointed out, it could be the inability to implant cybereyes, or forcing the character to depend on bioware for their enhancements. I can understand why some GMs think this isn't on par with the impact of a 40-hour a week day job, or a moderate common allergy, or 3 points of Gremlins, even though they're all 15 points.

This is something we will never come to a concensus about on this forum. It's a situation that'll have to be hanlded on a case by case basis, between the GM and the player. Some GMs may force a Sensitive System to take some cyberware, in which case those eyes will have the same impact on a Mages magic rating as a datajack, so spend that point of essence wisely. Some GMs may stuff a bomb in their head... if the player doesn't walk away from the table, then I'd say that's an implied acceptance of GMs decision. Some GMs mayb just say.. "Uhm, no." And some GMs may just let it slide, since it's not really that important to them, and it doesn't seem to bother the other players either.

Case by case. Table by table. there's been some good suggestions here. Let's not degenerate into a 'my way is better than your way.' Post some suggestions. try not to be overly critical of other people's ideas. We can all help each other out here...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 21 2009, 02:23 AM

No, just expect that they will be used against you... I will quote something that I learned in the HERO system a long time ago, and which I believe that I have seen posted here:

"A Flaw that is not a Flaw is not worth any points."

Now, that being said... you can go overboard trying to compensate for Flaws (I have seen a lot of "dick" moves posted on how to control them in game)... most of them will turn around and bite the character in the ass without the GM ever trying to be rude about it... some of them are there strictly for roleplaying purposes, and add depth to a character... Bottom line is that if you, as a GM, do not like a specific Flaw, don't allow it into the game... if you allow it into the game, don't complain when someone takes it and you have a hard time integrating it into the storyline somehow...

Keep the Faith

Damn... Ninja'd by Cheshyr...

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 21 2009, 03:01 AM

Lot of angry people in here. Let's all take a step back and take a deep breath, okay?

If I remember correctly, this whole argument started like this: Degausser asked for advice concerning flaws that appeared to have no enforceable game effect - a prejudice at a level that somehow had a threshold 0 to resist. That turned into a discussion of other 'free' BPs at character creation, and somebody brought up Sensitive System, claiming that it was 'free' for mages. There was, as always, much dissent. Somebody suggested that they would only allow it on people who had cybernetics installed, so it could never be a 'free' flaw. Dissent grew. Many people argued that Sensitive System would never be 'free', since most mages will break down and cyber up at some point. Other people pointed out the GM's ability to bring 'free' flaws into the forefront of the campaign to force players to earn their points. Then a long and angry discussion about whether forced cyber implantation was a way to make players earn their points.

Now everybody hates each other forever.

The first question here, if I read this correctly, is are there flaws which give BP with little or no impact on the character? Some are certainly worse then others. I'd much rather take Sensitive System on my Rigger then a 15 point Gremlins - and come to think of it, I did.

Is the GM allowed to deny players access to flaws during the character approval stage? It's completely his call. If he has a problem, he should certainly bring it up, and listen to the players when he does. It's possible they have a good reason for it, or even expect to be hindered by it in ways the GM hadn't considered.

If a player insists on taking an action the GM strongly advises against, is that going to bite him in the ass? Seriously, has it ever *not* gone that way?


I think all the arguments about game mechanics, greedy players and evil GMs are kind of secondary to these three main issues: Are some of the flaws unwelcome in some games, does the GM get to make that call, and should the players expect the GM to point it out when they make a mistake? I say yes to all three. That said, all that needs to happen here is for the GM to pull the player aside (during the point in character creation set aside for exactly this) and come to an agreement.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 21 2009, 03:11 AM

I agree 100% that character creation is when those issues should be brought up.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 03:31 AM

Exactly - the guy deliberately trying to put players who take Incompetence: Artisan into death traps is just being a jerk - if you don't like it, tell the player up front. No-one is so unreasonable that they won't listen to you telling them that.

Why subject them to an endless series of deathtraps instead over a 5BP negative quality?



No, that's exactly what you are advocating. I'm not the guy who suggested forcible implanting of cyberware into sensitive system mages!

DMs shouldn't 'hold peoples hands' they should just talk straight to their players. If you think it is character killing, you just tell them that. Straight up. Say "Sorry, you cannot use infirm or uncouth in my game, it doesn't fit with how I run." It's not hard. Don't come up with extremely contrived situations like

"Well, Ares captures you, then for some stupid assed reason they install you with some cyberware that costs like 10k nuyen, then they set you free (?) and blackmail you into doing some job." Holy shit, your players are shadowrunners, i.e. people they commit crimes for money. Ares could have just offered the team 10k to do the damn job. Why inflict stupid bollocks on your characters because you don't like their choice of disadvantage?

Seriously, all the 'well, lets unreasonably punish players for taking disadvantages, yeah, that'll be awesome' GMs here are just being passive aggressive jerks.

It's especially hilarious given the disadvantages themselves are so unbalanced.



The disadvantages are SERIOUSLY unbalanced. Hunted is a total joke of a disadvantage. You're a criminal who regularly commits crimes against the actual state. So functionally having and not having hunted leads to exactly the same situation.

The -10 for hacker ones are also extremely unbalanced, in that they are way harsh, but the -5 point ones for non hackers are basically irrelevant and will never have a meaningful impact unless the player does weird stuff.

This is why you really have to wonder when you're getting super excited about the mage taking sensative system. Not only is sensative system materially impacting options he wants to take (cybereyes), it's hardly the most imbalanced of the disadvantages.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 21 2009, 03:38 AM

Yeah, it's basically the most important statement in this thread. A GM who's out to make an example of a sheet often isn't all that much more fun than running with a munchkin.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 03:46 AM

Yeah, rule 1 of GMing: Get the players in a room. Decide what style and tempo and powerlevel of game you want to play.

If you as the GM wanted to run 'Gutterpunks incorporated' and all the players ask for James Bond the international jetset, you need to actually cut a deal - and that deal will inform what you can do. The infirm hacker archetype is actually a feature of Gutterpunks Incorporated in books, but it certainly doesn't feature in 'James Bond style international jet set' games. Rivals: The crips works for one game, but not the other.

To me 90% of 'I hate player XYZ complaints' are caused by abject failure to have this discussion in advance and figure out that you wanted to play 28 days later, and the player was expecting Left 4 Dead.

Posted by: Ayeohx Oct 21 2009, 04:07 AM

Brother, it all depends on your players. If they are not roleplayers then you have to enforce these disadvantages yourself as they'll never take responsibility of them and, if you can't handle it, which I TOTALLY understand, then ask them to ditch the disadvantages. Of course, you could view it as free points too. And you can just bring it to the players and tell them that in these circumstances they need to be proactive about roleplaying their disadvantages. All your call man.

Posted by: Cain Oct 21 2009, 04:27 AM

The original Harlequin campaign. It said explicitly: If the PC's escape, they escape. Go on to the next section.

Back on topic: Overzealously enforcing flaws is just a jerk move. Talk to your players, and find out not only how often they want their flaws to come up, but how it'll happen. Sometimes they'll RP it out themselves, so you'll never need to bring it up. You don't have to take their suggestions, but it certainly helps, and it can make things more fun overall.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 04:38 AM

Noooo, my entire point invalidated. Actually not really, the getting captured thing isn't exactly plot critical and goes to my point - PCs won't get captured unless railroaded.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 21 2009, 04:48 AM

Wait, what?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 05:00 AM

Look it boils down to this:

When you want to capture PCs, you need opposition that is almost, but not quite, lethal. To weak and the PCs will kill it. Too strong and the PCs will die. Also the opposition has to have the PCs in a situation where the PCs cannot retreat or escape. (PCs are usually crack at SERE).

Finding the 'sweet spot' and actually capturing the PCs is almost impossible unless you're just changing it up on the fly - or more commonly using totally overwhelming force or starting in media res in a situation where escape is impossible. If the PCs cannot use smarts and avoid the situation, escape or fight there way out, it is blatant railroading.

Say in WEG starwars, at least one of the published adventures had the PCs start in a 'no escape' situation, and in one of the others, you're hyperdriving and random into an interdictor cruiser with the ultimatum of 'surrender or die'. Both of which are blatant railroading as there is zip the PCs can do about that.

Posted by: Nimblegrund Oct 21 2009, 05:27 AM

Well, here is a possible solution/compromise.

In the old World of Darkness games, flaws worked quite similarly to Shadowrun's Negative Qualities do. The New WOD has found a solution that I think is quite elegant.

Basically, you can take as many flaws at character creation as you like. You can have them as mild or as harsh as you like. These could be anywhere from "Wears prescription eyeglasses" to "Absolutlely terrified of cats."

At character creation, you get nothing for your flaws. Flaws don't really come into play until the game starts. If, during the course of the game, your flaw presents itself as a real, tangible hinderance to your character, you get a bonus XP.

For example: Bob is an Elf Poser.

In the first few sessions, nobody notices that Bob isn't really an elf. No bonus karma.

The next session, Bob gets found out by the group's mage, Steve, who happens to be an elf. Steve just rolls his eyes, smiles, and says nothing. Bob still gets no bonus Karma. Steve apparently doesn't care, other than finding it slightly amusing. As there has been no tangible detriment to Bob, he gets no bonus Karma.

The next session, Mr. Johnson just so happens to be an elf, and again, finds out that Bob is a poser. Mr. Johnson curls his lip at the poser. On the surface, again, nothing happened. But after negotiations are over, the GM reveals that the team probably could have gotten a better deal if it weren't for Johnson's disgust of Bob, so for this session, Bob gets the bonus Karma.

One more example. Larry has gremlins rating 2. He is trying to use some technological doohickey, and is rolling 8 dice. Ordinarily, he would glitch by rolling 4 1's, but because he has gremlins 2 he glitches on 2 1's.

On his first roll, he rolls 5 1's. Obviously he glitches, but he gets no bonus karma, because he would have gotten a glitch anyway without the flaw.
On his next roll, he rolls 3 1's. He would get a karma this time, because he wouldn't have glitched if it weren't for his gremlins flaw.

Now, I am not sitting in front of my WOD book, but if I am not mistaken, bonus xp from having a flaw is limited to 1/session, just so it can't be exploited by doing things like repeatedly trying to glitch using gremlins to rack up large karma bonuses... so choose your flaws with care.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 21 2009, 06:46 AM

Wow. Just...wow.

I'm all for roleplaying the flaws, and even having them show up as often as it seems funny for them to do so, but... Surely some player out there deliberately took something that would hinder the game just so they can get emotional about their struggle and earn XP.

Any time a flaw comes up is already an opportunity to impress the group with humor or drama, which IIRC is already on the list of things that might earn you Karma. Prejudice: Ambershard Dwarf Clan (They ruined me clan! Me father stopped drinking over it!) *Ding*


I *do* like taking the character background stuff out of the point-buy system, but maybe I'm too much of a roleplayer at heart.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 21 2009, 06:49 AM

Sorry Cthulhudreams but if you'd actually read what I've wrote you'd see that the only thing I'm "advocating" is that all of the characters should be treated the same, the guy with Sensitive System doesn't get off "scot free" by having his new employers implant a bomb and tell him to lug around a microphone and camera when the same character without Sensitive System would have been fitted with cybereyes and ears as well as said bomb because it's more effective and much, much harder to fool. Whether or not said character is Awakened or not doesn't matter to me either.

And once again, the only way you have to "fiat" a capture by designing the opposing force to be "just right" is if you have some piss poor players who treat the characters like video game sprites who would rather fight to the death as oppose to lay down arms and live to fight another day.

As for the entire blackmail vs simply paying them, suprisingly enough, I kindof sortof agree with you, most of the time, simply paying the Runners off would be the better choice, but they are times when a heavier hand is needed as well.




Oh, and toturi for once I think I may actually agree with you, provided that you'd also follow the rules and not have your NPCs decide to go soft on said character by not installing cyber if that is indeed what they would do otherwise, I'm not talking about "punishing" a Player for taking an unwise flaw by making damn sure that he gets cybered in the campaign, I'm simply not pulling my punches because of his poor choice in flaws.

Posted by: Nimblegrund Oct 21 2009, 07:09 AM

No, you wouldn't get xp for that. Not unless his prejudice actually hindered that character in some tangible way. Wailing in angst wouldn't be worth any karma. That's just roleplaying.

Now if the above character, in the middle of a run, happened to see a memeber of the Ambershard Clan, and endangered himself and his mission to take his revenge, he would get Karma. (think Marty McFly from Back to the Future... any time someone called him "Chicken" and he acted out on it, he would get Karma.) But just Boo-Hooing his character history is not only annoying, but also not worthy of Karma.

Rule of thumb: If it "hurts", it was worth karma.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 21 2009, 07:09 AM

I sort of assumed that "Death Traps" was hyperbole. But I still would never consider Incompetence to be free points.

How would Incompetence: Artisan come up in my game? Well, what it implies is that the character is completely incapable of singing a song, drawing a line, imagining a scene, writing believable dialogue, coming up with a story. This character is incapable of creativity. If the player plays his character in this way - is willing to - I've got no problems with it. If he comes up with clever ideas and shares them, then it's bad roleplaying and that's potential karma down the tubes.




But, again, it is you who is arguing that you can not possibly forcibly implant cyberware into someone because they are a mage and especially because they have taken a negative quality that might negatively impact them. Sometimes a story involves bad things happening to the runners. Crime isn't a glass elevator to success. There are plenty of pitfalls to affect the players and one of those pitfalls is essence loss. And when a player chooses to double their susceptibility to that pitfall, he risks double the damage. It is something that can come up, and, by taking the quality, the player is outright suggesting it.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 07:12 AM

It actually says in the setting material that when people without SINs are caught by the corporations they are illegally killed/'disappeared' rather than going to trial. Why would shadowrunners expect to survive getting caught and instead keep trying until they die to run?

The videogame character response is to surrender, because you're trading on meta knowledge that the GM won't Total Party Kill you.

