Buying off Negative Qualities Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[yesferatu]

Hey guys,

I'm researching some negative qualities and I'm trying to figure out how I'll eventually get rid of them.
I understand how you would buy off an addiction or skill limit or something, what about stuff like debt?

If you took the Debt negative quality and eventually paid it back (in cash) - do you still need to spend the karma to get rid of it?
What about Enemies - if you kill them...do you need to buy the quality off in karma too?
What about like Hung Out to dry? Do you actually need to buy that off - or do you just need to make new contacts?

I couldn't figure out why you'd need to basically pay double to get rid of those.
I'm still not sure.

[Lionhearted]

Short answer, yes you must always buy it off with karma first.
Think of it as a karmic debt looming over you.
The debt is paid but the bad blood is still there until you pay it off with karma, they will hassle you because you still owe them... In their eyes.
Enemies have a tendency to not quite be as dead as you thought, or have successors take in their foot steps. You spend karma to close that chapter of your life.
With hung out dry, you need to first figure out what happened, mend the damage... Until you do, people will have a bad vibe around you... They might know of your past, they may not... either way there's something not right about you...

You pay double because otherwise people would just rack up negatives like that and get them off karma free.

[All4BigGuns]

Hey guys,

I'm researching some negative qualities and I'm trying to figure out how I'll eventually get rid of them.
I understand how you would buy off an addiction or skill limit or something, what about stuff like debt?

If you took the Debt negative quality and eventually paid it back (in cash) - do you still need to spend the karma to get rid of it?
What about Enemies - if you kill them...do you need to buy the quality off in karma too?
What about like Hung Out to dry? Do you actually need to buy that off - or do you just need to make new contacts?

I couldn't figure out why you'd need to basically pay double to get rid of those.
I'm still not sure.

There are those who argue both sides, some who say that dealing with the situation is enough, and some that insist on karma expenditure. It is a VERY contentious issue that has spawned many, many, MANY heated arguments and sometimes has led to locked threads, warnings and temporary bans.

[yesferatu]

Yup.
Sadly, the Core isn't that clear.
With debt, for example, it costs more than you get in cash.
I'm not sure how I feel about paying that off twice.

[All4BigGuns]

Yeah, I tend to avoid them myself because of how contentious the issue is. If I were running and someone took them, I'm not sure how I would actually rule it, but I guess I'll find out if someone ever does. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[O'Ryan]

This is a tough one!

Debt I wouldn't have made them pay off with karma before this thread, but now... I would. Probably.*
Enemies will use Hand of God to stay alive and keep recurring. (RC 132). So... if you want to stop seeing them, I'd require karma spent.
Hung out to Dry is the most cut and dry "pay for it!" in my mind. If you take at chargen there's almost zero penalty because of how easy it is to make new contacts. If it's gained during play, you need to resolve the issue.

*I would now charge karma to get rid of debt because like Lion said, you may still owe them in their eyes. Be the debt from the mafia or a big bank, they're going to try to screw you out of every last nickel and dime they can until they think the karmic balance is repaid. The change in my opinion comes from it being the only quality I can think of that wouldn't require karma, and if you start giving a quality special treatment it'll get uppity.

[All4BigGuns]

I will admit that I'm leaning toward not making people spend the karma, but mainly because of how the ones who insist on it act in the arguments on the issue.

[Mantis]

In my games I just have you pay back the karma you gained for the quality in addition to doing something (pay off debt, kill off or make peace with enemy, etc) to get rid of the quality. Some negative qualities are never allowed to be removed as there doesn't seem to be any logical way to get rid of them (scorched for example). So role play getting rid of the quality and then pay your karma bonus off and have done with it.

[Shortstraw]

Actually with in debt your debt has 10% compound interest every month. So once your principle is paid off you only have to pay your loan shark nothing every month so why would you waste the karma to get rid of it? Just leave it sad and ignored on your sheet.

