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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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...

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...

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wait, what?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.