Finally ravor: You're advocating taking 5-6 months off character progress off your players - which is way disproportionate to the cost of the flaw. A 10 BP disadvantage is supposed to be worth 10 BP (or 20 karma). Taking 50! karma off someone is just.. what the hell? Especially considering he still has the disadvantage at the end of that.

Yeah, pretty much it's a total jerk move. You're taking 6 months progress (6 months!) off someone for no real reason (as pointed out, it makes no sense to capture a mage and implant them with cyberware), while the guy who took distinctive style or Hung out to dry is twiddling his fingers. Or he's taken allergy: Gold and just doesn't wear gold underwear.

Allergy: Gold is actually in the book, on the sample characters.

I just cannot understand the desire to gut your players for 50 karma for no obvious reason. It's not that it might negatively impact them, you are wrecking their character. Sensitive system is more than balanced by the reduced opportunity to take stuff that is good for mages.

Posted by: toturi Oct 21 2009, 07:21 AM

Well, I am not too sure about the PCs, but IIRC the most professional of NPC Grunts(Ratings 5 and 6) are supposed to fight to the death or at least until incapacitated.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 21 2009, 07:35 AM

As long as it is artistic creativity that is correct but if you extrapolate that to any skill or use of skill this is blowing the flaw out of proportion. A character with Incompetence: Artisan could design cars but what would come out would probably be an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Edsel or a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla. Creative planning and problem solving shouldn't be out of reach for the character either.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 21 2009, 07:36 AM

Nice try, but what the setting actually says is that SINless who don't have something that the corps want can and do "get disappeared", and as you've pointed out in this very thread, Shadowrunners usually have something that the corps want and so aren't nearly as likely to meet that fate.

Not at my table you don't bet against TPKs using metagaming knowledge, I'll gladly kill you all if I think it is what the NPCs would do in that situation.

As for your last point, once again, so what? If you don't want to take the chance of having a flaw bite you in the ass then don't take said flaw, my NPCs don't care either way and niether do I. Although if I were worried about balancing the costs of the flaws AND if I agreed with your numbers I'd figure that the reason Senstive System is only worth twenty karma is the fact that the character only has a risk of lost as opposed to a certainly of it. Your mage could go the entire campaign without having cyber forcibly implanted if he is smart in which case it could be argued that he got free points, but the chance still exists that he might lose a point or two of magic.

*EDIT*

Oh, and as I've pointed out, there are times that it makes perfect sense to cyber a mage, especially with things that make it easier to keep tabs on him.

*EDIT 2.0*

And I don't agree that even if the Mage lost fifty karma that his character is "wrecked" or ruined at all. Sure one-trick-ponies are going to be more hurt than a reasonably built character but even they can get back on their feet and make their newfound freedom work for them by implanting choice cyber/bio into their shiny new Essence hole.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 21 2009, 07:56 AM

So you're totally okay with making one guy at your table play with a character that is worth 375 BP while everyone else plays with a 400 BP character? I'll be upfront and say that is exactly the situation we are discussing.

Now for some logic to support that statement you subscribe to one of the following positions

1) Oppotunities are not worth anything - which you need to hold to say that Sensative system with no cyberwere is free points - in which case you are completely screwing the guy by removing 25 BP/50 karma

2) Oppotunities are worth something - which you need to hold to say that it's not that bad, because he get get stuff installed - but that means that you are riding this guy like a little bitch because his disadvantage was worth the closed oppotunity of getting cyberware, so you're double charging him for a disadvantage that he'd already paid for!

Whichever position you hold, you're really nailing this guy. You're completely shafting him, because you're making him pay twice for a disadvantage he keeps at the end of the process! Yeah!

What? The corps can get what they want off any shadowrunners - any particular shadowrunner the corps capture is totally interchangeable and completely valueless. If they've captured some, presumably it was because the shadowrunners were trying to do something to them. Then it's entirely worthwhile to kill them (to make the cost higher when the opposite johnson wants to hire a second team), and you just go hire someone else. After all the guys you've got in the cells are bad otherwise they wouldn't have got caught. Why wouldn't you just kill them? Any situation to keep them alive to do some other shit other than mind rip then execute them is a total joke.

@Saint: As I pointed out before, you are doing one of the other passive aggressive jerk moves - you're making a 5 BP disadvantage completely crippling because you don't like it. Being unable to come up with some fast talk when asked by the cop what do you think you're doing renders you completely unable to function as a shadowrunner AND has nothing at all to do with the Artisan skill. All it does is make him unable to paint a work of art, or do a performance of a song. Zilch to do with coming up with a creative infilitration route of the Renraku facility.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 21 2009, 02:36 PM

Kind of like the Millenium Falcon going to Alderan with Luke and Ben (and the Droids) and finding it destroyed, eventually getting snagegd by the death star... absolutely nothing that they could do about it, and yet it was an essential plot point of the movie (Rescuing Leah)... without the ship's capture, Leah would have died...

Have a little faith in your Gamemaster there....

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Ravor Oct 21 2009, 04:00 PM

In a classless free form system such as Shadowrun yeah I have no problem whatsoever about someone being worth less Karma then someone else, after all I doubt you have a problem with someone playing a 400 Buildpoint character while everyone else plays a character ranging from 405-435 Buildpoints because they choose to take flaws.

On the other hand, YOU are saying that somehow the Universe should coddle a character by making sure that his defects don't "overly" hinder him, hell that is just as stupid as the people who want the Universe to force someone who can't hold a note sing for his life just for the sake of doing so. -- Disclaimer -- On the other hand, if the events that led to a Runner having to sing for his life actually made sense then he is rightly boned, I just don't see that as likely happening outside of James' Bond Land.

As for your "logical" trains of thought, I don't care about either, I didn't force the character in question to take that (or any) flaw and I don't care whether or not he is getting shafted on point costs, just as it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if he had gone the entire campaign avoiding implanting a single piece of cyberware. *EDIT* On the other hand I also don't buy the idea that it somehow "ruins", "wrecks", "gimps", or otherwise makes the character unplayable either. */EDIT*


As for the reasons to use captured Runners as opposed to simply hiring someone else, well firstly we've been told time and time again that there aren't really all that many "real" Runners, secondly it is probably cheaper since the Runner's freedom is part of the payment, and thirdly the Runners aren't really in a position to say no so the corp can get them to do things that they wouldn't normally be willing to partake in, after "suitable" measures to ensure that they stay on task are taken of course.

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 21 2009, 05:44 PM

That might be how it works in the World of Darkness...what I was pointing out is on pg 269 of SR4a, where they explain the extra Karma awards suggested for Good Roleplaying & Humor and Drama. Marty could have earned a point for either when those situations come up, so there are some overlaps in the SR4/WoD rules.

The part of the WoD ruleset that terrifies me is "endangered himself and his mission to take his revenge" being rewarded. The last thing I want to do is get my players looking for ways to wreck the game because it's worth points.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 21 2009, 06:18 PM

I'm not trying to say an uncreative character can't fast talk if he's got con skill. Dice are dice. What I'm suggesting is that artisan covers all creative disciplines, from writing to sculpting to music, and Incompetence suggests that a person is fundamentally flawed such that no amount of instruction or practice can ever allow them to do this thing. So, the player has chosen to play a character who couldn't tell a story to save his life. Someone who is so artistically, well, incompetent, that he couldn't tell you whether Transformers 2 was better than The Godfather. (Hell, I bet we all know someone like that.) Anyway, I expect a character like that to act a certain way, and if he acts contrary, he is forfeiting karma. That's why it's a disadvantage.
And, really, what is the difference between telling a good story and coming up with a good plan? Good ideas, that's another matter, but plans are fiction in form and, usually, function.


I will now preform for you a play entitled "Why I would never allow a player to take Incompetence: Heavy Weapons"

Guy 1: Hey Guy!
Guy 2: Howdy.
Guy 1: I just got this wicked Shiawase Blazer; you should check this bad boy out.
Guy 2: Is that like a fancy jacket or something?
Guy 1: No man, it's a gun.
Guy 2: Ok, so what's so awesome about this gun?
Guy 1: It shoots FIRE!
Guy 2: I can shoot fire with my gun too. It just seems like a waste of bullets.
Guy 1: Nooooo! It doesn't shoot bullets into fires - The fire comes out of the gun and burns people.
Guy 2: Ya lost me.
Guy 1: Ok, so you know how a gun has a barrel and a trigger?
Guy 2: Yeah..
Guy 1: And you point the barrel at someone and pull the trigger?
Guy 2: Yeah...
Guy 1: And then bullets come out of the gun and hit the guy?
Guy 2: I know how guns work..
Guy 1: Okay okay.. So a flamethrower has a barrel and a trigger.
Guy 2: Right..
Guy 1: And you point the barrel at someone and pull the trigger.
Guy 2: Okay..
Guy 1: And then "fire" comes out of the gun and hits the guy.
Guy 2: So what. My gun fires just fine.
Guy 1: Nooo, not just gunfire! this gun fires FIRE.
Guy 2: Ya lost me.

30 minutes later:
Guy 1: So you see, it shoots out a stream of gel-ified gasoline.
Guy 2: Like a full auto burst of gel or capusle rounds?
Guy 1: No, like water from a hose.
Guy 2: But then doesn't the water mess up the bullets?
Guy 1: Perhaps a demonstration is in order.
Guy 2: Whoa, don't point that thing at me; I don't wanna get shot!
Guy 1: There's no bullets in this thing.
Guy 2: Oh, okay..
Guy 1: Yeah. Just hold still, and.. I promise, no bullets.

TL;DR = Incompetent implies a deficiency, like autism. It puts an active skill into the realm of incomprehensible for a character. I wouldn't prohibit any player from taking such a flaw, but, like always, I would expect him to understand that this isn't just an entry on a spread sheet, it is a facet of a personality. It should be accounted for and role-played. And yeah, I know flamethrowers aren't considered heavy weapons. It's just funnier that way. "It's like a rifle but with bigger bullets," is just sad.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 21 2009, 06:25 PM

Either I'm not understanding something, or we're running the game very differently. If your goal is to capture the PCs - your goal as GM, and the security guards' goal as opposition - then why would that opposition be even remotely close to lethal? Shadowrun possesses a vast array of non-lethal weapons, many of them more effective than their lethal counterparts, and none of which require railroading to make use of. That's utterly purposeful on the parts of the designers, who as far as I can tell wanted to reward players for not playing mass-murderers, and wanted to give the characters second chances: instead of getting killed constantly, they can get captured, and try to effect escape.

If you can't capture a group of PCs without railroading them, revisit the sourcebooks, or start a thread here asking for suggestions. It's not only not impossible, not only not difficult, it's often easier than killing them would be.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 21 2009, 06:27 PM

I have to disagree with you here...

Art is ART not Engineering or Physics or Tactics... it is ART... so a character that is incompetent in the ARTISAN skill is just that... he can't hold a note, has two left feet for ballet, has no concept of scupture or how to lay paint on canvas, etc... it has nothing whatsoever to do with disciplines or other "artistic" applications that fall outside of the ARTISAN Skill (such as Engineering Design, or Architecture, etc.)... Having an artistic bent will definitely help here, but since it is a completely different skill ion Shadowrun, it will not hurt to have an incompetence in the Artisan Skill...

Just Saying...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 21 2009, 09:01 PM

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that I would not award optional karma points to a player who took that flaw and then operates in a manner not in keeping with how I envision a character utterly incapable of and uninterested in artistic expression. See, I consider creative writing to be a form of artistry, therefore it follows that I would expect such a character to have a limited capacity for creative articulation. Of course I would let the person making the character sheet know how I see such a flaw impacting his personality during character design, but that difficulty in roleplaying is the disadvantage I see here. It is a limitation on how a character can express himself and still remain "in character." In fact, staying in character is the real difficulty imposed by all incompetence flaws. Because "not expecting to ever have to do something" is not the same as "totally incapable of doing something no matter how hard or how long you try to learn it."

So sure, a character with this flaw can take leadership and learn tactics, or take con and learn to fleece people. But I expect his tactics to be efficient ones that sound like they came from a book, and I expect his lies to be formulated tropes specifically chosen to be most suitable for his mark.

For example, if he was planning to infiltrate a building, I'd expect such a character to show up at the front door wearing a guard uniform and spouting the tired old "I'm new here" shtick. It's the most appropriate plan for a guy carrying a gun into a building. If instead he decides to cause a back up in their sewer lines and come dressed up like a repair worker while everyone in the building is forced to wear gas masks, then that's starting to get clever. He had better phrase his suggestions in such a way as to show that this is some time tested technique employed by the CIA since the days of Oceans 11. or whatever.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 21 2009, 09:10 PM

To Each his own I guess... I just think that it is a bit of a leap to say that since I am not artistically inclined that I cannot come up with a good plan for infiltrating a facility... There is a disconnect here that I am painfully aware of, and I am confused as to why you don't see it... I have seen some brilliant Electrical Engineers that could not sing their way out of a paperbox...

Maybe you do, and it works for you, but wow...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 21 2009, 10:38 PM

Agreed.
I guess we differ on the definition of telling a story. The artistically incompetent character could give a more ore less accurate (a function of perception and memory) account of what happened, but he could not weave a story that captivates an audience/the readers.
I also agree with that.
Ideas and plans based on those ideas are determined by the capability to think logically, so the artistically inept is at no particular disadvantage. The presentation of such ideas and plans however would be lacking. Also convincing others of this plan shouldn't be much of a problem if the character has the appropriate social skills.


I LOLed. Kinda reminds me of that sketch with George W. Bush and Condoleeza rice about Mr. Hu and Mr. Arafat

I know. That's what I don't like bout the flaw. I would have preferred something along the lines of "not good at a certain skill no matter how hard he tries". Maybe a negative dice pool modifier or a higher cost to increase the skill or both. BTW what does TL;DR = mean?
When and if it comes up it should be somehow roleplayed. Whether that's telling everyone how stupid a game of pictionary is or conveniently being absent from the karaoke bar or confessing that one is unable to perform that feat it does not matter.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 21 2009, 10:44 PM

I don't see how that means that they are completely incapable of comprehending the process of artistic expression. Just because they can't sing doesn't mean they'll never whittle or play "Mary had a Little Lamb" or write Star Trek erotic fanfiction. And it certainly doesn't mean they couldn't if they tried. The presence of art is requisite to all genius. But that's not to say you can't have logic, efficiency and skill without it.

edt:
TL;DR means "Too Long; Didn't Read" It's the typical response to the WALL O TEXT, and, when included in a long post, is used to denote the short version/core argument.