[All4BigGuns]

Actually with in debt your debt has 10% compound interest every month. So once your principle is paid off you only have to pay your loan shark nothing every month so why would you waste the karma to get rid of it? Just leave it sad and ignored on your sheet.

People have tried that one, and the ones that insist on the karma expenditure most vehemently say that they would continue charging the full amount until that karma is paid, or rather have the people the debt was owed to expecting it to continue being paid.

[_Pax._]

Actually with in debt your debt has 10% compound interest every month. So once your principle is paid off you only have to pay your loan shark nothing every month so why would you waste the karma to get rid of it? Just leave it sad and ignored on your sheet.

Because the general idea of In Debt is, you borrowed it from an organised crime syndicate. That immediately calls two things to mind:

On the one hand? They may not let you pay down the principle; they would much, much rather you remain a source of continuing income.

On the other hand? "Hey, now, Shortstraw. We done you a favor once, now you needs to do US a favor. Or we might get ... unhappy, wit' youse. So how's dat daughter a' yours doing, anyway, wit hr shiny new legit ID an' in dat private school an' all? Be a real shame if somethin' happened to her or her new friends, now, wouldn't it?" (and having written that, I SERIOUSLY hope you don't REALLY have a daughter, regardless of age ...)

[All4BigGuns]

Like I said earlier in the thread though, main reason I am considering ruling by the "no karma spent" way is because of the most vocal about paying the karma and how big of buttheads they have been about it in other discussions on the matter.

[_Pax._]

... petulant whiny brat, much?

Seriously, that's about the worst reason I can imagine for someone making any kind of ruling in an RPG.

[All4BigGuns]

... petulant whiny brat, much?

Seriously, that's about the worst reason I can imagine for someone making any kind of ruling in an RPG.

It's called that some of them have been so bad about insulting anyone who doesn't want to rule it that way, that it's convinced me to do things exactly the opposite of what they're saying. The way they act on the issue hurt their cause that much in my eyes.

[Glyph]

By RAW, you both have to take the necessary steps (surgery to fix eyes, paying off debt, putting your dependent into a nursing home, etc.), then pay the karma.

There's nothing wrong with letting players get rid of flaws solely with roleplaying, or spending money, or taking certain actions in game, if that's how you want to run it. But if you do go that way, be consistent. Don't let someone quit their day job or pay off their debt with no karma, but then insist on karma expenditures if someone wants to mellow out and drop their vindictive quality, or get some cosmetic biomods to change their distinctive hair coloration from SURGE.

[All4BigGuns]

I think the 'be consistent' falls under the category of being quite obviously the way to go.

[toturi]

Removing the In Debt negative quality requires karma.

Paying off the principle reduces the amount of debt owed, but the negative quality remains.

In this manner, the Ts are crossed and Is are dotted and the rules are entirely consistent.

[CanRay]

In Debt can mean to a company (like a bank) or (more likely) to organized/disorganized crime in some sort.

This means that either there is a paperwork mishap at the company, and you still owe interest on the amount you borrowed, or despite the fact that you payed the debt and interest the guys with the hammers trying to take your kneecaps off insist you still owe them. The Karma smooths through the rough fringes of the world trying to screw you over, and makes all the debt go away once you've paid it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Dystopia: Bend over, or else be bent over.

[Tanegar]

Actually with in debt your debt has 10% compound interest every month. So once your principle is paid off you only have to pay your loan shark nothing every month so why would you waste the karma to get rid of it? Just leave it sad and ignored on your sheet.

You're gonna have to walk me through that. As I currently understand it:
1) Character takes 30BP worth of In Debt, gains 30,000 nuyen.
2) After one month, character owes 33,000 nuyen (30,000 * 1.1).
3) Character pays off principal. Character now owes 3,000 nuyen.
4) Another month passes. Character now owes 3,300 nuyen (3,000 * 1.1).

