That doesn't bother me quite as much, because they are in the same book, and their effects stack with one another. An encephalon is (to my mind, at least) the pricey option for hackers who are extremely dedicated and want to squeeze every last bit of performance out of themselves. The altskin applications don't bother me, either, because they are more expensive and of a higher Availability than latex masks or nanopaste - they don't make the latter two useless, just as the savior medkit doesn't render a normal medkit useless. People will still use the cheaper options.

I can't really comment about the face morphing cyber from Spy Games. I can only hope they present it in a way that still leaves a niche for the bioware - ideally it would be better in some ways, worse in other ways. After hearing about the munchkin crap in War! I'm not too hopeful about that, but then again, maybe they've learned their lesson.

To be fair in that case, they add together. You get PuSHeD and then if you need more, then get the Encephelon. Some hackers might go for it.

Sorry Sengir, I just do not see the problems... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Temple Pharmaceuticals is proud to unveil their newest cutting edge-product, a result of years of research by our dedicated scientists:
Nanite Reflexes
+1 IP and +1 Rea per Rating, R*2000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , Avail 5R, Essence 0.3

Hey, it's more Essence-friendly than its bioware counterpart, while being cheaper and more easily available than the cyberware (you know, the kind of ware which is supposed to be the cheap alternative) equaivalent - but I do not see any problems there...

Taking into account that this is non-RAW tech, this is nanoware right? Or does it also have house rule advantages over regular nanoware?

Thank You Toturi... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Especially since Drugs are even Cheaper than Sengir's Porposal, for the Same Benefit... Cram: +1 Reaction, +1 IP, Cost is 10 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) . Wow, this must be the most powerful substance ever produced.

What are you guys talking about? It's a fake example of an augmentation that's flat better than all the rest (and no, Tymeaus, Cram doesn't beat it). And I'd assume it's nanocybernetics from the description, but how is that at all relevant? The point is that it would be something fundamentally better in every way.

This.
Bear with me, I still sometimes forget the problem most English speakers (fun fact, I've even noticed it among locals who stayed in the US or UK for a few years) with analogies, irony, or similar devices (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


By the way, I looked the Jigsaw Skull in Spy Games and it does not look so bad: Essence cost is higher (it's cyber, after all), Availability higher for low ratings and lower for high ratings, price is exactly the opposite. Overall a nice alternative with its own faults and merits, instead of being flatly better or worse.
What is bad on the other hand are the unclear rules: One can obviously adjust the face manually on the fly with a Disguise + Intuition (4, 3 Combat Turns) Extended Test, or more carefully in two minutes..without a test? I guess so, because it does not mention a test. What's also guesswork is the actual rules effect of the disguise ...Rating added to Disguise test maybe?

Cram does not have to beat it Yerameyahu, all it has to do is compete with it. And it does so quite well in that regard.
Cram is Fundamentally better in every way to what Sengir posted. Same Benefit, No essence Loss (at least initially) and significantly cheaper in such a way that you would need Hundreds of Combats to realize any fundamental difference in Cost. What is the Survival Quotient for Combat. How many Combats are you expected to survive in your career? If it is 200 or less, then the Cram is a MUCH better deal than ANY other Initiative Enhancer out there, bar none.

Drawbacks?

Cram - Possible Addiction
Nanocybernetics - Essence Loss and More Expensive.
Cyber/Bioware - Essence Loss and More Expensive.
Magician - Magician Quality, Heavy Investment in Magic Attribute, Sustaining Focus or Sustaining Penalties, and Spell Cost in BP/Karma (More Expensive).
Adept - Magical Quality and Heavy Investment in Magic Attribute, Heavy Investment in Power Point Expenditure.

Cram is better in Every way, it has a [i]Possible[/i] drawback (that may or may not take effect), while every other option has a Guaranteed Drawback. So... Why does not everyone use Cram? Choice. There is an abundance of choices out there. This is good for Shadowrun.

The Point is, there is absolutely no problem with there being 10 ways to do something in the game. Some will be, by definition, fundamentally better in every way than another (or several others) out there.

At a certain point you just see that it's universally unbalanced and give up.
The cost of adding X dice to your dice pool is whatever a developer felt the market price might be for an item regardless of other market prices or it's benefit to runners.
For some devices, the market price varies depending on which rules you're using (pirated vs. non-pirated software).
For some devices the effectiveness is purely up to the GM (Vocal Range Enhancer for example).
Even the costs for Karma and BP aren't even remotely related and oddly enough seem designed to be counter to the goal of building a well rounded character. (It's beneficial points wise to specialize under BP to just below hard cap and round out under Karma. I don't understand why that was the goal.)

Some things are just too powerful. Some things are just to weak. In the end it's enough fun that we're all willing to turn off Leverage and play. And that's good enough.