Posted by: Traul Oct 21 2009, 10:55 PM

Do you know Google has 133 000 results for this?
/* shudder */

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 21 2009, 11:00 PM

And yeah, I agree that the problem with the incompetence flaw largely has to do with the way it's worded and described. Frankly, I don't see why it should have EVER included the concept of ignorance. After all, Knowledge Skills are not candidates for the flaw, only Active skills. Having a character who simply cannot succeed at a roll for whatever reason isn't really that hard to fathom provided that the GM and players are given enough wiggle room to play it off however they like. For example, an Incompetent: Etiquette character blowing the meet by pissing off the Oyabun by being as shmuck is one thing, but saying that he wouldn't really even understand why someone would at least make an effort is another thing entirely.

"The presence of art is requisite to all genius."

Don't agree here. At all.

Posted by: Nimblegrund Oct 21 2009, 11:40 PM

SR's Karma system and WOD's XP system pretty much both work the same way. Under the WOD system, you would get a point of xp for roleplaying in addition to your flaw xp as well, if your flaw involved roleplaying.

It sounds chaotic, but it honestly works pretty well. As much as they want that extra point of Karma at the end of the session, they ALSO want to survive to the end of the session. Players don't like to fail. They like to be challenged, they like to struggle against the odds (even if that struggle is against themselves), but they don't like to fail. So any roleplaying of the flaw is going to be tempered by that. Plus GM's obviously have a certain degree of control over the flaws as well. If a character goes into epileptic seizures whenever he sees bright lights, he isn't going to be constantly throwing flash grenades into his face unless he A) thinks the character can overcome the flaw and still succeed, or B) he is a total jerk and wants to see the PC's suffer, in which case you have greater issues in the game.

One way to look at it is that these are called "flaws" for a reason. Flaws are meant to be punished. If they don't prove to be any sort of detriment at all to the character, then it wasn't really a flaw, now was it? This way a flaw is only worth the amount it hinders you; no more, no less.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 21 2009, 11:51 PM

The lateralization of brain function? A good plan may well be "creative," in the sense that it's projecting reality into possibility, but it requires a completely different sort of brain function than artistic expression. I would certainly rule in my own game that an inability in artistic expression would have no effect on linear reasoning.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 22 2009, 05:30 AM

Yeah, the most suitable measure is installing a personafix that removes the character from use as a PC. Again, I'm still confused why you have corporations capture people then let them go in a world that has actual mind control, then say I'm gamist. Getting captured = GG for PCs.

Sorry, doesn't stack up.



We totally are, if my PCs are in situations where they cannot 'hide in a crowd' they use respirators and chem seals routinely, making the squirt gun and gas routes almost obslete - part of the reason they do is that CS gas is routinely used by them to deny the area! Stick and shock can definately work but it's often hard to engage PCs in a gun fight - mine will run away if opposition that can actually hurt them turns up, and are typically careful to make sure they can scamper before it does.

Then the second part is - Shadowrun has a variety of ultra sophsticated restraints. You can dump all prisoners in VR and remove their actual muscle control. I'm not sure how people can even realistically escape.



Actually I do, it's a major power disparity. I encourage people to take 35 points of flaws, and if they don't feel there are ones suitable for the concept, I'll try and work something out. I tend not to worry to much though as I discount skills so people's core areas run into caps before they run out of points, and if the differences are not in the characters primary 'shtick' I don't mind.

I also have BP advancement when I run for the same reason, to prevent characters at different power levels. Keep everyone in a niche and on par is important when telling a co-operative story to ensure spotlight time can be evenly chopped up.

Posted by: Nimblegrund Oct 22 2009, 07:32 AM

If it were me, I would sidestep the whole issue by just giving them the 35 BP carte blanche, and then forbid the flaws entirely. If they are just going to take nannerpuss flaws, why bother?

Posted by: toturi Oct 22 2009, 07:59 AM

While I also encourage my players to take as much Negative Qualities as their characters' concepts can take, it is up to my players whether they do so. I point out certain Qualities like Day Job or Sensitive System and allow them to make their choices. But I do point out that they probably won't be able to get away 100% scot-free.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 22 2009, 09:46 AM

I don;t let people take day job, it just interfers with story telling pointlessly.

It makes people write a backstory to explain who is hunting them and why they were hung out to dry by the Yakuza. Suddenly Jimmy the hacker because Jimmy the ex-Yakuza assassination squad member who was kicked out because it came to light his mother is a korean prostitute. For which they get 35 BP. It keeps the power gamers and the more roleplay focused games happy and gives the GM some stuff to work with.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 22 2009, 02:16 PM

This cannot be stressed enough... Flaws shouls give your GM something to work with from your backstory...Plot hooks abound within the Negative Qualities...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 22 2009, 04:34 PM

I think this story probably the most productive thing this thread has generated.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 22 2009, 05:30 PM

And stun spells? Gel rounds? How are the PCs scampering if the opposition controls the location - which one presumes they would, given that it's their ground to defend?

Look, I'm not saying PCs stand no chance against anyone who wants to capture them. I'm also not saying PCs can never be captured without the GM railroading them, as you are. I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable for security guards to stand a good chance of capturing PCs with the proper training, equipment, and tactics. Your statement that PCs simply cannot ever be captured without railroading is simply and plainly false, unless you are running security guards and other opposition as ill-equipped, ill-trained morons without proper support and backup, in which case...what's the challenge of the run? If they can't possibly be knocked unconscious or captured, it stands to reason they can't possibly be killed, either, since the non-lethal measures work just as well if not better than the lethal ones; is there simply no reasonable opposition in your game?

If there isn't, that's perfectly valid, but you're running a game very different from the games others are running, and that should be made clear.

CorpSec - the sourcebook, that is - made an excellent point: the hard part about designing security in Shadowrun is not constantly killing or capturing the PCs. When I'm GMing, I have to moderate my possibilities with budget constraints and human flaws just to keep from having every hallway become a possible killing ground.


That's a very good point. Assuming that particular location has that equipment - not unreasonable in many, if not most, cases - I don't know how the PCs escape without outside assistance, either, although if it came up, I suspect I'd make an adventure out of it, in which the players slowly begin to realize they're being held in a virtual prison, and work to mentally free themselves. It probably wouldn't be in accord with the rules, but I bet my players would have fun.


You don't feel it can add more depth and possibility to the character's backstory and ongoing plots regarding that character? Strange.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 22 2009, 06:06 PM

It can, but whether that NERPS brings enough flavor to the campaign to be worth the bother is another matter. For the most part, I think it tends to be more trouble than it's worth. If one of my ideas for the next run is sending the PCs into the NAN territories to poach a rare and protected Awakened critter for material components, I don't really want to deal with the fact that the Samurai has to be back by Friday night so he can boot unruly patrons from the local dive for 250 nuyen a weekend. I've made the quality work out OK in the past, but overall it's hard to keep a mundane 5 bp job flaw operating as an interesting plot hook AND mild inconvenience. Any roleplaying benefit you can think of can be just as easily established by asking your runners to explain what they like to do in their free time besides "practice."

Posted by: Cheshyr Oct 22 2009, 06:41 PM

In exploring the negative qualities, I'm noticing patterns in their practical application. I'm going to suggest that they fall in specific categories:

- Direct Impact
- Decision Limitations
- Development Limitations
- Backstory Hooks

Direct Impact:
These flaws tend to be hard dice pool modifications for a given situation. Examples like Astral Beacon, Bad Luck, Gremlins, and Low Pain Tolerance. Outside of these specific situations, they really have no impact on the game. The player knows exactly where and how it's going to hurt, and can actively work to mitigate the damage. Likewise, the GM can easily use these flaws to adjust the difficulty of an encounter.

Decision Limitations:
These tend to be a little trickier. It is entirely possible that these flaws never come up in gameplay. Instead, they impose boundries on the characters actions, and inflict penalties if the character chooses to cross them. Examples include Aspected Magician and Sensitive System. The player generally has to decide if and when to self-inflict these penalties. The GM doesn't really have control over these flaws, but can use gear rewards and circumstances to tempt the player into a difficult decision.

Development Limitations:
These tend to be much harder limits on the character. Examples would be Incompetence, Borrowed Time, Pacifist, and Illiterate. Again, the player has the majority of the control with regards to impact, but the GM doesn't have to expend much effort for these flaws to come into play either.

Backstory Hooks:
Not surprisingly, this category contains the largest number and broadest spread of flaws. Day Job, Enemy, SINner, Records on File, Wanted... the list goes on. I'd also put the majority of the addictions in this category. These are meaningful for both background and plot hooks. The player can use this to give their character a realistic background, while the GM has a variety of plot hooks available to engage the player.

----
My point in categorizing this is so GMs can understand what the player is offering, and adjust the story to take advantage of them appropriately. Likewise, the player can use their flaws as a way to indicate to the GM what type of game they want to play, and how much involvement they want from the GM in terms of character development. It's almost an implicit form of communication between the group members.

Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 22 2009, 07:12 PM

Cthulhudreams because I don't believe that the "mind control" that exists in the Sixth World is really all that valid for use against Runners if you want them to still be able to do their jobs. P-Fixes aren't really effective if you want your asset to be able to think on his feet and the examples that I recall of Psych-IC involve either destorying the Decker's ability to deck or merely grant some border case mental change ( Only buying Big A's products is an example I remember reading somewhere. ) but I don't think that the corps can do both.

As for the rest about power levels and such, meh, I can't say much other than I totally and completely disagree in every way possible and yes I consider you to be a gamist on these merits alone even if we agreed on everything else.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 22 2009, 08:07 PM

Here's an example of a day job gone right:
I have a player who can't make all the games all the time. He can make most of the games most of the time though, so it's all good. But, to accommodate for the fact that he's going to be irregularly absent we decided that we'd build a character who is sometimes just not there. So, playing up his strong points, we decided to make a Metasapient AI character with a regular Day Job. The character's concept is that it is a part of the Internet Movie Database that has gained sentience. It has been sentient for less than two years, but, in that time, it has managed to watch over 160 years of film, TV, trid and sim. As such, it has a completely warped view of how reality works, (since it's only seen 18 months of actual real life in comparison to scads of movies and shows,) and consequently follows around the Runner team since they represent the most familiar portrayal of reality as he understands it. So, he swarms them with scads of Fly-Spys and provides overwatch in the form of Stage Direction. Also, he does things like interfering with drones and guards to make sure none of the "main characters" gets shot until at least halfway through the 2nd act, or deciding that the run isn't getting exciting enough and calling the cops for a good chase scene. Yeah, thoroughly annoying but useful. And when he can't make it to a session (or it's between certain hours,) then the AI is just recompiling or at its day job, administering chatrooms and such for the IMDB. Works out pretty alright.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 22 2009, 08:13 PM

There is always vacation time and sick leave to utilize...

Just Sayin'

Keep the Faith

Posted by: MikeKozar Oct 22 2009, 09:33 PM

That is bloody ingenious.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 22 2009, 11:45 PM

Every single security guard (hell, every single person) has the technology on his belt. It is more common than handcuffs! You just duct tape your commlink and trodes to them instead of you, dial in a sim module via the matrix if you don't have one handy and then you're done. You then control it via AR.

It's universally available and would always be used in the restraint of perps.



While this can be fun, it is also the railroading I was refering to before. A linear shooter can be fun as long as every set piece isn't samey - you just have to know what you're doing up front.



Yeah, people seriously underestimate how expensive it is to do something in this space. Professionally I've done some work here - an armed checkpoint costs ~$1.5 million to 2 million to run a year. Seeing as armed guards are core to the shadow-run experience, if running against corporate targets runners have to go at stuff that is worth spending atleast 20 million a year on in ongoing costs alone, plus capital expenditure.

that means you're talking an onsite security force of 12 including atleast 1 mage plus significant drone support. The mage won't be very good though - he'll have been recruited from the barrens and won't be top shelf, because top shelf mages run against this stuff or work for corporations in other rules like using Movement on small planes,.

Which is why stunball isn't much of a threat to PCs - they tend to have a very good mage with high counterspelling.

The flip side is this means that if the runners are caught, they can get killed very quickly. On site security probably has 30+ LMGs between them and the drones. It means having plan that doens't get you seen is vital.




@Saint: Cool character. Exactly what Day job adds to that concept I don't understand.

Posted by: Paul Oct 22 2009, 11:53 PM

I'd love to see how you break down your costs CD. I work in Law Enforcement, and I agree sometimes people forget what costs are out there.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 22 2009, 11:56 PM

Right. So I should just let him off the hook for his day job with the idea of coming up with some other crap I'm not really interested in roleplaying coming up later, like having to find someone to cover his shift? I mean, this is just a whole load of crap I couldn't possibly care any less about as a GM and in exchange he gets 5 bps and some nuyen? Nuh-uh.

As for the AI character with a Day Job, that's kind of the exception that proves the rule. The flaw works best when you're fine with a character sitting out session time, which is pretty harsh in a situation in which the player can attend regularly. The only times I've felt comfortable with the day job flaw otherwise is when a character misses out on say, software coding time because of it and then I handle the rest of it with a hand wave.

Posted by: Paul Oct 22 2009, 11:58 PM

Sounds like a player GM disconnect to me. If you haven't already, talk to your player Whipstitch. Works every time!