You can extend this sequence for however long it takes to pay off the principal. Bottom line is, you have to pay both the principal and the interest. If you only pay off the principal, you're still In Debt.

[Shortstraw]

Sorry was using the term a bit loosely to mean simply "the amount I owe" rather than the original borrowing.

[Stingray]

You're gonna have to walk me through that. As I currently understand it:
1) Character takes 30BP worth of In Debt, gains 30,000 nuyen.
2) After one month, character owes 33,000 nuyen (30,000 * 1.1).
3) Character pays off principal. Character now owes 3,000 nuyen.
4) Another month passes. Character now owes 3,300 nuyen (3,000 * 1.1).

You can extend this sequence for however long it takes to pay off the principal. Bottom line is, you have to pay both the principal and the interest. If you only pay off the principal, you're still In Debt.

..no..u take 30 bp worth of debt, u own 30 000+ 15 000 = 45 000 y
monthly " handling cost" is 4500 Y.
u must pay at least that or collectors are coming
(IMO) getting rid of debt u must pay 45 000 + 4500 = 49 500 and 60 karma..

[Tanegar]

OK, I missed the line about the additional 50%.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

I houseruled In Debt and Day Job to be a 0 BP quality, regardless of the amount taken.

[Stingray]

..personally i would forget taking in-debt-quality and taking Born Rich-quality and getting money there. instead...
if really needed to take in-debt, only 5 bp worth is maximum...

[O'Ryan]

Like I said earlier in the thread though, main reason I am considering ruling by the "no karma spent" way is because of the most vocal about paying the karma and how big of buttheads they have been about it in other discussions on the matter.

You have made it abundantly clear that in the past people have said mean things to you. It appears that in this particular conversation people are trying to be civil and talk about their reasonings - are you trying to incite conflict? What are you reasons for saying it costs no karma to get rid of negative qualities, other than that you are being contrary?


I think Glyph has said it best. There are arguments both ways, but so long as you're consistent and logical about it everyone will continue to have fun and be satisfied.

(Of course if you don't do it my way you're still wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[Medicineman]

Yup.
Sadly, the Core isn't that clear.
With debt, for example, it costs more than you get in cash.
I'm not sure how I feel about paying that off twice.

The RAW is very clear about it.
If You want to get rid aof a negative Quality ,You have to pay the BP cost twice in Karma, get the OK from Your GM and solve the Problem ingame

with a rather simple Dance
Medicineman

[Shortstraw]

Some qualities say you can role play them out others say you role play them out then pay karma. Thoughts on these?

[Skarablood]

Although it may seem logical that some negative qualities could easily be "role-played away", I think it's a simple issue of balance:

Let's keep the example "dept": if you could just pay the debt and the negative quality was gone, wouldn't everyone take the max amount of debt? 30 GP is a whole lot extra for a standard 400GP-chara and as long as you have some decent-paying runs you can pay the sum back moderately easy. After paying back the debt you'd remain with just another +5 BP negative quality at most - actually without doing much role-playing in this case.

[yesferatu]

Medicineman, I think it does make sense for things you need to buy off.
There are a number of negative qualities that could be negated in other ways.
It seems if you always had to pay off double the amount, the core would say "You MUST always pay karma to get rid of negative qualities".
I didn't think it was all that clear in RAW.

I'm mainly taking them for flavor, and I don't want to end up 70 karma points in the hole.
Thanks for your help guys. I guess it's up to my GM.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yup.
Sadly, the Core isn't that clear.
With debt, for example, it costs more than you get in cash.
I'm not sure how I feel about paying that off twice.

Actually, the CORE is very clear. To remove a Negative Quality from your sheet, you MUST buy it off with Karma expenditures. The contention arises when people disagree with that sentiment.

As for being 70 Karma in the hole, just do not pay it off. Add the costs to your lifestyle (for In-Debt anyways) and move along. Done deal.

