Common sense for the player, unfortunately. There's no Build Point system for players.

And, to be clear, this isn't a flame war. As many times as I've been insulted and spoken to condescendingly in this thread, I've restrained myself from firing back. At most I laughed at the absurdity and sometimes irony of the insults like when Mooncrow suggested I'm stupid and don't understand what the word "can" means or when he insulted my by suggesting I'd never studied literary analysis. Neither statement is even remotely true. The second one is incredibly hilarious actually, though in Mooncrow's defense he has no idea what my educational background is. Though, shame on him for commenting on it when he doesn't know anything about it. Then again, not having the appropriate knowledge hasn't seemed to stop him from commenting on other things, so I guess I am not surprised. It was still funny, and you can't possibly put me at fault for finding it funny and laughing at it. The fact that I never said "okay, even though you're wrong, I'll say you're right to make you feel better" doesn't mean I'm insulting anyone here.

The funny part is that even though I'm the one being repeatedly insulted, some people here still look at me as being the bad guy, haha. I didn't even start the argument. I made the original statement of fact, and was told I was wrong, when I wasn't. Being better at constructing coherent arguments doesn't make me a jerk.

Well, you don't know how to interpret a single word under clear circumstances and you don't know the meaning of the term Formalism, what else am I supposed to think, Kruger?

I could give you my c.v. but that seems silly over the internet, so at this point all I can do is recommend you go to an expert that you do trust, and ask them what they think.

No, I don't know your background, and you don't know mine. So when I talk about a term and you fire back that I've "hilariously misused or misunderstand" my undergrad discipline, yeah, I get defensive.

I mean, it's possible the term has changed, I guess. I don't follow the journals any more, but if you want to actually correct me, feel free to do so - leave the 'lol moron' bit at home.

For the record, I wasn't actually trying to be condescending at first, I was (and still am) frustrated that I'm somehow not communicating my point. But you put my back up with your next insult, so perhaps I've been a little more irritable than I should have been from then on out.

If you studied literary analysis as a major and even earned a degree in a related discipline, and you're still misapplying the term formalism and misusing the word "can" then the failing has been yours for making the mistake, not mine for pointing it out. For the very reason I don't use complicated physics terms I only understand in passing to emphasize one of my arguments, perhaps you should not use these complicated literary terms in arguments.

K.I.S.S. is always the best way to go. Hemingway could have told you that. Never use a big word when a little one would suffice. It's harder to go astray that way. You approached the argument with this "lol moron" attitude, trying to hurl about fancy terms in an attempt to bludgeon my argument and stumble me. You miscalculated in using that tactic on someone with equal or superior knowledge of language and writing. I don't do that. See, I know I know more about language and writing than most people, but not everyone.

I've never insulted you. You perceived insult, but what you were feeling was anger at being challenged at what you thought you had intellectual superiority on, and then shame at looking foolish when you were shown to be incorrect. You tossed the word formalism, I did not. I told you that the way you were applying it was wrong. It's not an insult, it's the truth. Formalism, by the way, applies to art, math, laws, as well as literature. That was why I asked you which application you meant. I assumed that you meant literary, but we've seen what assuming got you, and I don't make such mistakes. Your interpretation of formalism was suitable enough, it was just your application that was incorrect. You were looking for consistency, and it is there. Qualities are consistently shown as having a mechanical benefit (for Negative Qualities this is typically BP, though for qualities like In Debt and Day Job there might be extra short term or long term benefits), and a role playing challenge/mechanical offset to them (Amnesia has a roleplaying challenge, Scorched has a mechanical penalty, Addiction has both). The way you wanted to "interpret" In Debt presented a situation that removes the consistent mechanical benefit without removing the consistent mechanical offset (the player would both lose the Build Points and lose the money, where as normally the player would simply lose the Build Points, but gain immunity from the penalties they incurred to gain the BP). The listed Qualities also have consistent exceptions to these rules, which means that not all qualities must be bought off with Karma, because very clearly there are qualities that do not require it because they have a built in resolution that nullifies the effect. Arguing that In Debt is not identical to Amnesia in this case is nearly impossible, at best. The resolution to Amnesia comes from the fact that all players are assumed to understand what amnesia is and that remembering or learning your past offsets its role playing challenge. The resolution to In Debt comes from the fact that all players are assumed to understand how a loan with compound interest works and how payments are made against a balance. If for Amnesia we all seem to agree that learning your past renders the quality more or less nullified, then based on that same common sense and common knowledge, it is impossible to not say that, as written, once the balance is paid off, In Debt is the same way. The only thing that separates the two is that In Debt gives significantly more benefit than it incurs risk, in a way not consistent with the rest of the Negative Qualities. That's simply a failure in writing and play testing, however, in a formalist sense, yet another example of consistent exceptions. If an application of formalism shows that there is consistent inconsistency, then it is impossible to use formalism to apply a rule with a broad stroke, as you have attempted to do.

