They only "don't do much of anything", if the GM allows it. OTOH, if the GM is on top of his game (as he should be), then the negatives will matter as much as the positives (proportional to their relative cost, of course).


See, here's teh thing. "Dictate" ... when did that come into the discussion? When did the player ever get the right to say "This is what I want, and so shall it be, for my word is Law" ...?

Just like any part of character creation, an Advanced Lifestyle is a negotiation between the GM and the player.


So ... because someone might abuse a system, the whole system should be thrown out?

That is basically what you're arguing, here. And you know as well as I do, that character creation itself is far, far more readily abused than Advanced Lifestyles. Oh, and Character Advancement, too. So by your logic, those too-easily abused systems should no be allowed to most, or perhaps even any, players.

I reject that, 200%, as the absolute foolishness it is. Half the job of a GM is to provide oversight for these things. Every possible abuse, is preventable just by saying "no". And if you have only players who won't take "no" for an answer? GET NEW PLAYERS.

No player ever dictates anything about any game, beyond the actual actions and dialog of their character. Players do get to make lots of choices outside that, but those choices are always subject to GM approval.

...

See, I have a simple guideline: if a given negative quality - be it for yoru character, or your lifestyle - will have no appreciable effect on your character, you get 0 points for it. And the only person qualified to judge whether or not that quality will be a hindrance, is the GM. Period, end of story, discussion closed.

Not a hacker, don't have any matrix-related skills you might ever use from home? Network Bottleneck is worth -0 points for you.

Not a hacker, but actually do have Data Search 4, and a good Browse program? "We'll see for now, but if you end up not using this from home, hey look at that, the local matrix infrastructure just got upgraded, no more bottleneck!" And of course, no more -1 LQ.

Are a hacker or technomancer? Same as the answer above: "we'll see", and if it proves to be a nonissue, it'll be removed.

...

Which all boils down to "the GM doing their job".

If you don't think you need a GM to custom-tailor the rules for yoru group's game, why do you need a GM at all?


Easy correction: use the Availability rules already provided.

And, as I suggested above, say "Sure, sure, but _______", where that blank can be "also <add an LQ>", or even "<remove an LQ>".

Even better, both. After they make the Availability test, they locate someplace ... but maybe it's not quite exactly what they were hoping for. Treat it like any plot-hook a player throws your way. Heck, maybe they find the (almost) perfect place out in the barrens - but there's a BIG ghoul nest already in residence. "It's huntin' time, boys! Yee-haw!"

See... then you are *NOT* using the rules at written Pax. You're house ruling.

If you're house ruling then the rules themselves were not well done in the first place despite all your plaudits.


You've illustrated my point perfectly. The player has the 'shield of RAW'. The rules as written say X, Y , and Z. But now you're forced to be an evil vindictive GM because you won't allow them to have this or that or to fully make use of the rules. Now that you've come in and said no... you're the evil one and the seeds of strife have been planted in the group.

This is exactly what often comes of poorly done construction rules.


Nezumi:
Thank you... you understood what I was saying unlike the others. I was feeling very frustrated by the whole deal that I wasn't getting my thoughts out clearly.

The advanced lifestye is nothing more than an ala carte.. instead of paying 10k a month for a high lifestyle and all which comes with it.. (which is never actually defined in the main book...). Instead they pick and choose only certain elements. And a lot of the positive qualities just don't make sense or simply come down to bean counting.

Min/Max is the problem... they take a poorly thought out and designed +5 quality like feng shui (ANY technical or artisan skill check) then tack on a lot of meaningless negative qualities. So the cost doesn't double from 4400 to 9000... it only goes up a nudge because they take something like pests or the like which don't mean jack in the game. And I object to the argument that if they can pick the features down to the smallest detail then they're also picking the drawbacks unless the rules state otherwise (example Changeling... point out that the quality states that the GM can pick the negative changeling qualities and some people go absolutely ballistic because they won't get their precious 'astral hazing' 'negative' quality). Those rules specifically give the GM cover by RAW to say you've gone too far now... here enjoy this cephaloid skull instead of astral hazing.

The other problem is that runs and things practically never involve the players own place/crash pad. So most things related to it are such minor threats in the course of game play as to be silly. But they'll pick things which give them big bonuses in their downtime activities which get handwaved away in 90% of the cases.