[yesferatu]

The example they use is pretty clear. I'm just saying there are a number of these that aren't so cut and dried.
Look at day job or dependents. Let's say you get fired or your dependents die.

I gotta lose my job and my family AND pay karma to do it?
What kind of dystopian country/western song is this anyway?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The example they use is pretty clear. I'm just saying there are a number of these that aren't so cut and dried.
Look at day job or dependents. Let's say you get fired or your dependents die.

I gotta lose my job and my family AND pay karma to do it?
What kind of dystopian country/western song is this anyway?

If your GM is KILLING your dependents, well.....
They are so much more useful alive, where you can be compelled to perform favors on the Threat of death. Lots of Story Potential there.

As for losing your day job, well, you just need to find another day job. Easy Peasy...

And NQ's can morph as well... Lose your job and wind up taking a loan from the Mob to make ends meet. Dependant is killed, and you develop a prejudice agianst the trog who killed her... etc. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Heh... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Medicineman]

Medicineman, I think it does make sense for things you need to buy off.
There are a number of negative qualities that could be negated in other ways.

ingame maybe, but not Outgame ! the Rules should be the same for every Player and
I'm talking strictly from the Rules perspective !
to get rid of a negative Quality You have to pay twice the BP expenditure in Karma ,get Your OK from the GM and solve it Ingame.
How much this makes sense to You is totally up to You. For Me it makes a lot of Sense because its balanced/streamlined.
I don't mind paying the Outgame resource Karma and the Ingame Resource ¥ to get rid of Indebt
I don't mind either to pay Karma and Shoot my Foe to get rid of Enemy.
If You allow some of the neg.Qual. to be resolved strictly Ingame (without Karma) than its unfair to those players that took other Neg. Qual. (those that can't be solved strictly ingame)
....oO( I hope he understands what I mean ?)

HokaHey
Medicineman

[StealthSigma]

Some qualities say you can role play them out others say you role play them out then pay karma. Thoughts on these?

The general rule is that to remove a negative quality you must pay twice its BP cost in karma.

If a quality says that it may be gotten rid of through roleplaying or another method then that is a specific rule that overrides the general rule but it would need to be stated as such within the quality itself. Lost Loved One is an example. It says within its text that the effects of it are intended to be resolved through role-playing.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The general rule is that to remove a negative quality you must pay twice its BP cost in karma.

If a quality says that it may be gotten rid of through roleplaying or another method then that is a specific rule that overrides the general rule but it would need to be stated as such within the quality itself. Lost Loved One is an example. It says within its text that the effects of it are intended to be resolved through role-playing.

Well the general rule is that ALL negative qualities need to be resolved through roleplay. Once they have been resolved, they then spend 2xBP in Karma to remove the Negative Quality from their sheet.

If they choose to not remove the quality, it potentially morphs into something more appropriate (based upon previous NQ resolution) for the same NQ cost that you are replacing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Glyph]

I will add that NiL_FisK_Urd's house rule (In Debt as a zero-point quality) is one I have seen a lot in discussions of this particular quality. You should have to pay the money and the karma to get rid of it because you get money and build points for taking the negative quality in the first place.

I see the quality similarly to how _Pax._ sees it. The mafia or whatever underworld faction loans you the money isn't just letting you make a financial transaction with them; they are doing you a favor, with the expectation that you will feel obligated to them for it. Paying the karma represents slowly easing your way out from their influence without offending them.

Again, unless your GM lets the other players get rid of other flaws without paying karma, too. But it seems that people tend to think that In Debt should be some special exception, when there are lots of other flaws that would be equally easy to get rid of with some simple actions or cheap expenditures.

[toturi]

To be honest, most Negative Qualities each have ways to minimise their effects. The Negative Quality is still there, it is just that its in-game effect has been muted, in some cases, effectively silenced.

