Ha, sorry. Sometimes I post with successive edits; it's a bad habit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I do the same I post then go oh wait... and add more.

Just because the In Debt quality gives a starting character a little extra cash to start with, that doesn't mean that the debt is strictly money.

In Debt means you owe someone. You are under their thumb. Maybe they gave you 30,000¥ advance on something, or you're carrying 30,000¥ worth of gear (talking about drugs here) that you're hoping to flip for more cash. The point is, you've taken 6BP worth of goods that you owe, and 24BP worth of favors you need to pay back, and, until you pay back those favors with 60 karma, you're going to be somebody's bitch.

"Hey, chum. Long time. I got a message for you from _____. He says that an ex-Lone Star cop, used to be on our payrolls thinks he still needs some cash to keep his lips closed. Now, we got no more use for this scumbag head-kicker and he needs to catch that message. We would consider it a personal favor if you were to deliver this message, and make sure it gets through his thick skull, capiche? I'll be waiting on confirmation that it's done." *doot-doot-dooo* +6 karma towards paying off your Debt. Zero cash.

*shrug* The rule says nothing about doing favors, only paying interest. It says 10% interest. I dunno how to calculate 10% of a favor, so I assume it's cash. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Your version sounds fun (Negative Quality: Somebody's Bitch), and I'm sure it could work. It's just not what the book says. Again, I'm *only* arguing that Tymeaus shouldn't say the book says things it doesn't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Maybe it should be 10% of the original debt or total debt the largest applies 'till you pay of the karma too? Might need some rewording but it works as a real incentive to pay it off karma wise.

Agree++.

Agree++.

Yes, Dumori, I could see that. I also like the idea Karoline mentioned of paying off in cash and karma (as other Neg Quals), but allow small chunks.

I'd favor a 'no BP, no Karma' version, but at that point, it's just a flat out loan shark deal; do it in-character and leave the chargen out of it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

But like I said earlier, if you pay back karma (or have to take other negative qualities) there is no incentive to get the quality in the first place. You have to pay back 150% (if you make it before the first month) of what is borrowed, and you have to pay back 2x the BP in karma, or take another batch of qualities.

So, you've netted a 50% loss (minimum) in nuyen, and either traded 60 karma for 30 BP (A bad trade 95% of the time) or end up with 30 BP of other qualities that you don't have direct control over.

So, why not just get those 30 BP with other qualities, and not take the 50% (minimum) loss in nuyen?

If you really want the boost in cash, or heck, even as an RP hook, just make it a 0 BP thing. Then you don't have to screw the player for all time (Big karma loss) or pull random extra stuff out of what is a straitforward quality (The fact that you 'owe favors' to someone, when in fact the quality states fairly plainly that you owe them money. Nothing in the quality even says that the debt is anything besides a bank loan)

Well, getting shark loans is *supposed* to be a really stupid (read: desperate) move. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Properly ruled, no one smart (read: in a position not to) would ever take it, yes. Improperly ruled, it's free BP and money, small downside of 50% cash penalty. So… indeed, In Debt is either too good or too bad to exist.

If you wanted to make a balanced version that's actually a Flaw (instead of simply a loan), then perhaps remove the 50% part, for one thing? There are several options. It could function like Born Rich instead of giving cash, or it could *cost* BP with a better BP/Nuyen ratio than 1:5000? The GM can be creative. I still like Somebody's Bitch. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Not that there's anything wrong with 'simply a loan', except you want to limit the use of that at chargen. That's what In Debt is intended to do, and it's not a bad goal.

Isn't that Sinner + Day job? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

It's more like that In the Mob one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It's made man plus day job. Have fun trying to find time to run with at least 45 hours a week of favour doing.

Something I've found after playing other games is that I no longer like how Shadowrun (and WoD, and Gurps, and a lot of other games I played) do flaws / negative qualities.
IMO, you shouldn't get a permanent character creation bonus for something that might occasionally happen later in game, but which you probably try to avoid having fully affect you. Instead, a NQ should give you the option to invite the GM to make some bad stuff happening to your character (or he can just do so at will, maybe limited to once a session / adventure) in exchange for which you get a temporary benefit. If you don't want the bad stuff to affect you, then it (generally) doesn't (its just a style tip and role play issue at that point)- but you also don't get any of the good stuff.
Obviously the benefit from flaws would have to be something besides BPs. Perhaps triggering a flaw would give you back a die in your karma pool, or gain you a point of karma (to spend as normal), or allow you to activate the use of some positive quality.

As for "In Debt", it should certainly be a POSITIVE quality. Seeing as there's no other way to get a lone (or at least not one you can by starting gear with) if you only go "by the book", its basically a quality that says you have better than average credit. So why not call it that?

Good Credit- Positive Quality, 5,10,or 15 points
Your character had good enough credit to get a loan. Unfortunately, its a loan on rather bad terms; credit card debt with outlandish fees, loan shark money, or taken out as short stock that went up instead of down. You get 5,000 Nuyen per point of this quality. If you pay off at least 20% of the debt per month, at 20% interest per month, the creditor is satisfied, and won't bother you. If you don't you gain the "enemy" flaw at the same rating as this quality, with the enemy being a revolving cast of credit collectors, knee breakers, and hackers.