Tymeaus, I really don't understand your mind. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Cram is +1 IP, this is a notional version of standard +3 IP 'ware (it's *Rating). Cram is temporary, this is permanent (and helps with driving, heh). You're completely ignoring the point of the example, and I can only assume on purpose?

Yes, there are choices, and they're not perfectly balanced like a rock-paper-scissors game. No, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be a *little* balanced, nor that universally superior choices don't basically ruin it. It doesn't mean you should just ignore it all and accept every imperfection, large or small.

You're going a little overboard with the nested negations there (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



Anyway, the point was that ideally, all the available ways to do X have some benefits, some drawbacks, and it makes sense that there's a group of people for whom it is the sensible choice.

If an augmentation is outclassed in every way by others, then why waste valuable book space on it?

As for Cram: it's a viable choice for some people, but it doesn't obsolete the others because it only goes up to +1IP.

Cram also improves reaction, and has a working time of 12-body hours. Unless your stunt is taking a few hours to pull off, it should help with driving, too. Also, is it not possible to stack drug effects until you hit the (augmented) maximum? That's only 30 nuyen to have 4 IPs for a few hours, if you want to risk the addiction test and the huge stun damage after it wears off (18 total). Yeah, it's not perfect, but in the short term, it might be better then the other options. It all comes down to choice.

(And really, does anyone actually need 4 IPs unless they are just trying to play the system?)

Cram: Cheap, easy to obtain, but unreliable, very limited (no way to get more than +1 IP), and with heavy side effects. The typical no-implant solution
Wires: Moderate price, controllable, but cost a crapload of Essence and easy to detect. The typical cyberware
Synaptic Aceclerators: Friendly on the essence, easy to conceal, but costs a fortune and cannot be deactivated. The typical bioware

Now, nanoware should be expected somewhere close to the bioware: Hard to detect and easy on the Essence score, but expensive as hell and hard to get, since nanotech is still new and uncommon. But when it comes to disguises, the nanoware is actually the cheapest of all possible implants, plus it's essence-friendly and harder to detect.
And at this point it's no longer just "choice". It would be a choice if there were multiple options to choose from, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. If there is one good solution and three ways to shoot oneself in the foot, it's simply bad design. Especially if the clever choice is supposed to be the ultra-new high tech solution.

Psh, Ascalaphus, show me where the grammar is wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

HunterHerne, if drug stacking is possible, it's banned in every game I've ever played—and thank god. The point was permanent vs. temporary, and (indeed) the crash damage.

I don't think this is a controversial point: balance (meaning trade-off choices) is the ideal, and imbalance is to be *grudgingly* tolerated when it's more trouble than it's worth to fix. To automatically scoff at anyone pointing out clear imbalance is ridiculous.

As I understand the terms, nanotechnology and nanoware is seperate from (although related to) nanocybernetics which is a subset of cybernetics pertaining to nanotechnology.

The problem is that not everyone uses the same standards to gauge imbalance. To say that it is ridiculous when someone scoffs at someone else pointing out "clear imbalance" is in itself pretty ridiculous, IMO. In fact, it is highly unlikely that someone will scoff at someone else pointing out imbalance that he agrees with. It is only when there is a disagreement on whether something is imbalanced that this situation will arise.

Going back to sensitive system for a bit: I allow "cheap flaws" in my games, for the most part, simply because they're cheap. Sure, a mage or otaku has no intention of ever getting cyber, but this restricts them from going that direction. They might, as the character develops, discover a use for cyber, and deeply regret that they can't use it. The adept in my game is lagging behind the curve, because he has Sensitive system and won't take cyber to match the advancement of the troll samurai and the rigger. Cheap flaws shouldn't get much play, because they're supposed to only be minor inconveniences. The trouble arises when someone loads up on minor flaws; but even then, it's controllable. I don't need to harp on a character's flaws, I have enough ways of messing with them in game without needing it.

The only flaws I strongly restrict are SURGE, Incompetences, and In Debt. SURGE is too game changing for me to control, while Incompetences and In Debt have been gone over many times. I'll allow them, but only if the player can justify it to me. For example, I have a mage with Incompetence: Banishing. That's legit: it's a skill she could use, but has trouble with.

The only flaw I outright ban is Day Job. I've despised it ever since the days of SR2. It's a flaw that gives you money, and has no drawbacks. By RAW, if you "quit" your day job, you still get the monthly cash until you buy off the flaw. I'd have to force a player to spend karma on nothing but buying off that flaw, which would lead to an argument over whether or not a GM can dictate the way a character advances. I just bypass it.

As far as rules go, I've simply banned War! from my table. Even though they're getting into merc work, it's just too much power creep. Don't get me wrong, I like high powered games. But I'm not putting THOR satellites where PC's can get their hands on them.