For In Debt, once the character has paid off the principle plus whatever compounded interest, that Negative Quality is, to me, effectively silenced. The Negative Quality is still there, at the same BP/karma value as ever, but the character owes 0 nuyen. Should a game mechanic or some such check if there is such a Negative Quality, it is there, but character does not owe his debtors any more nuyen.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Hey guys,

I'm researching some negative qualities and I'm trying to figure out how I'll eventually get rid of them.
I understand how you would buy off an addiction or skill limit or something, what about stuff like debt?

If you took the Debt negative quality and eventually paid it back (in cash) - do you still need to spend the karma to get rid of it?
What about Enemies - if you kill them...do you need to buy the quality off in karma too?
What about like Hung Out to dry? Do you actually need to buy that off - or do you just need to make new contacts?

I couldn't figure out why you'd need to basically pay double to get rid of those.
I'm still not sure.

The approach I use basically amounts to "be fair at the minimum, to the player, be generous elsewise." If the NQ is Debt, then once they pay it off, the NQ is gone. the money is repaid plus whatever interest there was, and that is that.
If the NQ is Enemy, then the enemy will use the Hand of God to keep coming back unless and until the player uses Karma to pay off the NQ, unless they run out of Edge.


Hang the balance, do what makes sense and is fun. To my way of mind, paying off an NQ with Karma is always an option, though some might need to wait for downtime. If you pay off a debt with Karma, then it means the player gets off scott-free from whatever was troubling them; an enemy runs afoul of Lone Star and gets cranially perforated, or else decides that the vendetta is eating up their life and they call the player character to tell them the chase is off and they're leaving them alone.
If the NQ was Debt, then it depends upon to whom it was owed; if it was owed to a megacorp, then either a computer glitch wipes it out or a mysterious benefactor wires the corp the money and the corp tells the player the account is settled in full. If it was to the mob or something, then the mafia bookie either dies in a freak barbequeing accident that wiped out him and his little black book of debts, or else the Mafia has, for reasons that they may or may not reveal, decided to forgive the debt, or to consider it paid in full for some action the player took recently that inadvertently wound up helping them.

And so forth and so on, basically. Either mysterious benefactors intervene on the character's behalf, an aggrieved party decides to let bygones be bygones, or an act of god settles the matter in the player's favor.




As for Hung Out to Dry, in all the games I've run and played in, some sort of house-rule regarding starting "free" Contact Points was in place; Hung Out to Dry robbed you of starting Contacts, and after that has no effect. Basically, it's trading one chargen option for another.

[Jaid]

The approach I use basically amounts to "be fair at the minimum, to the player, be generous elsewise." If the NQ is Debt, then once they pay it off, the NQ is gone. the money is repaid plus whatever interest there was, and that is that.
If the NQ is Enemy, then the enemy will use the Hand of God to keep coming back unless and until the player uses Karma to pay off the NQ, unless they run out of Edge.


Hang the balance, do what makes sense and is fun. To my way of mind, paying off an NQ with Karma is always an option, though some might need to wait for downtime. If you pay off a debt with Karma, then it means the player gets off scott-free from whatever was troubling them; an enemy runs afoul of Lone Star and gets cranially perforated, or else decides that the vendetta is eating up their life and they call the player character to tell them the chase is off and they're leaving them alone.
If the NQ was Debt, then it depends upon to whom it was owed; if it was owed to a megacorp, then either a computer glitch wipes it out or a mysterious benefactor wires the corp the money and the corp tells the player the account is settled in full. If it was to the mob or something, then the mafia bookie either dies in a freak barbequeing accident that wiped out him and his little black book of debts, or else the Mafia has, for reasons that they may or may not reveal, decided to forgive the debt, or to consider it paid in full for some action the player took recently that inadvertently wound up helping them.

And so forth and so on, basically. Either mysterious benefactors intervene on the character's behalf, an aggrieved party decides to let bygones be bygones, or an act of god settles the matter in the player's favor.