House Ruling the In Debt quality is all well and good, but Y is correct. All it says explicitly is that the character must pay off the monetary debt plus interest. We've already gotten one player here admitting he ditched it with a simple payoff, so it is obvious that people are exploiting the heck out of it because it is the most munchkin negative quality possible. Free money, free BPs, easy work-off.

It's gonna be hard to justify to a player how he can't pay his debt off, ever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 30K is chump change to a criminal organization or a corporation or anybody who would loan that kind of cash out. Making it out to be some kind of life debt is silly just to balance out the BP benefit. That's why it is a bad quality. If your solution to a badly written and poorly conceived Negative Quality is more poorly made arbitrary GM decisions and nonsensical punitive measures, you know something is wrong.

Following the written rules is neither of those things.

The written rules say the character has to pay off the loan plus 50% with 10% monthly interest. And if the character cannot pay at least the interest every month, the the creditors "may" send someone looking for them.

That's it. All the rest of these things are "GM should..." banter. Sure, the game says to get rid of a Negative Quality the GM "Can" allow the character to work it off and then pay twice the BP in Karma. So? So what? A character with a paid off debt still "has" the In Debt NQ. But what's it do to him? As written? Nothing. It's a 5-30BP NQ that the player has no reason to get rid of. And, as written, there's no further punishment that the GM can enforce on the player. He owes his creditor 10% every month on (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 0 if you really want to be literal on the wording.

But why would he pay Karma to get rid of that NQ unless you were house ruling additional punitive effects?

Because the rules say all negative qualities must be bought off with karma.

Just because logic may say "hey, this can be taken care of easily" doesn't mean that it ignores the basic rules for negative qualities, any more than you can just shoot your Dependents and be rid of them.

The "Somebody's Bitch" interpretation of the quality isn't really a character killer. Not like Uncouth, Multiple Personality, or a host of other terrible, terrible qualities. The character can still grow and work along with the rest of the team, just sometimes, they'll be called up to perform a task for the person whom they have a long history of favors to repay. Doing these favors, say 2 per level of In Debt taken, will eventually square the character away, karma-wise, but it won't always be convenient or easy. Maybe that character is on a stakeout and gets told he has to do something that night. So, now they have to figure out a way to either pass off their team duties, or they have to hire a contact to take care of their dirty business. Regardless of how they pay back the favors, be it theft, extortion, betrayal or cold-blooded murder, that character is likely to come out of the experience with enough Notoriety to possibly jeopardize the team's standing, working with a known syndicate leg-breaker and all..

No, you're right, that isn't a character killer. But it's also a house rule. I said "In Debt" was a munchkin, poorly written NQ. If you want to turn it into "Saint Sithney's In Debted For Life For a Paltry Sum of Cash", then it's now a different NQ all together. But it doesn't exist in 4e anywhere except your table. You're not coming up with an "interpretation" for anything, so it's incorrect to use that word. There's nothing in that quality that even remotely suggests anything like that. You're simply expanding and modifying an existing NQ into something different. Which is fair, and a little better conceived than what the guys who wrote Runner's Companion came up with. It still makes no sense to be in debt for life for (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 30K. That's why it's replacing a poorly conceived flaw with a poorly conceived "fix".

And why I said very specifically that In Debt is not a very good quality.

I think it's safe to say this one's down to the "letter of the rules" versus "spirit of your, specific, gaming table" thing, again. A by-the-letter interpretation makes it free money and build points, a by-the-spirit interpretation (which will, naturally, vary from GM to GM) can, if using the karma-for-buyoff rules, make it a real character crippler. In the short term it's terrific, in the long term it can essentially stop all a character's growth.

Or, in other words? Runner's Companion, p. 96:

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the "Somebody's Bitch" thing - as I mentioned above, I think it would be a fine House Rule, but it's not what's written.

Having to pay off negative qualities with karma is written. Not being able to bypass the downsides of qualities without spending karma is written.

That's all I'm talking about.

Do you have a source for that? Because I think that rule only exists in your imagination.

Page 271 SR4A: "(The GM) can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP to remove it."

"Can" and "allow". No mention of "all or "must". In fact, that's almost absurd to even suggest. How would a character buy off being Quadriplegic? Or, what if the player liked their character being being addicted to drugs and the role-playing challenges that created? How "must" they buy them off?

Except there's no downside, RAW, of just keeping it forever, unless you also rule that you can't repay the principal. Which, as we've discussed, is a valid interpretation, but many people also interpret it to mean that you *can* repay the principal. It all depends. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Do I really have to diagram that sentence out to show the meaning of "can" in that context?

edit: Sorry, the "must" did imply an imperative that I should have expanded on. Please tack on "if they want to be rid of it" to the end of the quoted sentence.