The fact that you are not looking at the specifics in conjunction with the bigger picture is where we're not reaching the same conclusion. For example, you've repeatedly tried to use Day Job and Dependent as examples of things you can't just get rid of without paying the Karma cost. They aren't covered by the same consistency of presentation and precedent as In Debt. This is where the GM fiat listed on p.271 SR4a comes in. If a player quits the Day Job or gives up/kills the Dependent, the player becomes subject to the GM's discretion because there is no stated resolution to Day Job or Dependent, and the character still has to comply with the "If the gamemaster approves". A GM who does not approve could logially convert killing/abandoning a dependent into Big Regret, or Enemy, or Bad Rep. The player is not confined by GM approval with In Debt, because when the GM allowed the player to take In Debt, he has approved the quality's stated rules and resolution, just like if a GM allows a character to learn his past or find his lost loved one, he has approved the corresponding quality's stated or implied resolution and no Karma cost needs to be incurred.

Really? Your argument is that I didn't specify that I was speaking of literary Formalism in a literary context? But that aside, if you had made this argument to begin with instead of 'Formalism, lol' it would have been a much more civil conversation. You're a generally insightful person, but in this case you are misreading me quite badly. I respect your intellect quite highly, that's why I assumed you would know what I was talking about. It was only after you attacked, not my interpretation, but the my understanding of the definition of my field, that I turned derisive. Yes, I perceived it as an insult; what other use does the term "hilariously" have in that context?

But, back to the interpretation:

Your argument with Amnesia is ignoring the fact that there is no by the book way to actually regain your memories. As Max pointed out before, you can find out who you were, what you did, etc, but no way is actually given of getting your memories back. No matter how much you learn, it still remains as an infinite source of GM plot device.

That said, it does belong in the same category as In Debt and Day Job, where the authors really should have specified the exact way to get rid of the Quality in-game.

Now, there are two examples of qualities that have the phrase "The effects of this quality are intended to be resolved through role-playing" attached to them - Hung Out to Dry and Lost Loved One. For these two, you could make the argument that you can get rid of the negative effects without paying the karma to have the actual quality removed. In Debt lacks this phrase. There is no clear precedent being set here.

But here's where we get to the whole "Formalism" thing again - you can talk about common sense, common knowledge and keeping it simple, etc all day long; the rules of Formalism state that you can only use information from within the body of work itself. So, I can only interpret the rules as they stand.

If you want to use a different method of interpretation, I don't find your stance unreasonable, but I was clear from the beginning what ruleset I was operating under.

We all agree that it's a badly written, terribly broken rule, no matter what by the book interpretation is put on it.

Actually, the way a HUGE percentage of players and GMs are, the rules really SHOULD spell out these things, because a LOT of folks approach game rules formally with "unless it explicitly says A, it's not A".

Understand, what you say above is reasonable. It is an excellent interpretation of what the rules as intended probably are.

It's just not the rules as they are written. And most of the rest of the folks in this thread were pointing out the absurdities of the Rules As Written, not arguing the Rules As Intended.



-karma

No, that was just an aside. And what was hilarious was the way you presented a concept to me and seemed to assume I wouldn't know about it. The thing that makes it funny is the assumption. Just as you felt insulted by my reaction, so could I possibly have felt insulted by your inference if I so chose to be insulted by the stuff that people chose to say to me on the Internet. Instead of being offended, I just laughed at it. But that's how I am. I don't attribute any worth to any of you, so you can't hurt me. If everyone was like me, the world would have less lawsuits.

Sure. But, this works on the assumption that your GM is feeding you false information. If he's feeding you false information, then it hasn't nullified the Negative Quality. Which is fine, that's his prerogative If he feeds you correct information, then the the quality is nullified. I mean, there's a bajillion "what-if" scenarios that don't lead to the quality going away. But there is also a very clear situation that does lead to quality resolution without Karma expenditure. And that's all that matters in this case. We're not trying to prove something doesn't exist like another poster suggested, as that's a fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam). We've proven it does exist, and that's the deciding factor.