As for Hung Out to Dry, in all the games I've run and played in, some sort of house-rule regarding starting "free" Contact Points was in place; Hung Out to Dry robbed you of starting Contacts, and after that has no effect. Basically, it's trading one chargen option for another.

the problem with treating different negative qualities differently is that you create a double standard where some negative qualities are drastically better than others. if i can get rid of in-debt by just spending money, it's a no-brainer for many technomancer and/or magician builds, which frequently are far more desperate for karma than cash... a 30 BP in debt "negative quality" will basically give them all the resources they need, and at the same time gives them more BP to play with.

in contrast, if it's so relatively easy to get rid of the in debt quality, in order to prevent it from being a flagrantly obvious min/max choice, you need to do the same for every other negative quality as well, ranging from addiction to criminal SINner to codeblock to combat paralysis.

i can see the reasoning both ways, but if you want to avoid really heavily favouring certain qualities, they all need to be treated the same, whichever side of the debate you fall on (on a side note, if someone tries to pay off their in debt NQ and you're using the official rules of needing to pay double, the solution is to just take off karma from their rewards as they essentially remove the quality; so, they pay down 1,500 of the principal above and beyond the interest, you deduct two karma from their rewards; a negative quality that has literally been made to have no negative effect has been bought off).

i will definitely agree with those who have basically decided the problem with in debt is not what to do when it's paid off, but rather the fact that it's a negative quality in the first place. but in debt is really just the poster child of this. why does being in debt somehow give you more BP in the first place?

(on a side note, those trying to argue that some qualities indicate they're supposed to be solved by role-playing... that's true of pretty much *all* qualities being removed. if you're removing them, there should be some RP to explain why, whether or not your GM requires karma to be spent).

however you handle it, unless you want to create a system where some people are punished for choosing the "wrong" negative qualities, all must be treated the same.

[toturi]

however you handle it, unless you want to create a system where some people are punished for choosing the "wrong" negative qualities, all must be treated the same.

It depends on what you mean by treated the same. You could treat them all as written, and accept that some Negative Qualities are better/worse than others. They are all being treated the same, all are being treated as their text describes.

[Mercer]

This is one of those issues I can see both sides of and try as I might, I can't get particularly worked up over either interpretation. I think part of the reason is I've never seen anyone pay off a NQ using karma or anything else, both because we usually pick flaws that are an inherent part of the character and also because we haven't played a long term campaign in awhile. That said, I think paying off NQ's in karma is pretty draconian across the board. The closest I've come is with my first or second SR4 character I took Uneducated, regretted it, and realized I was never going to scrape together the 40 karma to get rid of it. It was something I could live with, but not something I would be likely to take again.

I like In Debt. You're giving me BP and money at the same time, so I usually end up taking it. I rarely take it to mean an actual debt though. For one character that had a criminal SIN, it represented the "rent" he payed his parole officer to keep from being put back in prison; for my current character it's child support payments. In either case it's not something I intend to pay off in the short term.

As a GM, my interpretation would be... if I think the flaw is cheesy (Incompetent: Pilot Submarine, I'm looking at you) then I'd make the player pay karma to get rid of it (preferably after they were trapped at the helm of an out of control submarine). If the flaw wasn't cheesy, if it was something the player roleplayed and the story progressed to the point the flaw was no longer applicable then I could see letting them get rid of it without paying the karma cost (even if with In Debt, they still had to pay the money). If the quality only adds BP's, then it costs karma to remove. If it adds something to the game beyond BP's, then I'd be inclined to cut the player a break.

[Stingray]

This is one of those issues I can see both sides of and try as I might, I can't get particularly worked up over either interpretation. I think part of the reason is I've never seen anyone pay off a NQ using karma or anything else, both because we usually pick flaws that are an inherent part of the character and also because we haven't played a long term campaign in awhile. That said, I think paying off NQ's in karma is pretty draconian across the board. The closest I've come is with my first or second SR4 character I took Uneducated, regretted it, and realized I was never going to scrape together the 40 karma to get rid of it. It was something I could live with, but not something I would be likely to take again.