Magic will end up the exact same thing I feel... a bunch of people using arbitrary rules to cherry pick the best of things while offsetting with minor inconveniences at best. Right now a tradition is something done whole cloth and accepted or rejected as such. With construction rules... you're chained to the construction rules no matter how bad.

That's exactly what they do right now with mentor spirits. They pick a tradition or make one up that works mechanically best for them but doesn't fit well into any gaming setting. Then toss on the mentor which gives the biggest bonuses and least penalties.

Another good example of poorly done construction rules we've seen lately... warform construction. So we get people claiming special genecrafted chipmunks/hamsters whatever... with the most vicious poison they can find and all the other perks is only chump change to buy.

Yet another example... the karmagen rules as published and errataed... and the BP system before it. Every kind of point based system I've seen them put out is blatantly abusable to the point where if you don't you seriously hamstring yourself. (yeah dumpstat that one attribute to 1 or 2 so you can get this other one to 5... so you don't hammered through the nose to raise the higher skill/attribute later... don't buy a lot of skills in chargen but buy them in play afterwards... specializations lousy deal in chargen... great deal after play starts).

Houseruling, how, exactly?

BEcause "Excercising the standrd GM's Discretion" is not, nor has it ever been, "house ruling".


You need to get out more. Take in some sunlight, interact with actual human beings for a while.

No, seriously. BEcause that is the most ridiculous, paranoiac tripe I have seen posted to an RPG forum in ... well, something close to a decade.


SR4A, pp267-269. Every bit as defined as the Advanced Lifestyle rules' basic attributes are.


And the same is true of Character Creation. Do you see that in the same light?

If not ... why?



The negative qualities are only meaningless, if the GM elects not to applyt hem, and/or if the GM elects not to roleplay scenes at or around the PC's home address. And if either or both of those are true, the GM simply should not use those rules.

IOW, there's only a problem if the GM wants there to be a problem.


Again, the negatives mean something if the GM actually applies them.



As a player, if I say "I want changeling, with <positives> and <negatives>", the GM is perfectly within his rights to say "No, you'll have to have <otehr negatives> instead".

At which point, as a player, I am also perfectly within my rights to say "Fuck no, I don't want to play that", and skip on Changeling altogether. Or, alternately, say "I was really interested in <originalnegatives> as part of my character concept. Would a different set of positives make them acceptible?"



If that's true of your games, then, Advanced Lifestyle may not be a good fit for your games. That doesn't make them bad rules in and of themselves, however.

Also, if a player wants to put forward a location with good narrative potential, and you as the GM elect not to take advantage of that ... it's not the rules' fault, it's yours.

...

Seriously, Falconer ... find a new hobby ... you have an IMO unhealthy "GM-versus-the-bastard-players" attitude.

The lifestyle negatives do not give extra points to build the character, and as such "does this affect the character 'on the job'" should not be considered. Just because it doesn't affect their professional life does not mean it doesn't affect their life even if their personal life isn't played out.

By definition, if you're invoking Rule 0... then you are house ruling. That is the purest definition of the term.

You are no longer 'playing by the rules'

You are selectively taking some ideas from the rules and applying them and ignoring the rest. That is in it's purest form rule 0 and house ruling. If you need to do this with construction rules in particular... then there is a problem in the construction rules.

We are discussing rules which work and which don't work... in a thread devoted to a new RULES edition coming out. If you feel the need to constantly houserule something. Then this directly pertinent to the thread. You may not like my position... but there are others who feel similarly and don't like it when the rules force you to houserule things constantly.



And lay off the ad hominems Pax. I've never attacked you personally in all of this, only referred to your posts by referring to your handle. I have no idea why Grinder singled me out for voicing frustration with expressing my views. There's nothing in that post directed at you, just expressing frustration at your continued house ruling as an example the rules aren't broken.


You don't know my attitude... you have no place calling another poster paranoic, etc. etc. You may not like my views but take issue with them not me. Your posts are directly aimed at me, and not my views... reread your last paragraph.