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 23 2009, 12:11 AM

I did literally years ago. I don't allow the flaw anymore. It's a poster child "not appropriate for all groups" flaw, which is why I find it kind of funny when disapproval of it is routinely dismissed as a failure of imagination.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 12:15 AM

You'd have to pay me if you wanted it done properly, but it boils down to:

A) Qho is coming at me? In shadowrun, I have 4 threats: shadowrunners/pro teams, gangers, organised crime and terrorists (e.g. eco terrorists).

B) What is the level of the threat? This breaks down into multiple parts

i) What weapons are people coming at me with? In SR, you can expect assault rifles, shotguns and SMGs from the pros, gangers and crims (which is an amazing threat level, most people really are not prepared for threats with that sort of lethality) suicide bombers, car bombs and other explosives from the terrorists as well as magical attacks.

ii) What level of professionalism can I expect? A very high one is certainly possible - teams of professional killers and B&E artists are out there and coming for me!

iii) How likely is the threat? Very high, gangers are a constant threat (the halloweeners have been throwing flaming trashcans at corporate premises for years), shadowrunners are a feature and terrorists repeatedly make very high profile attacks against sensative targets

iv) What is my chance of having forewarning - 0, which is a major issue. It's virtually impossible for a corporate security guard to have any advance knowledge of an attack because the attackers are very organised and very sophisticated. These guys are more like the IRA than islamic terrorists, except they are much more likely to use lethal force.

The final part is impact - what do I lose? But that's out of scope here. As e can see though it's a high threat enviroment.

Therefore an armed checkpoint needs 3 guys and probably more. 3 is enough for the IRA - but we're talking even more dangerous people out there.

The first guy stands out the front and phyiscally checks people's passes etc. He will die if anyone attacks the checkpoint because he's almost impossible to defend and anyone coming at him is going to get the drop on him with a rifle. He'll be in some sort of covered position to ensure that the attackers come forward to get him.

He will be 'supported' by two guys further back in cover to kill whoever shoots the first guy (this is, incidentally, why shadow runners don't get captured - these guys will just cut loose with assault rifles at the first opportunity, and because they are responding to someone using lethal force on another team member, they won't cock around. They don't even know who is attacking them. It might be ecoterrorists who are planning to use biological or chemical weapons within the compound. Shoot to kill orders will be universal.) They will ideally in a raised position so they have decent LoS over the area.

You need more than three shifts, because it is unrealistic to expect these guys to just stare into the distance and then be ready when someone comes out of nowhere. They need to be rotated regularly in and out to other duties such as patrolling. The ratio of staff needed to provide a man works out at something between 5 and 7 to one. Indirect costs of employment are approximately twice salaries. This means that you're paying 42 salaries for just one checkpoint. (works out in shadowrun at like 2-2.5 million Nuyen per checkpoint per year)

Posted by: Paul Oct 23 2009, 12:31 AM

As long as you're having fun you're doing it right. I don't think knowing what your limits are is a lack of imagination.




Well I can't do that, but I'll settle for what you're giving away! It's interesting to see some of the very same concerns I deal with everyday.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 01:07 AM

Yeah none of this stuff is particularly hard. The biggest problem I have is that people somehow feel that building a fence makes things more secure. It's like what everyone thinks security should look like - a fence.

But then the supporting infrastructure to actually make a fence mean something (CCTV, patrols, response capability) is just not considered.

The ball game is a bit different with LEO vs National Security. Law enforcement officers want to ask people to surrender and stuff, but that's not a consideration/option at the national security side and a bit of an issue that you have to think about how people have to response. Additionally, in Australia at least a member of the military in the execution of his duty is exempt from state law (including, amongst other things the Crimes Act) which gives you much more flexibility on what you can do!

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 23 2009, 01:14 AM

Must be nice... American Military are subject not only to Military Law, but the Laws where they are stationed if off base... makes things very interesting

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Paul Oct 23 2009, 01:32 AM

I see no reason why Use of Force policies wouldn't exist in 207x. Nonlethal force is a lot easier to defend in court, and not to mention a living captured opponent is easier to interrogate than a dead guy.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 23 2009, 01:39 AM

I like the categories, although I think most of the first three can also be Backstory Hooks, if the player actually incorporates them into his background and roleplays their effects. One of my characters, Null from the Witch Hunt game, had Incompetence: Leadership and it profoundly affected how I played the character.

Posted by: cndblank Oct 23 2009, 01:40 AM

[quote name='MikeKozar' date='Oct 20 2009, 10:01 PM' post='857770'
I think all the arguments about game mechanics, greedy players and evil GMs are kind of secondary to these three main issues: Are some of the flaws unwelcome in some games, does the GM get to make that call, and should the players expect the GM to point it out when they make a mistake? I say yes to all three. That said, all that needs to happen here is for the GM to pull the player aside (during the point in character creation set aside for exactly this) and come to an agreement.
[/quote]

I agree with all three.

Flaws/Negative Quantities should help define the character and let the GM know what problems the player wants the character to experience.

And if the GM thinks a flaw will not fit then the player should listen or come up with a workable variation.

But the GM needs to be clear up front as to what type of problems a character's negative quantities will bring them.

That way the the Player and the GM will have a clear understanding on what events should happen to the character.

Posted by: cndblank Oct 23 2009, 01:47 AM

Well AAA Corps have extraterritorial, but yes does provide more options. Especially if the runners did some thing public.

For one thing unless you interrogate the runners you have no idea who is behind them.

Even if it was just a "Johnson", you can tell a lot by how much they were being paid, what mission parameters they had, and how much information they were provided on the target.

On the other hand on some really black research sites where no one knows the runners are there, they would just bury the bodies.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 23 2009, 01:55 AM

This is indeed the most likely scenario, Yes...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 23 2009, 02:09 AM

Well, it establishes the character as unreliable and explains his sudden absences. I mean, when you're a computer program and it's time to go to work, you don't get to show up late or get some one to cover your shift. Middle of the run or not, he's just gone. His agents are still active though, so it's not a total washout. I just couldn't think of another way to work the player in which would accommodate that.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 02:18 AM

You don't actually have to defend yourself in Court if you are Renraku. Any facility that is worthy of armed guards will be extraterritorial, and at that point YOU ARE THE LAW judge Dread style.

Secondly the threat enviroment is totally different in SR4. The guy who're trying to arrest seriously has an AK47 and might have explosives and chemical weapons. At that point you're just going to shoot him. The arrest handbook is just not a concern when the other guy is probably a terrorist, and is atleast a violent professional killer. It's a bit of a mental state shift for an LEO profressional, but again, the threat enviroment (and your enviroment!) is much closer to what the British were doing vs the IRA. If someone goes at the guy out the front, you try and kill them as quickly and efficently as possible, because you want to win the fight.

Maybe this is a better way of looking at it: The LEO response is cordon and contain, but the threats we're talking in SR are much more dangerous than what you'd expect for a Cordon and contain response (well, atleast the bits of it with a 20 million nuyen defence budget), that it's going to be more like the response to spree killers - first responders go in and try and 'win' by killing and incapaciating the perps.



So are Australian - the execution of their duties part is the relevant component, and indeed US military personnel are immune to everything.



Again, not sure why you need the day job flaw for that.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 23 2009, 02:24 AM

Not so sure about that... the My Lai Incident proved that beyond a doubt... Although there was only one conviction, 26 others were put on trial for the atrocity perpetrated...

There are many other examples of Military Personnel who are tried for their crimes... just look at Abu Gharib for a relatively recent example...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 02:31 AM

That stuff was not 'in the course of their duties' - it's a fairly specific term that covers situations like this: You're on an armed patrol in a combat area. A civilian unexpectedly runs out at you, you shout the challenge, they don't respond, it's dark so you think they have a gun and shoot them.

Edit: To be clear - it has a specific legal meaning, like 'the reasonable man' or 'the idiot in a hurry' or whatever. There is an associated test to be met.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 23 2009, 03:10 AM

Wrong, they were in the middle of combat operations and decided to take a break to rape and pillage (My Lai)... the argument was that they were just following orders...

Same in Abu Gharib... they were just following orders, in the course of their duties...

I will admit that the distinction can be Made that once they diverted from "normal operations" that they were then not acting in their capacity, but this is not an accurate picture (and is for the Courts to decide)... Lowering themselves to their baser instincts was a choice that they made and they use their position to try to evade prosecution... in the case of My Lai, it worked for 25 of the 26 charged with the crime ("Following Ordders")... What a load of crap...

The military is held accountable to Codes of Military Justice, and during times of peace (and often times of war) to the Laws of their host country... Military crimes and war crimes are still punished in this world, though not as often as they should be in my opinion... But that is neither here nor there...

And from your example above, when they discover that the individual running was a child carrying a blanket wrapped baby, and did not speak the language, there is a military investigation for wrongful death... When something like this occurs, there is always at least a military investigation (or there is a coverup), and sometimes there is a civilian investigation, depending upon the country in which it happened... there have been several examples of such instances in both Afganistan and Iraq...


Keep the Faith

Posted by: kzt Oct 23 2009, 03:19 AM

Yeah, there is a military security design manual (an old one, the current one is FOUO) that says a fence adds something like 10 seconds of time to the break in. It doesn't matter (within broad limits) how tall it is or what it has topping it. Unless you have something crazy like a double fence with mines between them....

If you can actually use it as the point where you detect the break in (instead of when they set off the alarm in the room you want to protect) it's great, as it adds at least a minute to the time the response team has to catch them. Otherwise it's a pretty pointless waste of money.

And yeah, assault rifles and MGs are really high threat. The only thing that gets you higher on the chart are RPGs and mortars.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 23 2009, 03:20 AM

This I can definitely agree with...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 03:44 AM

<<pointless>>

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 23 2009, 04:00 AM

This is a bit of an aside, but one thing that both amuses and disheartens me is the fact that some people think of a residential privacy fence as an extra degree of security when in reality it's quite the opposite. Now, it's true that a simple solid fence might dissuade Dennis the Menace from trampling the azaleas, but when it comes to anyone with a bit of determination all you're really doing is providing them with some handy cover on the way to patio door (which, knowing most people, is made of glass and never locked). Oh, sure, it'll look a bit suspicious if they have to go up and over the fence, but that takes but a moment and after that they're free to wander around the backyard with impunity.

I remember when I was in high school a couple of bored teenagers committed a string of petty burglaries around our fairly affluent neighborhood. Predictably, they went up and over backyard fences and would help themselves to the fridge and maybe take off with a wallet. They were only caught when they tried getting into a home that featured no fence or fancy landscaping, which meant it was easy for the stereotypical retired busybody to spot them and report it to the police.


Moral of the story: Fences are often kind of silly, and there's a reason why real security fences aren't all solid and opaque.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 04:03 AM

However, it is greatly improved if you have dogs. Everything is more secure with dogs. Heck it just looks more dangerous so people will go elsewhere.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 23 2009, 04:09 AM

Now, I can't prove the veracity of this since I saw it on television once (can always trust the trid, ammirite?), but I've heard before that actually just having a sign that you have a dog or a security system is actually more effective than owning either, simply because you can put it in an area where you can be certain people will see it. Plus, if the dog is anything like mine, it's entirely possible that an intruder will just be warmly greeted and considered a new very special friend.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 23 2009, 04:31 AM

Oh exactly. Crims are not dumb, they can easily look at the houses in the street and do a risk reward calculation. Dogs are actually particularly cool because unless you're some sort of K-9 ninja, there is no way in hell you can tell what a dog does just by glancing at it. Is it an attack dog? Sniffer Dog?

Finding out requires sticking around for ages, and the last thing you want to do is 'lurk suspiciously' while an armed security team is watching you.

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 23 2009, 04:52 AM

I hear that. The most terrifying dog I have ever encountered was a St. Bernard that would stealthily approach strangers on his lot but not do anything to announce himself. It's only when you made eye contact or started moving away from him after he sat down that he'd start barking. As long as you stood still, he'd just stare you down, which was still rather worrisome. He wasn't actually trained to attack, as it turns out, but as you can imagine he still scared the hell out of people. It was frankly just bad enough that you turned around to see a big fraggin' dog.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 23 2009, 12:40 PM

This implies that once someone is viewing a "sim module," they are no longer capable of any action whatsoever. This does not reflect the knowledge I possess regarding the system. Could you elaborate, please?


Please explain the logic underlying this conclusion. The shadowrunners would have a chance of escape, but no certainty of it, just as they'd have had a chance of being captured, but no certainty of it; this is absolutely the opposite of railroading.


Professionally I've done some work here, too, and I think that figure is utterly ridiculous. I don't know what sort of checkpoint you're talking about, but these figures are distorted by orders of magnitude.


...okay, then. We're not playing the same Shadowrun. That's cool. Later.

Posted by: Paul Oct 23 2009, 12:50 PM

I don't think that's true, but I also don't think you're completely off base. The Corporate Court is one option, and I think if you played your cards right you could get National Courts to intervene-however I think you'd be correct to say that these are exceptions not the rule.

Of course all of this assume there is no internal courts in various extraterritorial entities.



I think there's an assumption that Lethal force has to be used in these situations. Even in a corporate zero zone I think it'd make sense to start with nonlethal options-a dead infiltrator can't tell you who hired him, or how he found the loop holes in your security system. Now I do think you're correct in that if faced with overwhelming force any reasonable security officer would defend themselves, anyway possible.



I agree, that armed opposition has drastically shifted Use of Force paradigms but again dead men tell no tales. When you're discussing this kind of investment-a zero zone must cost billions of dollars a year-why wouldn't you pursue it to the next step? The team you shoot dead on the wire isn't the guy with the bucks who will just hire another, smarter stronger team, with better equipment.

Don't get me wrong I'm not completely disagreeing with you. I do agree that lethal force would be more common place in 207x than now, and that there are more tools in the box for LEO's and SEO's. But I don't think it precludes nonlethal options. But I think this all comes down to a personal play style argument. if you prefer a little more lethal, hey the game allows that! If I want a little less lethal, hey! The game allows that too!