They quit, they chose how they advanced. You're just enforcing their decision as per rules as written.

Yeah, flaws give you build points, and get bought off with karma. If you ditch the flaw, you have to pay the karma to pay it off. Although the GM might replace it with a different flaw, instead. That includes In Debt - you didn't just get some money, you got build points with it, too.

But I do appreciate that Cain simply lets players know, ahead of time, that he isn't allowing certain negative qualities. No bitching at the player, no allowing it and then pulling a bunch of passive-aggressive crap. I wish more GMs were like that.

@Yerameyahu
Honestly, if you want to nail mage run, just change how magic loss due to ware works.
Just get back to:
If you have some ware, your magic is less potent but you still have to pay the full price to increase it.
Example mage has magic 4.
Now he gets to points of Ware and drops to 4(2) now using only a magic 2 for all his tests.
Now he is increasing his magic from 2 to 3 and pays 5*5=25Karma. (compared to the 15 Karma in the book now)
Does not sound like much here, but if said mage ends up with magic 8 in the long run his two points of ware did cost him (7+(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) *5=75 Karma.
Thats a force 9 Power Focus! Compared to the 35 Karma in the book...

Making them all sensativ does not work, since there is a work around in the book. You just need to buy your ware with a low magic score.
Espacially in Karma Gen, there would be no reason not to start with an adept having just 3 Points of magic and dropping two for ware.
After a few runs get one point of magic and drop it again for ware. leaving you with 35 Points Karma lost for 3 Points of ware. Even if you can just use 1.5 effectiv due to the sensitivity, it is still a good deal.

I see no need to bring the low powered mages down. They can't do much anyway.
Some magic 4 or 5 mage, can't do the very bad stuff. (Well, he might stunbolt some guys, but thats about it)
Have him in some BC of 1 (which is quite common) and he has to hide behind the sam.
It is the magic 7 mage with 3 initiation you got to keep an eye on. If this guy manages to get 2 or eve 3 points of ware without a major setback in Karma you will run into problems!

Yeah, but I'd rather not have the problem. That's why I ban it. And like Glyph said, I let the players know up-front that it's banned from my games. That's also why In Debt is next on the chopping block for me, and how I handle War!. I don't care how you guys handle it at your games, it's not something I want to deal with in mine. If somebody wants something out of War!, I tell them no *before* they start making their character. It might not be totally fair, but at least it's honest.

@Cain
It is quite the definition of fair, by the way. You tell up front and it is true for everyone. It does not get any fairer than that.

It sounds a little harsh, but clarity beforehand avoids a lot of grief.

Personally I'd say that given its reputation, stuff in War! is on the "no, unless" list, while in most other books it's "yes, unless". That is, I might allow something if the player can convince me that a particular thing isn't unbalanced or stupid, but that it would be cool to have.

Incompetence is the trickiest NQ I think. I only allow it if the Incompetence is for a skill that you can reasonably expect the character to want to use from time to time. Pilot Ground Vehicle is usually OK; Pilot Aircraft wouldn't be, for most characters (but would be for a rigger).

Now, I allow SURGE(as we all do really at the table unless the game itself dictates), but I can understand why people ban this. However-did you find it easier, I take it, to just flat-out ban SURGE than to cherrypick the ''Not So Gamechanging'' ones? For example-Claws, Horns or Fangs can be gotten via cyberware, Satyr Legs can be gotten if you play a Satyr/get the Kid Stealth legs. and I don't see that being too gamechangy(granted, Kid Stealth cyberlegs can be swapped out for normal ones if needed, and Satyrs are kinda rare-of course some folks ban the metavariants which is also understandable) but glow-in-the-dark Ganesha characters would likely get a huge ''WTF''.

I do like your method though-just tell it up front, and those flaws you banned are all really understandable(I actually have gotten use out of Day Job before but I do totally get that it's one of those can-of-worm flaws that can cause problems, and the positives-being able to get a decent story out of it sometimes-don't outweigh the negatives.)

And yeah-Incompetence is rough to handle, but can be good if used well. It's also quite game-dependent; Incompetence: Swimming wouldn't work in a total dry land campaign but could damn well be crippling in a pirate campaign. It can either not come up at all-or be actually over-crippling, all for the same amount of points. Sometimes it can actually be kinda fun(A few years back, when we made the Mystery Men using Shadowrun rules on this board in a fun thread, I made Mr. Furious and gave him Incompetent: Intimidation. It fit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

Have you considered just ruling that In Debt doesn't count as a negative quality but can be still be taken to get some extra money in chargen that you have to pay back in game.
That's the way i would handle it(and if i ever find a GM, how i will try to convince him/her to handle it) as it has quite solid rules for getting loan money in chargen, it just doesn't make sense that you get Build Points too.