I like In Debt. You're giving me BP and money at the same time, so I usually end up taking it. I rarely take it to mean an actual debt though. For one character that had a criminal SIN, it represented the "rent" he payed his parole officer to keep from being put back in prison; for my current character it's child support payments. In either case it's not something I intend to pay off in the short term.

As a GM, my interpretation would be... if I think the flaw is cheesy (Incompetent: Pilot Submarine, I'm looking at you) then I'd make the player pay karma to get rid of it (preferably after they were trapped at the helm of an out of control submarine). If the flaw wasn't cheesy, if it was something the player roleplayed and the story progressed to the point the flaw was no longer applicable then I could see letting them get rid of it without paying the karma cost (even if with In Debt, they still had to pay the money). If the quality only adds BP's, then it costs karma to remove. If it adds something to the game beyond BP's, then I'd be inclined to cut the player a break.

..i vaguely remember incompetant-quality is permanent, even if u pay it off..

[FuelDrop]

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?
I personally would probably have made them work very hard for it and let them lose the quality for free, or possibly given them a shortcut which, if they take it, makes things easier but gets them another negative quality in its place (Probably dependant). Also, failing in such a way as to get the loved one killed would technically resolve the situation, but would net you flashbacks (And if you got them killed in front of you, in a way you could have prevented that was due to your stupidity rather than the dice trying to kill you, then the flashbacks quality might cost you more than lost loved one was worth originally!)

An alternative, of course, is to simply go with 'your princess is in another castle' or what we might call 'princess peach syndrome', IE this loved one is regularly kidnapped.
You know, I think Mario should just man up and buy the quality off.

[StealthSigma]

The approach I use basically amounts to "be fair at the minimum, to the player, be generous elsewise." If the NQ is Debt, then once they pay it off, the NQ is gone. the money is repaid plus whatever interest there was, and that is that.
If the NQ is Enemy, then the enemy will use the Hand of God to keep coming back unless and until the player uses Karma to pay off the NQ, unless they run out of Edge.

That approach is not fair. Fair is not relative to the player. Fair is relative to the game. The only thing that is fair is to follow the rules that are listed. That approach punishes the player to took 30 of NQ that wasn't In Debt while the player that did gets an easy way out of it. As Jaid pointed out, your method vastly favors characters that need karma and very little nuyen. The only way to be fair about the NQ is to get rid of it as the rules state and that karma must be spent to remove it. That means the only fair way to get rid of it is to require the karma be spent if the player pays down the entirety of the debt. If that means docking karma gained by 50% and applying that against the NQ until it's paid off, that is fair. Not requiring karma be spent is unfair because it is not what is listed in the rules and is instead treating it with bias and preferential treatment which is the complete opposite of even the definition of fair and fairness.

--

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?
I personally would probably have made them work very hard for it and let them lose the quality for free, or possibly given them a shortcut which, if they take it, makes things easier but gets them another negative quality in its place (Probably dependant). Also, failing in such a way as to get the loved one killed would technically resolve the situation, but would net you flashbacks (And if you got them killed in front of you, in a way you could have prevented that was due to your stupidity rather than the dice trying to kill you, then the flashbacks quality might cost you more than lost loved one was worth originally!)

An alternative, of course, is to simply go with 'your princess is in another castle' or what we might call 'princess peach syndrome', IE this loved one is regularly kidnapped.
You know, I think Mario should just man up and buy the quality off.

Lost Loved One is one of the rare few negative quality where I believe the text of the quality contains specific text within it that can be interpreted as to not require karma to remove. It does say "It is intended to be resolved through roleplaying". Most other qualities contain no such line and so would default to the must be paid off with karma rule.

[darthmord]

Because the general idea of In Debt is, you borrowed it from an organised crime syndicate. That immediately calls two things to mind:

On the one hand? They may not let you pay down the principle; they would much, much rather you remain a source of continuing income.