Posted by: 3278 Oct 23 2009, 01:56 PM

Sure. But why not shoot him with ammunition that won't kill him, and thus eliminate any chance you have of learning who sent him, what he was coming for, how he found the weaknesses in your defenses, and so on. You may learn nothing in the interrogation - although that's highly unlikely - but it costs you very little to try, given the possible benefits. Since nonlethal means are at least as effective as lethal means, you can afford to knock him out, try to find out what he knows, and then kill him if you want to. If you kill him first, you lose any other possibilities.


Whereas the Use of Force mandate specified by your employer is very much a concern, in the future as in the past. If nonlethal measures were vastly less effective than lethal ones - as they are today - then yes, jumping right to the killing is reasonable if the opposition is highly lethal, but that's simply not true in Shadowrun.

As regards fences - speaking generally here, and not in response to any specific persons - they should, in my view, remain important portions of any layered security plan. Provided they don't obscure visibility, fences serve a number of significant purposes, the most obvious of which is preventing access by casual criminals. No fence will keep a dedicated, prepared operator out of your facility, but it will slow them - even slightly - and give another chance to detect the point of ingress. Since dedicated, prepared operators are rare, this function is significant. Double layers of fence with no-mans-land between costs very little compared to the possible savings.

Will a fence be enough? Almost certainly not. But they are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, an important, comparatively low-price, highly effective portion of the overall security plan. They're not applicable in all situations, and they're not a panacea for all ills, but they're important, nevertheless.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 23 2009, 03:27 PM

As long as the RAS override was disabled then dumping someone into full VR would prevent them from moving at all. Of course, I think it would be wise to use a special commlink that had no access to the outside world at all in order to prevent a Decker from working his special brand of magic. Not sure if you'd be able to do anything to a Technomancer since they could in theory hop into VR on their own first, perhaps give them a -2 Dice Mod for being distracted?

Posted by: 3278 Oct 23 2009, 03:52 PM

I was under the impression that with RAS enabled, the user simply suffered -6 to their dice pools in the real world. This is a good restraint, don't get me wrong, but it's certainly not disabling!

Posted by: Ravor Oct 23 2009, 03:58 PM

True but in previous editions RAS was the default and you had to actually manually override the safety protocals ala Hot/Cold Sim in order to move at all, and you still took the massive penalty. So I figure that since the fluff is supposed to still be valid that it must still be possible to enable the RAS and imobilize someone.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 23 2009, 04:28 PM

You can absolutely enable the RAS by default and lock it on, but my point is, in no edition of SR that I'm aware of would RAS actually immobilize someone who tries to move: they face steep penalties, but those penalties are pretty small-scale compared to simply being unconscious. Why give someone a -6 die pool penalty - or a +6 target number penalty - when you can simply render them unconscious?

Posted by: Ravor Oct 23 2009, 04:36 PM

Hmm, I'll have to double check my books when I get the chance because I could've swore that the penalties were after you've disabled RAS. As for your second point, IF I'm correct and RAS does disable you then you'd render them unconscious first and then use VR to keep them helpless while you decided what to do with them. If you are correct about RAS then yeah, dumping them into VR is pretty much a waste of time and we are back to handcuffs and drugs.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Oct 23 2009, 05:07 PM

Etraterritorality makes it kind of a moot. In Ares land it is an Ares judge. But on the last part, yeah they might want to ask you questions. But they can always interrogate your commlink later, after they kill you. ANd that is just a matter of time.

One thing to also consider, as a corp, what is the likelihood of the facility being hit? (Low value, or remoteness are factors)

Posted by: Paul Oct 23 2009, 06:25 PM

Why?



So why wouldn't they attempt to limit what armed individuals would do? Otherwise why not arm all security personel with rocket launchers and miniguns? Why not let gun down even corporate citizens? Oh wait, because common sense dicates a use of force policy. Sorry for busting your balls.



I do agree that physical evidence can help, and I also agree that it's just a matter of time before you get the nine millimeter bullet billed to your family.



Agreed. One thing here that's difficult for people is to see how a corporation would prioritize things.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 24 2009, 02:39 PM

Probably the sort of checkpoint run by a government which spends $500 on a new toilet seat or 120 grand on a single air-to-air missile. He's obviously not accounting for the fact that most Megas will produce the weapons used in their own security and pay the workers in a currency they completely create and control.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 24 2009, 02:59 PM

Not to mention that the corps get to charge their guards so many fees and levies that they might as well be slaves in the first place.

Posted by: kzt Oct 24 2009, 07:10 PM

Competent people don't work for people who don't pay well and provide decent gear. If you pay like mall guards you'll get mall guards with automatic weapons.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 24 2009, 07:12 PM

Exactly, which is why "corp sec" are generally nothing more than jack booted thugs armed with automatic weapons and are just itching for a chance to use them.


Exceptions made for "high end" security of course...

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 24 2009, 07:13 PM

Keep in mind as well that a lot of corp employees will be probably running double duty as security assets rather than being a complete sunk cost, with the classic example being the wage mage who keeps a few watchers up while working on new spell formula or search. Sure, there'll be the occasional dedicated security mage or spider and a couple of guards that spend all of their time on checking the locks and making sure everyone is productive, but that doesn't mean that a coder cannot be allowed to put aside their work for a moment and load up the Attack Program in the event of an emergency.

Hell, one time I had a face who knew his cover was blown fail his perception check and critically glitched his infiltration roll (which I also make in secret*) while trying to find a spot to lay low for a second while the team got to work creating a diversion. He ended up huddling in the corner of the break room (shush, it wasn't a triple A; these guys gave breaks) next to a vending machine, completely oblivious of the secretary who promptly screamed and hosed him down with Pepper Punch and eventually tasered him on the next round. I mean, of course she was going to respond properly; she's technically one of the last people you see before you can get a meeting with the facility director, and this is in a world in which people have guns implanted into their arms.


*I let them stipulate whether they want to buy off glitches and 0 hit tests with Edge, before the roll, I just prefer that they don't know they've screwed up their stealth rolls until somebody spots them; kills the suspense.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 24 2009, 07:19 PM

We solved this dilemma by not actually rolling until they have been put into a situation where they might be spotted... at that point, the security team (drone, watcher, whatever) rolls its perception check while the infiltrator rolls his stealth... missed rolls are immediately obvious and initiative is immediately rolled... This tends to eliminate the "I rolled 9 Successes, so I am gonna go through this place with no real regards to what I am doing" syndrome...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Ravor Oct 24 2009, 07:21 PM

How do you handle glitches and crit glitches?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 24 2009, 07:25 PM

Normal Ways... Spending Edge can negate, convert of course, however, when not obviated, then the glitch causes an immediate reroll for the opposition if they failed initially, and a crit glitch draws attention to the infiltrator, whether the opposition failled or not...

Has worked out great for our group... infiltrators tend to think about what they are about, rather than treating the infiltration like it was a walk in the park, knowing that the opposition had no way of detecting them...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Whipstitch Oct 24 2009, 07:27 PM

Man, that's a simple fix. I tend to overthink things sometimes.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 24 2009, 07:53 PM

Yeah, It has worked wonders for us...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: toturi Oct 24 2009, 11:44 PM

Eh... that just means you still roll immediately.

It is the difference between:
"Hey, where did Bob go?"

"Damn, I'm good."

and

"I can barely make you out, Bob. But I think you are just fine."

"OK."

Remember even your own teammates can try to make Perception against you.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 25 2009, 12:24 AM

Okay, some things about shadow run

A) It's a 'two shot' enviroment. If you get hit, you are then going to die with the second shot because the wound penalties mean you won't be able to dodge properly

B) Everyone has actual armour. Some of it is quite effective. All of your threats are going to wearing armour that is better than what the cops have today (because it has fully body coverage and is rated IIA), and many of them are going to be wearing stuff that is rated Type V and is quite difficult to penetrate (FFBA + chamelone suits is 14 dice? and is definately within easy reach of orks.)

C) Ammo is insanely expensive, and stick and shock is AMAZINGLY expensive.

D) Your options are normal bullets, gel, APDS or stick and shock.

Effectiveness of those options

1) Gel is out: Typically it's just going to bounce and the extra two dice are not helping
2) SnS: Strong option, counted by non conductive armour. If armour modifications mods on FFBA and Chamelon suits stack due to the override provision in FFBA, it is completely useless I play that it doesn't, but it is unclear).
3) ADPS: Will kill people, highly effective vs shadowrunners
4) Normal Bullets: Not as good as APDS, may struggle vs tougher characters.

It obviously depends on the enviroment, but it's typically much more effective to go with the APDS and cheaper too. Stick and shock is worth considering if you do want to capture people, but seriously it's hard enough to stop your guys on the door dying, and it is both less effective and more expensive than APDS.



Do you guys watch what happens in Iraq? I ask because if you do, you'll see people get killed for driving up to checkpoints all the time. I am unclear on exactly what you think the difference is in threat environment is. Please clarify.

@Cost estimates: I know you can multiple so

3 people at checkpoint

5 people for each person at the checkpoint to run the other 2 shifts, one to be on training/sick and one to be on leave.

Medium lifestyle = 5k a month, thus once we include long term savings, we can say that salaries are 6k a month (we're not talking rentacops here)

Indirect costs of employment: twice a persons salary, approximately

Total cost = 3 * 5 * (5000 * 2) * 12 = 1800000 Nuyen

If I am over inflating the cost, please tell me EXACTLY which cost area you disagree with. This is a significant underestimate as it does not include capital costs such as the checkpoint and equipment, and no-one is allowed to take a lunchbreak.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 25 2009, 12:26 AM

No, Of course they can, but the big difference is that you will not have people rolling tests every time they get a chance just to hopefully improve their infiltration threshold (which good GM's should curtail anyway)... it is IMMEDIATE rather than static... which, as I have said, tends to make people actually think about what they are doing rather than relying upon their nigh impenetrable infiltration successes of 9... it fosters a whole different level of interaction and caution. You never know how well you are gfoing to roll until it has possibly been defeated... Win-Win in my book

Keep the Faith

Posted by: toturi Oct 25 2009, 01:46 AM

If you do not want people rolling tests every time, then shouldn't you make it static? Also house ruling tests like this makes it nearly impossible for Stealth type characters to work - if for every person they encounter (who then makes an opposed Perception test), they must make a Stealth skill check, it would mean that the odds of them eventually rolling low becomes a very real possibility and almost impossible to actually sneak or hide. In this case, you might as well just go in with guns blazing.

Unless of course, that is the type of campaign you want.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 25 2009, 03:11 AM

It is not the amount of rolls tht is the issue, in general, we roll when it is dramatically appropriate, when there is tension... Static is boring and removes the illusion of danger, especially when you know that there is no way in hell that the individuals can see you (you made an exceptional roll with a high number of successes and are wearing equipment that will remove dice from their perception)... doing it this way brings back the tension BECAUSE you could roll poorly and be discovered... it injects an amount of potential danger back into the scenario...

And yes, it is the type of game we prefer; as I said, I have been in the other type of game, where the characters check each other with perception checks until they are effectively hidden (ie, they continue to roll until they get an acceptable roll, in their opinion)... it ruins the suspense and tension of the game...

Of course, the other option would then be to have the GM to secretly roll infiltration for everyone, but a lot of people do not like this solution (and the GM has better things to do anyway)... our way is a very happy medium, you are still in control of your own dice, but you do not have knowledge of the outcome before hand... it is quite a nice compromise...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 25 2009, 05:10 AM

The part where they get paid in nuyen and have a hope for retirement where the corp doesn't simply liquidate them and their savings just to increase their 3rd quarter profits. These guys are nothing more than house slaves who don't know it because of strict information control and a lifetime of brainwashing. Hell, I'd also assume that they have a low lifestyle. Barracks life for years. Corpsec is property, not people. What are they going to do? Quit and get tossed out on the streets with nothing?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 25 2009, 06:05 AM

Right, the problem with that is

A) You're going to get second rate personnel. I'm assuming we're guarding serious stuff, which means we have serious professionals with skill ratings of 4 and stats in 3-4 area. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys, and in the 6th world VITAS is going to ensure that labour shortages of skilled personnel are even more acute than than today, remember that the black death laid the foundations for the end of serfdom.

Now you COULD use underpaid chumps, but then you're going to get underpaid chumps, who professionals are going to carve through like a hot knife through better

B) Second rate troops just don't rate as a threat to a cyber sammie. You're dealing with hostiles with synaptic boosters II coming at you. Second rate troopers cannot even hit them. If they don't have cyberware, training and professionalism, they are just not going to be able to deal with the tight professionals and fantatics coming at them.

Basically it boils down to if you choose to use the Pakistan or Egyptian army vs the American or Israeli's. The opposition are slick pros, and those others guy don't know how individual initative is spelt due to conscription and bad schooling. How can you expect them operate correctly in a very difficult and infomation rich enviroment? It's proven not to work.

You're looking for people who will die for they are protecting!

Posted by: Ravor Oct 25 2009, 08:24 AM

Part of the problem is that in the setting, despite the population reduction the SINless masses represent massive unemployment that allows the serfdom to still be a valid policy for the corps, and of course, I disagree with the idea that Runners in general are nearly as skilled as Dumpshock makes them out to be.

Nova Hot facilities of course are the exception, but even there I see the truly badassed guards as being the HRTs and not the standard shift rotation.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 25 2009, 08:34 AM

The problem is the SINless are extremely poorly suited to have jobs. At Rouke's drift, the Zulu's had a couple of tens of thousands of rifles - but because they didn't understand how rifles work they didn't understand that because the bullet fell off at range, you didn't point directly at the target. So their snipers couldn't kill the english in the compound. Despite outnumbering them literally 1000:1.

The vast majority SINless haven't been to school. They don't even know how to do formal arithmetic. Most of them probably don't even know what thermo-optic camo even is, let alone how that impacts you as a guard.

The SR4 enviroment actually requires a fairly in depth education about the range of possible threats, because you have to know exactly what independant spirits, summoning mages, cyberzombies, adept, cybernetics, hackers, riggers and possession mages can all throw down at you. You have to be aware of magical, matrix and mundane threats and be aware of how to deal with them. You have to know exactly how to deploy smoke to maximumly impede mages, and also how to recognise that someone is possessed, or notice the you smell something that shouldn't be there.