Oh for...stop the RAW versus GM discretion argument. It's pointless. There are ways to abuse most systems in most games and that doesn't mean the game is badly designed. There's a range between "badly designed mechanics" and "mechanics that can potentially be abused somewhere." That's it. If some people really like a particular mechanic and it's great for their games, then that, as a game designer, is awesome. If some people don't like the same mechanics and don't use them, that's unfortunate, but understandable. You can't write a game for every table, that's why a GM is there.

The last line of his post was aimed at you, yes, and I agree with him, Falconer.
The one where paranoic was mentioned, well that was aimed squarely at--and hit dead center, IMO--on your views.

Rule 0 is not houseruling.


Grinder apparently disagrees.

But I have a simple solution to any and all of this:

*plonk*

...

To everyone else, I apologize for not doing that sooner, and dragging this out longer than it needed to go on. I'm a bit Quixotic that way; often can't resist the urge to go tilting at windmills ...

Plonk?

That's the sound of him dropping the subject.

Ahhhh... yes, I hear it now. Thanks. The sound got lost in all the office noise around me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

... into a deep well, labelled "ignore list". I don't believe in leaving someone hanging wondering if they're being ignored or not.

So your opinion is the one that's correct? Not cool (I'm saying this is a normal user here, hence this is not in my mod color).

I think he is saying that he enjoys the argument but that trying to change someones mind on DS (or anywhere for that matter) can be like tilting at windmills not that he is necessarily correct.

That's ... that's not even ont eh same continent as what I meant. I honestly can't see how you got to that, from what I said.

...

I enjoy debate, and even mildly-passionate argument, on forums. Enough so that I find it difficult NOT to continue my side of one, even when perhaps most of the others involved in a thread would like to move on to a different facet of the thread's topic.

And I apologised to those people - you included! - on the off-chance this was one of those times. That's all I did; there was no assignment of correct-or-not involved.

Obviously, I did and continue to beleive I was "correct" and Falconer wasn't. But that has no bearing on my attempt to apologise to everyone who isn't named "Falconer" or "_Pax_", for continuing the argument for so long.

Yeesh. I never thought I'd need to explain a simple "sorry for not dropping it sooner, guys" to this extent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

Hey, at least you realized when to stop yourself and pull back.

The other forums I go to, those guys are always so hot-headed and self-righteous that the only time they stop is when a mod steps in.

On Mechanics:

Could a computer run the game mechanics and keep it balanced when there is no GM?

If not then your rules don't work as written.

I hope the 5th edition developers work well with the computer game developers. There hasn't been an edition of Shadowrun yet where a computer could effectively use the rules. Shadowrun is a game that has survived in SPITE of its rules, based on the extreme strength of setting, plot, story and style.

...um...isn't the whole draw behind every single tabletop RPGs ever made is BECAUSE there is no computer involved in actually running the game?

And that because there is no inherent programming that restricts players what they can and can't do, and to be able to move beyond the base ruleset? And that tabletop RPGs, by their very nature, allow for improvisation of both the gameplay and the stories being told, outside of what is just given by the developers?

Because if you want a game that could be run by a computer, then go play a video game.

To that thought, If we are supposed to play a Tabletop ONLY by the rules supplied & never branching out, why should we bother playing Tabletops at all? I play Tabletops to do things that I can't do in video games, to make a character completely built in concept in my head & supply some points & details to that concept & play in a story created by someone else & imagine that characters interactions & such in the story. I don't wanna be told by a GM "Sorry that move is not specified in the rules, so I will not let you do it" I'd rather be told "That move is not specified in the rules, lets think of a way to allow you to do it because it sounds cool"

Then no tabletop RPG ever has had rules that work as written.

Neither do most MMOs

To be fair, those work better than the spoiled and whiny brats whom are the most vocal players on them would have us believe.

Got to agree with All4 on that.

And it's more than just "whiny brats"; generally, if you took all of the PvP-centric complaints out of the equation, the volume of dissatisfaction would be reduced by a huge, HUGE degree. Seriously, most of it amounts to "Dear devs: Rock is overpowered; Paper is just fine. Signed: Scissors." Not all, but the vast majority of it.

SWTOR for example, other than the complaints which basically amount to Pax's quote, the rest are basically whining from people who spent the first few days after launch maxing out a few characters and then whining about there not being much for max level characters already.