I agree. I just didn't want to come right out and say that because it implies that most people are dumb. It tends to get me in trouble here.

Technically, even if the GM is giving you 100% correct information, it's data, not restored memories.

It'd be like reading details of someone else's life.




-karma

Not dumb, just used to thinking about game rules in a certain way.

Most of the same people don't treat the rest of their life in the same manner.

It's what MoonCrow said. Formalism. I personally didn't know there was a technical term for it. But a way of looking at a rule set and not assigning ANY outside factors to that rule set.

It's not "wrong" to look at rules in this way. It's actually a very structured method of interpreting. But it does tend to break a bit if the base rules set is badly written.


-karma

Not always true. Sometimes people with memory loss recover their memories whether through therapy or through other things like incidence triggers It wouldn't always just be pieced together second hand accounts. However, from any standpoint, the quality will have been partially, or entirely nullified.

Like I said, the "what ifs" scenarios are endless. However, the "What if the GM gives your character all his memories back" is an example that proves the rule. It is possible to completely nullify Amnesia without Karma expenditure. And that's really all that matters in the context of the argument.


I hope not. One would hope they approach other things in life more rationally.

I know this is the Internet, and irrational arguments are the norm. Debating the semantics of a rule is entirely irrational and everybody continues either because like for me it's amusing or, because they're hell bent on being right. But at least use rational supports for the irrational arguments. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Oh, and it's not that I would be implying they were dumb. Just that's how it would be interpreted by certain people.

Or they're really bored in their unpaid job (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

I'm going to guess you don't know much about how retro and anterograde amnesia work. Well, aside from the tropes of how they work. While skills you had before the amnesia may be retained in muscle memory, you would be unable to recall the how on their use. The most famous example is a concert pianist who has both retro and anterograde who can still play amazing pieces of work when put at a piano, because the body remembers, but the mind does not. In this regard, expose to events and peoples and places does not return memory necessarily.

The GM gets to decide if roleplay or karma expenditure or BOTH are required for paying off the negative quality. Same with day job, same with dependent, same with in-debt.

Is repaying the debt for In Debt 'roleplaying'? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Actually, I would have it fall under the "paying off in karma" category, given that there is a nuyen to karma ratio already established. Although admittedly 30,000 + interest probably doesn't get all that close to the 20 karma that would be required.

Nuts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) I was sure that doing what your character would do (paying the cash) was the roleplaying loophole. ;D

That's a matter of perspective. Some characters would pay it off, others might try and do a favor instead of paying cash. There's a lot of wiggle room.

The GM can also twist the RAW. In the quoted rule excerpt, the "amount owed" may be the unpaid amount, what it still owned at that point, as everybody assume. Or the "amount owed" may just as well be the total amount owed since the character took the flaw (AFAIK, it's not uncommon for loan to compound interest on the original principal sum, with no regard to potential prepayment). And then it never states this ever stops: the amount does increase 10% every month. May be far-fetched and counter-intuitive, but this would make In Debt a real flaw. The debt will never be paid back with money, there will always be 10% more to pay next month.

Yes, that was mentioned earlier. In that case, it's brokenly *bad*: your extra money is gone in 6 months, and you owe (60) karma.

Sounds like the Mob to me!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



-karma

Yeah, I think the thing to take away from this thread is - House rule In Debt to something not broken, or don't use it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I take that Flaw, with the "Obviously Punitive" nature of having to pay the Karma back when the Money is payed back... so I guess that you cannot say that NOBODY will ever take it... It is a FLAW for a reason... I personally like the flavor of the roleplaying that it generates... Not everyone agrees with that though... so Your Mileage may Vary...

Just sayin'

Highlighted the part that is relevant... Roleplaying that will generate Karma to pay off the Karma Debt...

Just Sayin'

That doesn't make sense. 'Resolved through roleplaying' doesn't mean 'bought off with Karma'; the fact that Karma comes (in *small* part) from roleplaying doesn't change that.

However, because the rules state that Removing Negative Qualities takes Karma Expenditure, your roleplaying can generate the karma necessary to remove the Karma Debt incurred by taking the Negative Quality in the first place... Thus "Resolved through Roleplay" makes perfect sense...

If you can just bypass a Negative Quality with a little bit of time and no real effort, then it really was not a Negative Quality to start with was it? The method of removing its influence is through Karma... It is the GM's (and the Player's Ideally) responsibility to make the chosen Negative Quality have impact within the game... if he does not, then the character got free Karma for no reason...