You have to know how to operate ultrasound, radar, UV, thermal and low light optical equipment. You have to understand what capabilities that gives the guy with the sniper rifle firing at you (for example, you need to know to stand back from the metallic wall so your body heat doesn't warm it up). You have to be able to order dozens of different drones.

Soldiering has changed radically with the introduction of technology - now the US army tries to focus its recruiting efforts on those in the top 25% of mental apptitude. The threat environment in the future has cyber and magical warfare tightly intergrated. Unless you understand all categories of threats, you will not be particularly effective at your job. The consripts are going to run away from spirits, because to them they are literally a creature of myth. They'll fire their pistols 'Gangsta style' and not hit anything at all.

A beat cop of a soldier is a product of 12-14 years of training. A SINless doesn't have any of that. They are in the masses of unemployed because they have no skills at all.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 25 2009, 08:40 AM

Sure, but I'd argue that the invent of simsense has leveled the playing field, 'jacks are cheap and allows the use of knowsofts which should cover most of the background training that you rightly bring up as being important, sure, their active skillsets would be below par, but the knowledge that you aren't really anything special and will be discarded by the corps after they rip out the one piece of tech you need to be able to survive in the world should provide the motivation to get better and fast.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 25 2009, 09:06 AM

Umm, if your guard is powered entirely by skillwires and knowsofts, you should just use a robot. They can work 24 hours a day and don't get distracted/relax, and are cheaper in every way.

I'd fully support entirely automated facilities. A human guard obviously has to be more capable than a drone.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 25 2009, 09:12 AM

Drones are only really cheaper if you go the skillwire route, which I don't necessarily agree with, knowsofts and 'jacks sure, but skillwires are alittle much for a simple guard.

*EDIT*

Plus I'm not sure that Drones are smart enough in play to be able to relaibly think on their feet to trust without a Rigger's overwatch.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 25 2009, 09:19 AM

But someone using chipped skills and no actual knowledge of their own is? When you knowsoft someone up, you're just giving them computer programs to execute. Drones are incidently way cheap, a drone costs less than a datajack + equipment for a basic guard.

Actually this might help us understand each other - what do you think a basic guard looks like? At a secure research facility or something. (not at the mall)

Posted by: Ravor Oct 25 2009, 09:56 AM

Well remember that I see the corps as merely renting the guard's equipment to them in order to keep them and their children's children endebted to the corp for all time whereas drones need regular repairs and upgrades, ect...


Still when I get a chance I'll have to stat out a few guards again, I lost most of my notes recently.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 25 2009, 03:04 PM

What you fail to realize in all of this is that you can acquire all of that training by enlisting in a Corporation and serve a stint in Desert Wars... you will learn all about everything that you just ran that comprehensive list of when it comes to environment, and opposition and threat assessment... at that point they move from the Desert to the Facility to become guards... No Formal schooling or knowledge other than hard life experience... MANY of your lower level guards for corporations would probably see something of a similar scenario... Experience trumps simple training every day of the week and twice on Sundays...

I knew a grunt in the Marine Corps that was not very bright when it came to classical education, and he scored the absolute minimum on the ASVAB test for entrance into the Military, but his experiences in both the grunts and in the Gulf War led to some pretty in depth knowledge in those things that you enumerate for a competent corporate security guard... and he was capable of operating every piece of equipment in the Marine Corps arsenal (Radios, UV, Thermal and even Low Light Optical Equipment), as well as most of the various weapons from light pistols to heavy machine guns (Including Rockets, Mortars and explosives)... you do not have to be cream of the crop (education wise) to be effective at your job...

And by the way... a typical beat cop serves in this capacity in the first year after Graduating from Cop School... not the 12-14 years you are ascribing to them... they must gain teh experience on the street just like any other beat cop... now whwen they have teh expereince of being on teh job for 14 years, then yes, they are very skilled...

Not all SINless are SINless because they have no skills...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 25 2009, 03:28 PM

I get your point that you don't necessarily need academic education or aptitude to be a competent guard. On the other hand, once a guard has become skilled, through whatever means at his disposal, he is no longer part of the faceless masses of wage slaves. He is a trained professional and if his employer won't pay him accordingly or give him the necessary equipment to survive, he will simply leave to take a job with someone who pays better, unless the SR setting has changed in a way that there is even a surplus in skilled employees.

The problem with security guards, I asssume is, that the necessary skills are at least thought to be taught or learned quicker than a lot of academic or other professional skills.

BTW Those of the SINless who have skills will a) apply for one ASAP b) wouldn't want to become CorpSec Guards in the first place.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 25 2009, 03:50 PM

This is one of those threads that just gets stranger the longer it goes on. I'm going to chalk it up to differences in play style and life experiences, and leave it at that.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 25 2009, 04:22 PM

Really? Oh well...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: 3278 Oct 25 2009, 05:28 PM

Yeah. I've been in these situations before, and it generally ends up leading to a couple of guys listing off their qualifications, which just makes it look like I'm swinging my big dick around: this does no one any favors. That said, for purposes of credibility, I guess it wouldn't be a terrible idea for me to post to the "http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=27800" thread.

Suffice to say I'm not convinced Cthuludreams knows what he's talking about, but people should do what works at their own tables.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 25 2009, 06:00 PM

Yeah, everyone has their own opinions, and sometimes you just have to let it go...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Paul Oct 25 2009, 07:30 PM

I have to agree with 3278 in this case, the more Cthuludreams post the more I am convinced (s)he has no idea what they're discussing, and further more the more (s)he posts the more I'm sure his/her game is nothing like my own-thankfully.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 25 2009, 10:52 PM

Entry to the marine corps requires a high school diploma. SINless in 2070 do not have any high school education at all. You do actually learn quite a lot in highschool. also the marine corps education programme is very extensive. If you don't trust me, check out the official history of gulf war 1 - estimating that it takes two years of intensive training on top of that high school diploma to make a capable infantryman. The 2070 enviroment is more complex.

Incidentally, we also know that poor nutrition causes poor mental development. The SINless don't even have food stamps. If you compare a sacrifice zone to anywhere it's not the bad areas of baltimore, it's somalia. It's quite likely that they would be in the situation kids in Somila are - one bad year while your growing up will retard your physical and mental development.

A modern high school graduate is much smarter and physically more capable than a Sacrifice Zone kid. We're not talking cream of the crop here - we are talking 'having an IQ above 80 and knows how to read and write'



The difference is simple - you think of the world of SR as something more like Baltimore than Basra. Given that, it is easy to understand how we reach different conclusions about what you would and would not do. What it is most probably like though is 1930s Beijing. Concessions granted to foreign powers who bring in their own troops to enforce law and order in their concessions, while the locals stave are employed as barely above slave labor and do a lot of drugs? Organised crime being rife?

Sounds familiar?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 26 2009, 12:56 AM

I think that you need more information on the Marine Corps before you can make that judgement... First Off, a high school diploma means almost nothing in America any more... I have seen many many examples of High School Graduates who cannot even read or perform basic math... explain to me how this is quality education... as for the Marine Corps education program... the only real Marine Corps education that you receive in Boot Camp is in History of the Corps, Protocol and Etiquette... the remaining only prepares you for basic MOS training (the stuff that everyone needs to know)... no where do they make any attempt to actually improve upon a grunt's actual education, unless the Individual pursues such an agenda through other options, or through after service education programs like the New GI Bill... as for an IQ of 80 and the ability to read... not in your life... teh individual I talked about earlier had a relevant IQ closer to 60 (His GT placed at 47, you only need a 40), and could read, sort of, at a 5th grade level... not exactly a winner there in the edcational department, so there goes your theory

As for training of 2 years to make a competent Infantryman... I call Bull... When my unit was deployed to Iraq, we received over 250 brand new recreuits, straight out of Infantry Training School... it takes only 13 weeks in ITS to make a competent Infantryman... anything else is just cake... and rarely do these raw infantrymen ever get any real, useful long-term experience unless they re-enlist for an additional term or two, so your position that it takes 2 years is crap... I know, I have been there...

Of course 2070 is more complex... there are people who are innately at genius level (in our world today) that have little or no education... so therefore, you can draw no parallels between the two times... there will be genius level individuals along side of very ignorant individuals in any society. education may make a difference, but you cannot say that just because someone is sinless it means that they are not intelligent and competent people, they just do not have the same opportunities... so what happens now days in this instance? many of the undereducated and poor will jon the various militaries of the worl (corporations) to obtain a legal status... path to legitimacy and a trade that pays them... 2070 will be no different in that regard, the only difference is the the MegaCorps will care less about their personnel than the various nations do today...

Your comparison to the various districts are not accurate... I would not see Baltimore vs Somalia... what I see is a difference that occurs now, Hollywood vs. Watts is a better example... or better yet, New York with a suburb modeled after Beirut... that is a more valid comparison for our topic of conversation...

As for your last comparison, yes it does sound familiar... sounds like a lot of Big Cities to me... lets see If I can list some of them for you... New York, Houston, Los Angeles, Ansterdam, Tehran, Paris (one of the worst actually), Kiev and Moscow to name just a few... the rich getting Richer and the Poor getting Poorer... sounds very familiar indeed...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 01:23 AM

1) If you seriously think a year 10 certificate means nothing, let me try another way of looking at:

Literacy rates in the US: 99.0%

Literacy Rates in Ethiopia: 35.9%

So yes, pretty much the US education system is pretty good, and in places without government is pretty bad!

Btw: From another study: Average IQ in the US - 98, average IQ in Somalia: 68. Why? Malnutrition and poor educational standards. Please note, these scores are not fully comparable with the American instituter of psychology scores below. However - let me make this real for you - this means 95% of Americans have a higher IQ than the average Somalian.

2) Figure about quality infantrymen isn't mine, it's the U.S. Armies. There is a difference between raw recruits and well trained troops. You even make the point yourself, unless you stick around, you don't have useful long term experience. If you'd like you can go back to WWII and compare fresh units vs veteran units?

3) IQ 60 is classified by the American institute of psychologists as 'mentally disabled' which was my point. 80 is borderline mental disability. I honestly didn't think the marines recruited from the short bus.

4) You don't think MOS training counts as training? Very interesting!

Sorry, I missed the concessions made to foreign powers with private police forces in those areas. You could take the embassys in the capitals as exceptions.
Can you please explain?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 26 2009, 02:15 AM

1. First off... 10 Year Certificate? In What... There is a distinct difference in Educational value between a Scientific Degree/Certificate , a Medical Degree/Certificate and an Artistic Degree/Certificate... and in fact, many Degrees are truly insignificant anymore... you can get a better paying job with a Degree of Arts in Basketweaving than if you did not have one, how does that determine that you are better qualified than someone without a degree at all? In my opinion, It Doesn't.

I guess that you would have to determine what literacy level the United States is using for competency... if it is 5th Grade Reading Level well, then there you go... there are Major Cities IN America that have a less than 50% graduation rate for High School... Tell me how that is quality education... Is it bad in other countries... Sure... But 50 Years ago, America had the most amazing Education across the World (we were 1st)... now, 50 years later, we are classified around 27th or so... Great leaps forward in education there, don't you think?

2. No wonder... I would agree that it takes the army 2 years to train an Infantryman , while it only takes 13 weeks to train a Marine Infantryman... that makes a lot of sense to me (this is a minor Jab at the Army, don't take it too personally, I am a Marine after all)... My point being is that your numbers are way off... you can get quality troops within a year... you never really have "Veteran" level troops (in the regular forces anyway) unless they are seeing some kid of action, (now this does not mean actaul "war"... my unit spent several deployments in contested areas in Asia and Central America that would qualify, not to mention the First Gulf War), or have several years to develop this in force... Unfortunately, for a long time, teh standard enlistment for an American recruit was/is only 4 years... not a lot of time to develop exceptional, highly trained leaders in the military... Special Forces units have it better, but hten again, very few 1st Term Enlistments qualify for the most elite... and a gret many still wash out of their initial special forces training... it takes a very special person to be Special Forces (Recon, SEALS, Airborne, Rangers or Green Berets... Funny that the Army has 3 different units of special forces, while the Marine Corps/Navy only needs one... Another Joke )

And as an additional point, Not having Education does not make an individual unintgelligent, it just makes them uneducated... IQ is a poor measure of functionality in our world...

3. IQ's Above 60 are acceptable (when I joined anyway, that may have changed since then, but, if I remember, recently restrictions have once again been loosened due to manpoower issues, in all of the services), many people with IQ's that low have problems (if I remember correctly he stated his IQ at 67), and this man had some problems, but that does not make him disfunctional... he was a very good Marine, and followed orders well, and performed his duties as required (not NCO Material, but he night have made a good Officer... Joke )... he was a credit to the unit... I was glad to call him my friend..

Besides, there are a great many people with IQ's in the Normal to High Range that range from somewhat to exceptionally dysfunctional, so I still fail to see your point here...

4. MOS Training for Infantrymen is only 13 Weeks, we were discussing Infantrymen... as for the other arms of the Corps, some schools take a year or more, some take less... what exactly is your point here?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 02:37 AM

1) Year 10 certificate is Australian for a US high school diploma. My bad! The US is currently the world leader in devaluing undergraduate degrees. The concept of 2 year associate degrees doesn't exist in most places. It can be hard to generalise that experince.

2) I'm not american. The specifics of the american education system do not intrest me that much. The comparison is the US today vs US in 2070. The SINless of today do have public schooling. In the future they do not. We can therefore assume a significant drop in educational attainment.

3) Exactly. If your friend who you describe as unsuitable for promotion is the average quality of your troops, where do you get NCOs from? Officers? Technical Specialists? Pilots?

4) So in some arms of the corps it takes 12 years of training to product a competent infantryman (high school diploma + MOS training). I'm entirely okay with that estimate. My point is that the SINless of the future do not have that degree of educational attainment. It is probably impossible to teach people to understand how to maintain a tank engine if they cannot read or write.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 02:42 AM

Just quick further detail about your friend and reinforcing that he is an isolated case: http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep98/html/b6.html

He's in the bottom category which is capped at 4% of total intake and only if they can product a high school diploma, otherwise the DoD thinks they are too hard to train.

The average US army recruit is actually IQ ~105. Numbers are difficent to compare directly, but we can see their is a significant gap between what the US military needs/wants, and what a hypothetical SINless population can actually produce.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 26 2009, 02:58 AM

1. Cool, Now I know... And yes, I agree with the devaluing a degere... probably ahs a lot to do with us dumbing down our educational systems and teaching to tests rather than acquiring actual knowledge...

2. Possibly, but My Point is that Education does not imply intelligence... nor does Intelligence imply education... they can exist as seperate entities, and often do...

3. WHAT? Where are you getting that information. I used my friend as an example that the Corps accepts individuals from Functional but not quite educated to High level genius... You so missed the point ... yes, the average Marine probably has an IQ of 100 or thereabouts, some higher, some lower... those with aptitude and ability tend to advance through the enlisted , those without become officers (sorry, had to say that; it is not always true, I have had a few good Officers in the Corps over my eight years of active duty, but it is a well known fact that NCO's run the Corps, Not Officers)... Just like in any other society or organization... Where are you getting your assumptions from? No Offense, but Wow...

4. Education from High School HAS NO REAL BEARING on MOS Training or Military Competence in the US Marine Corps for Infantrymen (in some cases, if you do not have the education levels/aptitudes, you do not qualify for the appropriate MOS... like Intelligence or Aircraft Mechanic... those that don't become infantrymen, and those that fail out of their MOS school, also tend to become infantrymen)... which was what I pointed out in several of my last posts... it takes 13 Weeks for MOS training for an Infantryman in the US Marines... What part of that is not clear? There are more MOS's in the Marine Corps than Infantryman... there are Artillerymen, Tank Drivers, Military Intelligence, Cooks, Supply, Etc... just like any other national major military... the fact that the Marine Corps almost doubles the other US Branches of Service for Infantry training shows that man for man, the Marine Corps Infantry is better trained and more proficient than any other basic militrary arm in the World... and is often the equivalent of lower level special forces troops in a lot of ways... (It is Possible that I have a Bias here, but hey, Sue me, I am a Marine after all)

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 26 2009, 03:02 AM

Missed this post while I was posting...

I agree that he was an edge case... Most definitely... My point is that he WAS accepted; and the raw IQ of recruits may have indeed jumped a few points since I have been in, however, I do believe that this statistic will indeed be dropping as teh years go by and teh Manpower crises continues...

The comparison for 2070 is that these kinds of people will find employment if they want it... they have just got to want it bad enough... If someone who is borderline (lowest 4%) trainable is taken in, the vast majority of people will have the opportunity if they want it...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 03:13 AM

The point we are discussing is can you use SINless people as guards, military and other functions. Do they have the capability. The problem is the SINless can be resonably assumed to have the sort of educational attainment that you get in Somalia, Burkino Faso and Ethopia. These places have some schooling and even universities!

Your friend actually has much the same capability as the average Somalian or SINless. But instead of being a bottom 1% entrant, he would be a top 50% entrant. Consider the difference in attainment between him and the average marine. There are people with that much attainment below him in the SINless pool of recruits!

The NCO thing is actually a very western way of running militarizes, and it's important because it shows you can recruit talented individuals to be the staff sergeants of the world. Studies of the pre-fall state of the Russian armies noted that because the NCO corps was so poor, the officers had to run the show.



Western militaries are highly trained forces. That is the point. You're losing sight of the objective here. The question is

A) Can we use SINless as the majority of security forces

my answer is: NO because they do not have even close to required level of educational attainment to be effective marines. In your own words, the average SINless is not suitable for the duties required.



this really shows you do not understand my point. My point is, in the future, he is not borderline!!! He is a average sinless person!

Posted by: Cain Oct 26 2009, 03:28 AM

*sigh*

In order to enter the military, you have to take a sort-of IQ test, the ASVAB. The higher you score, the better you're supposed to do in your chosen position, and the more positions you have to choose from. An average score for a GED holder is 50. The minimum entry score for the Marines is 32, for the Army it's 31. While I don't know of any direct ASVAB/IQ comparison, I do think these scores indicate that you can have a fairly low IQ and still join the armed forces.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 03:33 AM

Sure but you are ignoring the fact that with the invent of simsense and knowsofts actual education isn't really necessary, sure educated guards may be "better", but they are hardly necessary when you can simply beam the knowledge directly into their skulls with a single cheap piece of technology.

Posted by: kzt Oct 26 2009, 03:36 AM

No, they won't. The barrens are not Watts or Compton, they are Mogadishu. The cops are the troops in Task Force Ranger, they come and in force when they need to, otherwise they stay out. There are VERY few real jobs in the barrens. There are VERY few people who recruit from the barrens. When someone looks to hire someone in the barrens what he's looking for is someone with huge potential. Smart, motivated, probably self-educated. There just isn't anyone who will hire the borderline retarded when there are lots of people who are not IQ < 70 out there.

It's a dystopia. There is no opportunity for vast majority in the barrens, no matter how badly you want it. Kids like that at best join a gang at 12 and get used for cannon fodder by the guys in their 30s who run the gangs.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 03:40 AM

Yes, I linked to the DOD published ASVAB results previously when discussing entry requirements. It's a standardised test that breaks people down into categories dependant on how much above/below the mean they scored.

But please, you're completely underestimating how big the gap is between the average marine and the average SINless. The average sinless (inferred from third world societies today) is more than two standard deviations below the average US citizen.

That means the average AFQT score of the SINless is ~10 (Caculating it's actually 5, but I need to know how smart a GED holder is compared to the US average).

I.E the SINless cannot pass the test.

Yes. The projected AFQT scores of SINless is 10, as people with similar educational attainment to the SINless score comparably in the bottom 5% of the US militaries AFQT tests

Ten

Please, stop telling me it's 'fairly low IQ and you can still join' - these guys have no education and functional brain damage due to be starved as kids.



The average LOG score will be 1. It is reasonable to assume that other physical & mental attributes would be similarly impacted as the low LOG scores are due to impacted brain development due to malnutrition.

Posted by: Cain Oct 26 2009, 04:07 AM

Excuse me, no offense meant, but where are you getting the ASVAB/IQ comparison? I couldn't find it. The ASVAB, however, has a standard deviation of 10. That means, since the average score is 50, someone with an IQ two SD below the mean would score a 30. Since the minimum score for the Army and Marines is 31 and 32, respectively, it's not out of the question that a undereducated SINless person could qualify.

I don't know where you got that five from, but the math doesn't support you.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 04:28 AM

I'm not getting a straight comparison across.

Also, afaik, the AFQT which gives you a percentile rating compared to the % of the general population. The ASVAB as taken has a lower IQ scores of the US military have been measured in other tests, which is why I know what the general admissions score is (and that it's higher than the average population), but all I'm doing with it is just validating that starting with the assumption that average US military recruits have an IQ of 100 or greater.

So what I'm doing is:

IQ scores in Britian & the US are 100 with a standard deviation of 15. IQ scores in Somalia, Ethopia and Burkino Faso are 68 (or lower, in the case of Burkino Faso). Therefore we can see that mean IQ scores in Somalia are two std. devs. from the the UK & USA

The ASVAB measures what percentile of the general US population you are in as renomalised in (1995/7) - so if you are two std devs. below the mean, you're in the bottom 5%, giving you an AFQT of 5.

Of course IQ is an imprecise science, so let's round it up to 10. You could even go 20 if you want.

My overall stance is dependant on the fact that the AFQT scores will track against the IQ test scores with some degree of comparison. It is likely that they will as the overall AFQT score focuses on specific areas that are similar to an IQ test: AFQT scores are computed using the Standard Scores from four ASVAB subtests: Arithmetic Reasoning (AR), Mathematics Knowledge (MK), Paragraph Comprehension (PC), and Word Knowledge (WK)

About to AFQT/ASVAB

DoD stance on recruits



The average SINless is a Category V, which the US army does not considerable trainable.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 04:28 AM

And your point is Cthulhudreams? In a world where ( Logic 2-3 ) is "average" even someone with ( Logic 1 ) is functional, and I would argue that as bad as the Barrens are, they aren't quite as bad as you want to make them out to be.

Besides, even if the Barrens were as bad as you are painting them to be the SINless are hardly contained to the Barrens.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 04:44 AM

Logical 3 is average by the book (though I agree, 2 makes more sense). Either way a guard with mental stats of 1/1/1/1 is at a significant disadvantage to a guard with 3/3/3/3.

I'm not painting the barrens as that bad. There are schools that you stay in sometimes, you don't starve to death, merely regularly go hungry. I think that is probably in line with the books. The actual barrens are probably much worse - at least their are jobs to be had to in Burkino Faso and Ethopia!

There is a second line of SINless - the guys that haven't been living out here as part of the Helloweeners since 2020 or whatever, but they are the people shadowrunners come from.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 04:53 AM

Sure and I think that I've been saying that educated guards woudl be considered a "better" choice, but that the fact that the less desirable guards are still viable is threat enough to allow the corps to treat even the "average" guys so poorly that they might as well be slaves.

Or at least that is the point that I've been trying to get across, a stupid but functional guard is viable due to the magic of knowsofts, and average guards don't require tons of training either.

*EDIT*

And I'd argue that even amongst the "second line" of SINless the people who are crazy enough to be Runners are in the minorty.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 05:07 AM

I dunno about you, but I'm uncomfortable about giving people classed as mentally disabled hand grenades. It just has a certain ring of 'looming disaster' to it.

The second line of SINless makes no sense conceptually. Assuming you still want to eat, you need to get a job. Which means you get a SIN. Which means the second line of SINless evaporates.

It's just impossible to stay off the net unless you have no skills (in which case the net is happy for you to do that) or no desire to eat.



Unless you're relying on skillsofts, it does take tons of training to become a competent soldier (just to be clear, I'm not talking about rentacops, I'm talking about the guys who guard Renraku facilities that have important and commercially sensitive data). This means you're talking about way more than just 'standing their and looking mean' you're talking about leading small squads, designing patrols etc.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR193.pdf

Looks at how much your AFQT score (not! your training) makes you. Going from Category IV to IIIB results in a 34% increase in accuracy for gunners. The best bit is that category IV personnel don't even know they are doing it wrong. If you ask them to tell you what was incorrect about their operation of the equipment, 97% of cat I personnel will tell you 1 or more issues, almost 30% of IV personnel don't even identify any errors.

You're suggesting putting category 5, who are less capable again, in charge of complex security systems! People who are literally incapable of identifying that the system is not working.

I dunno about you, but I would not be particularly threatened by that sort of person. Check out the survival stats in a battlefield simulation - 68% for Cat I and 26% in IV. Again, will drop further in V we can presume, if the relationship holds down to 16%. They are also about half as likely to actually get the job done.

Anyway, these disadvantages are perhaps best simulated in shadowrun by setting the SINless and slaves stats very low. You're looking at 1s across the board and the uneducated flaw stock.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 05:17 AM

Is there no way for someone without a SIN to make money? No underground economy, no illegitimate enterprises hiring illegals, no black market, no criminal work for pay?

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 05:20 AM

Giving nearly retarded people hand grenades seems a very Cyberpunk thing to do though, just like relying on programs as opposed to real skills.

I disagree with you on the "Second Line SINless", in the old days it was fragging hard to get a SIN so even good people slipped through the cracks and there is always going to be grey and black econamies to pick up the slack. Hell, even in real life the concept of "cash under the table" is very real.

And although a "stupid" guard who has to access his 'softs to realize that the system is fragged may not be as much as a threat as a smart guard, the fact that the corps are willing to rent both of them automatic weapons and premission to shoot more-or-less at whim should be fragging scary.

Of course, remember that I don't buy the idea that Shadowrunners should be "world class" no matter what char-gen allows for either.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 05:21 AM

Oh you can go work for a drug cartel or something, I assume lots of people do that. infact, I fully expect that drug cartels are the biggest employers in this area.

However, I assumed that was just as crazy as being a shadowrunner - being in that it is the same thing being a professional criminal. As for hiring illegals for manual labour or whatever, get a robot.

The sample includes people who have passed the additional trainings and certifications from the US military and had large quantities of US military simulator time - giving them exactly the sort of level of experince you'd get from a know soft. They don't know that there are problems, so there is no reason to assume that the knowsoft blokes will too.

If he cannot successfully open & operate an encrypted communications link to his fellow guards, the shadow runners are going to nail his ass.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 05:28 AM

Except that for the most part, robots cost more in the long run then merely picking some warm bodies off of a street corner and paying them less then slave wages at best. If a drone breaks then you've got to pay to fix it, if a SINless gets hurt then you simply kick him back on the street or put a bullet in his head and sell his organs if you think the money is worth the trouble.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 05:35 AM

That's the rub - drones in SR are stupid cheap. The cheapest you can pay someone is a take home of 2k a month (less than that and they don't eat), and a robot costs 3k-10k upfront. Assuming annual maint costs of 1/3rd of the sticker price, and a capital write off over 3 years, then your drone costs between 6k and 20k, whereas a low paid human costs 72k over the same period.

Edit: I actually figure that people on 'low' lifestyles are people in the services industry that employers haven't worked out how to replace with robots yet.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 05:38 AM

Well, I probably think being a professional criminal is a lot less crazy than you do, so we'll chalk that up to different life experiences, but it's been my experience that underclasses find ways to eat, cracks in the system that allow them to continue to survive, even under desperate conditions. This gets much easier when the underclass exists within the same general physical location as a highly successful society. I think the statistics for the number of SINless existing in Shadowrun imply that they must be surviving somehow.


SR4 has made this a reasonably economical choice, given that for 5 months of Squatter lifestyle, you can buy a Manservant-3 to do the same work, and with a Pilot of 3, to boot. Yes, it's less inventive, but in many cases, this isn't significant. [Prior to SR4, this was not a particularly valid solution.] And yet I would think there would still be many, many situations in which a robot is simply less well-suited to the requirements of the position than a SINless metahuman. But your vision of Shadowrun differs strongly from any I've encountered previously, which troubles me very little now that I realize it.

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 05:43 AM

Naw, you can pay people far less than that, for "grunt" work I'd say a Squatter Lifestyle is a much better fit, and hell, remember that given the lifestyle rules you really only have to pay people half of whatever lifestyle they are meant to be placed at, a third if you figure that the corps want their employees to be in a neverending spiral of debt to the corp.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 05:44 AM

Well, obviously. It's not like all the people in Mogadishu just keel over and die. I'd characterize it as a pretty crazy place to live though.

As for the robot comment: see previous - there are obviously jobs in the services industry that you cannot automate, but yeah.



Fair enough I guess. At this point there are some very marginal edge case jobs that you can get people to do very badly (with 2/3rds the dice of a robot) for much the same money. Hurray!

Though at this point.. you run into the other soviet russia problem. Russian border guards were the best and brightest and paid and treated very well, because they could literally take 4 steps forward and go somewhere else. Now in the future there might not be many places to go, but if you pocket the iPhone prototype you're supposed to be guarding, I would imagine options open up.

Posted by: kzt Oct 26 2009, 05:46 AM

Living in the Robert Taylor Homes isn't the same thing as being sinless in the barrens. At least the SR is written up, a sinless person without a comlink and fake sin can't even walk down the street without a passing patrol drone noting that he isn't transmitting a SIN and possibly being stopped.

At best it's like living in a shantytown on the outskirts of Juarez and looking at the towers of El Paso. It's not impossible to get there, but it isn't going to be easy or free.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 05:48 AM

Remembering I'm new to SR4, what do you mean by this?

Just noticed in the Lifestyle rules in SR4a that you can only buy one lifestyle. WTF?

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 05:49 AM

Yes, indeed it is. I don't perceive the Barrens as being equal to Mogadishu, however. Partially this is a difference of play style, but also it's an issue of geography.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 05:50 AM

See Kzt's point. The way they are written up, they are EXACTLY like Mogadishu right down to the random outbreaks of gunfire and Lonestar 'raids' where they just shoot up some houses, nor are you allowed to even go near an A zone without being arrested for the crime of not having any papers.

Posted by: Cain Oct 26 2009, 05:50 AM

OK, CD, I see where you're getting your numbers from, but you're still doing the comparison wrong.

The ASVAB doesn't compare against the general civilian population. It scores where you stand in relation to other people who took the test. This is why it's an IQ test more than an aptitude test. Assuming a direct correlation between g and ASVAB scores, someone who is two SD below the mean on one IQ test is going to be two SD below the mean on another, with a margin for error. That means such people could easily get a passing score on the ASVAB.

Additionally, the ASVAB pretends to be an aptitude test. So, it includes things like assembling objects, which wouldn't necessarily be Logic-based. That could push the scores up for those with a low Logic score and scarce Knowledge skills.

So, I'm sorry, but your comparison is wrong. The ASVAB is normalized against the ASVAB, not the general population.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 05:52 AM

This is not correct. The ASVAB is normalized against a sample of the general population between the ages of 17 & 24. The last re-norming included almost 12000 candidates in this age group drawn from the civilian population in 2004.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 05:53 AM

Yeah, I have a difficult time buying that, from a practical perspective, but I agree the SR4 rules provide for this, implicitly and explicitly. That said, this depends strongly on which street you're walking on, much as it does today. Not every street has patrol drones, for one thing, and again, the fact that SINless exist in large numbers implies they're getting by somehow. If it's not by working illegally, how?

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 05:56 AM

Mogadishu is quite a lot worse than what's written up about the Barrens in Shadowrun. To be honest, I've lived in neighborhoods in America with random outbreaks of gunfire and police raids that amount to "just shoot[ing] up some houses."


And A zones are the only places one could go to get money?

How do the SINless survive in your game?

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 06:00 AM

An explanation of ASVAB norming exists http://www.official-asvab.com/norming_res.htm, and is illuminating.

[edit: I may as well post the illuminating bit: "The current national norms for the ASVAB were implemented in 2004. A nationally representative sample consisting of about 6,000 American youths aged 18-23 was utilized in the creation of the norms. These youths were identified from a screening of over 90,000 housing units, as part of the Profile of American Youth 1997 (PAY97) study. In the summer and fall of 1997, the CAT-ASVAB was administered to study participants under standardized conditions. The performance of this reference group was then used to develop new norms for the ASVAB."]

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 06:00 AM

Basically whenever you fail to pay your lifestyle costs you roll a single die and as long as your roll is higher than the number of months you haven't paid nothing happens. The way I read the rules would work as follows.

Month 1: Missed Payment -- Have to roll 2+

Month 2: Missed Payment -- Have to roll 3+

Month 3: Make ONE Payment -- Everything resets

Month 4: Missed Payment -- Have to roll 2+


Of course, bad things happen when you miss a payment and roll badly your lifestyle is downgraded one level and you owe one payment that has to be made or else.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 26 2009, 06:07 AM

My word. Shadowrun's economy would be completely untenable. And I'd love to complain, but all I can think is, "Hey, that's just like the housing bust we're in!" Funny.

Thanks for the assist!

Posted by: Ravor Oct 26 2009, 06:11 AM

*chuckles* Aye, one of the reasons why I keep banging my head against the wall while screaming that the corps aren't "captilists" they are "fedual fiefs" at best.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 07:30 AM

well, it's got warlords, drug problems and arms markets too, not sure what the difference is.


Okay, large scale argiculture is really difficult in the 6th world, because if you try and herd some cattle, you'll eventually have calves that breath fire and/or turn people to stone, which is an issue for you the farmer.Which is why everything is made from soy. But as agriculture has many of the same problems, I just assume people grow stuff in vats. So most people exist eating vat food, which is actually pretty cheap.

Power sats are referenced in the books, and I have them as cannon - people steal power off the relatively prolific power sats. No-one notices/cares because there is overcapacity and no batteries.

Secondly, productivity will continue its march onwards. as a result, staples can be made pretty cheaply.

The CBD of most cities is the corporate concessions.

Then there is a huge belt of people who do the various engineering and technical jobs required to make mechanization work. IQs have been going up for quite some time, and by 2070, the average IQ of the UK will have moved to 125 or so from 100. Education will be extensive as anything less than 17 years of schooling can be replaced by drones, so most people will have masters degrees. This is the shiny happy future!

Outside of them is the C zones then the barrens. There is a very stark line of 'do you have a masters degree or not' People out here do not, and as such what these people do is have a services job, prostitution, arms dealing or deal drugs. You can scrape by on very low incomes. The barrens are Mogadishu. The cops don't go there... ever, and you can buy guns, cocaine and prostitutes on the street off the local gangers.

However, the narcotics trade is HUGE. Like.. MASSIVE. It's 1930's china in size. It's bigger than the total earnings of the government. It cannot operate in the corporate concessions and the A zones because the police are all over it like a rash (you can literally get 10 importing cocaine convictions for walking down the street in the concessions), so people from here take their money with them and go over the boarder to buy it.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 07:37 AM

well, it's got warlords, drug problems and arms markets too, not sure what the difference is.


Okay, large scale argiculture is really difficult in the 6th world, because if you try and herd some cattle, you'll eventually have calves that breath fire and/or turn people to stone, which is an issue for you the farmer.Which is why everything is made from soy. But as agriculture has many of the same problems, I just assume people grow stuff in vats. So most people exist eating vat food, which is actually pretty cheap.

Power sats are referenced in the books, and I have them as cannon - people steal power off the relatively prolific power sats. No-one notices/cares because there is overcapacity and no batteries.

Secondly, productivity will continue its march onwards. as a result, staples can be made pretty cheaply.

The CBD of most cities is the corporate concessions.

Then there is a huge belt of people who do the various engineering and technical jobs required to make mechanization work. IQs have been going up for quite some time, and by 2070, the average IQ of the UK will have moved to 125 or so from 100. Education will be extensive as anything less than 17 years of schooling can be replaced by drones, so most people will have masters degrees. This is the shiny happy future!

Outside of them is the C zones then the barrens. There is a very stark line of 'do you have a masters degree or not' People out here do not, and as such what these people do is have a services job, prostitution, arms dealing or deal drugs. You can scrape by on very low incomes. The barrens are Mogadishu. The cops don't go there... ever, and you can buy guns, cocaine and prostitutes on the street off the local gangers. Ther eis also lots of small manufacturing business, food stands, all sorts of stuff slum style because Renraku cannot operate out here - the local gangers cut their teeth throwing flaming trash cans through Renraku's shopfronts in the A zones.

However, the narcotics trade is HUGE. Like.. MASSIVE. It's 1930's china in size. It's bigger than the total earnings of the US government. It cannot operate in the corporate concessions and the A zones because the police are all over it like a rash (you can literally get 10 importing cocaine convictions for walking down the street in the concessions), so people from here take their money with them and go over the boarder to buy it.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 26 2009, 08:24 AM

Backing the discussion up to education again, I want to take a moment to look at it from the corporation side of things.

A guard is a citizen of the corporation. Born into a family of guards, probably a 3rd generation if human. Quite possibly from a military or police family, historically. He was raised in corp schools to be a corp guard. He was taught everything they wanted him to know and nothing more. Of the things they spent a good deal of time drilling into his skull are included a strong fear of the world outside, suspicion of other corps and fidelity to the corporation which has raised and housed him since his birth. The fear of being cut off from his known world, exiled to the streets/barrens as a penniless, non-person is probably a fate worse than death to him. And that's exactly what would be done to him if he showed any indication where he might "defect" to some other security job. And, if he did try and join up with another outfit, he wouldn't make it in the door. They wouldn't trust him. They might take him on after extensive brainwashing, but that's the same kind of expense as grabbing a ganger off the street and putting him through the wringer. Who would sign up for that expecting "a better life" out of the deal?

As to the personal cost of housing the guard, all the overhead would be paid for by the corp. His food costs would be at or near cost of production. Same as his housing, entertainment, and, well, security. I envision them living on-site in dormitory style apartments, fully subsidized by their employers. I don't see them giving much thought to retirement, and if they do retire, I imagine the corp just scooping all their assets and leaving them dead in a ditch, discarded like a spent shell.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 08:32 AM

Don't you see how that is totally non functional? YOU are the security guards! YOU KNOW what is going to happen at 55, because YOU do it to everyone else. YOU are the one who liquidates people!

That precludes generational guards - because that means you stole your dad's stuff and kicked him out, and it;s going to happen to you. So why wouldn't YOU at 50 steal everyone's shit and scamper for the hills?

Why the hell would you wait for it to happen to you? You may as well start theft straight up. Need to steal enough stuff to provide for retirement.

You would have the worst 'guarding' ever seen in human history.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 26 2009, 09:23 AM

That's assuming only one level of security. Only the corporate inner circle would have any idea about what happens to assets put out to pasture. That's some basic information control. Maybe they hire outside operators like shadowrunning scum to handle that side of things. Just a group of guys who get a name and location, then, *spack* brains on walls. Easy money. Their murders would do well to motivate people to stay on if really looked into what happened after someone leaves the safety of the enclave. Couple months in the mean world and they get torn up by gangers and thugs.
You don't actually imagine that these places would let people retire with heads full of privileged info, right? 35 years of intimate knowledge with their security apparatus isn't something they want out in the world. I see it sort of like that show The Prisoner. Anyone with any real value gets shipped away to a retirement home they can never leave, but, if they already know everything you know, you just get offed.

Posted by: kzt Oct 26 2009, 09:33 AM

If you know that at 50 you'll be kicked out penniless on the street the smart people will start to figure out that they should find some of those shadow runners and come to an arrangement... He knows when and where the good stuff is and how it's secured. All he needs are some associates with guns.

Posted by: kzt Oct 26 2009, 09:37 AM

You're talking about a company that employees 40 million people. It's the size of the US government. Think about that. You think ugly things don't leak out? How many people are going to have to know about this?

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 26 2009, 09:40 AM

Yeah, a smart/ plugged-in guy like corp spider or rigger nearing the age of retirement may try to find a way to convert all his corp script into a more fluid capital and organize his own extraction. Burn out of there before the Logan's Run squad shows up to lock him in the retirement castle. Sounds like a good run concept to me.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Oct 26 2009, 09:54 AM

Dude, don't you think that people might want to find out where their dad is? I mean, he was here literally last week, and now he isn't. We didn't have a funeral.... People are totally going to notice that their relatives disappear at age 55, and that there are literally no Ares employees in the world over age 55.



Plus, the corporate inner circle has to liquidate every janitor and whatever else. Don't you think an operation that kills 27 thousand people a WEEK is going to draw some attention. Don't you think that killing 27 THOUSAND people a week is going to draw some attention? Don't you think the people that kill 27 THOUSAND people a week are actually going notice that their co-workers disappear at age 55? Don't you think they are going to get really pissy?

You're actually running an operation that is generating as many kills as the holocaust!

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 26 2009, 10:22 AM

Meh. One enclave has about 300k resident citizens. We're looking at a few thousand "explained" disappearances and deaths per site per year. I don't see family units as being that tight anyway. Kids are raised in boarding programs from age 5 upwards. I also wouldn't expect retirement age to be a mandatory deadline across the board, and if we're extrapolating retirement age from what we see today, I'd put the average age somewhere in the 70s for most employees. You keep them on a farm somewhere and drug them to senility and death. Guys like guards would retire considerably earlier, but they'd also likely see upwards promotion to more and more elite units, until they end up in one of the elite units chosen to compete in the Desert Wars. Right there you've got the perfect retirement package. Death games in a radioactive wasteland. You want to talk about job satisfaction? Desert. Wars. "You've just been chosen to fight and die for sport. Good luck!" Wait, who would want that job?