On the other hand? "Hey, now, Shortstraw. We done you a favor once, now you needs to do US a favor. Or we might get ... unhappy, wit' youse. So how's dat daughter a' yours doing, anyway, wit hr shiny new legit ID an' in dat private school an' all? Be a real shame if somethin' happened to her or her new friends, now, wouldn't it?" (and having written that, I SERIOUSLY hope you don't REALLY have a daughter, regardless of age ...)

Going after a runner's family is a major no-no. A shadow faux-pas as it were.

Not to mention, terminally stupid. Blackmailing a person / people whose job it is to steal in, perform a job, and get out. and if need be, shoot people in the face for money.

If I had a GM make his NPC mobsters go after a character's family like that, I'd help exterminate those mobsters with extreme prejudice.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?
I personally would probably have made them work very hard for it and let them lose the quality for free, or possibly given them a shortcut which, if they take it, makes things easier but gets them another negative quality in its place (Probably dependant). Also, failing in such a way as to get the loved one killed would technically resolve the situation, but would net you flashbacks (And if you got them killed in front of you, in a way you could have prevented that was due to your stupidity rather than the dice trying to kill you, then the flashbacks quality might cost you more than lost loved one was worth originally!)

An alternative, of course, is to simply go with 'your princess is in another castle' or what we might call 'princess peach syndrome', IE this loved one is regularly kidnapped.
You know, I think Mario should just man up and buy the quality off.

We use the "Replace a NQ with another logical NQ" if it is not bought off with Karma. So your examples all work for us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Kiirnodel]

I will add that NiL_FisK_Urd's house rule (In Debt as a zero-point quality) is one I have seen a lot in discussions of this particular quality. You should have to pay the money and the karma to get rid of it because you get money and build points for taking the negative quality in the first place.

Well the general rule is that ALL negative qualities need to be resolved through roleplay. Once they have been resolved, they then spend 2xBP in Karma to remove the Negative Quality from their sheet.

If they choose to not remove the quality, it potentially morphs into something more appropriate (based upon previous NQ resolution) for the same NQ cost that you are replacing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I completely agree with these two statements, you got both BP and Karma, both bonuses at character creation. The rule for removing a Negative Quality:

Negative Qualities
If the gamemaster approves, a character can work off a negative quality by undertaking severe changes as appropriate to the quality. For example, a character with an Addiction quality must work hard to kick the habit, resisting the temptation to relapse for a significant period (chosen by the gamemaster). If the gamemaster feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow that character to pay twice the quality’s BP cost to remove it.

Emphasis, mine. Quite explicitly stated. Once you have made the effort to remove a quality, you can then buy it off with Karma. Effectively, (and I'm not saying this is a good way to think of it) you are getting a loan of BP at character creation that costs double the BP in Karma to pay back. Again, that sort of implies that you should think of it like that, and that leads to poor choices. You should pick Qualities that make sense for your character, both positive and negative. If you are taking a quality with the intention of buying it off first chance you get, it is a quality that you should consider not taking in the first place.

To be honest, most Negative Qualities each have ways to minimise their effects. The Negative Quality is still there, it is just that its in-game effect has been muted, in some cases, effectively silenced.

For In Debt, once the character has paid off the principle plus whatever compounded interest, that Negative Quality is, to me, effectively silenced. The Negative Quality is still there, at the same BP/karma value as ever, but the character owes 0 nuyen. Should a game mechanic or some such check if there is such a Negative Quality, it is there, but character does not owe his debtors any more nuyen.

I don't remember where it talks about this, but I recall mention of "Negative Qualities that are no longer Negative". If I'm remembering correctly, if something has been worked out to no longer really be a negative, and the player does not want to buy off the quality, then the GM is encouraged to replace it with an appropriate Negative Quality of equal value. For example, a character pays off his debt to the loan shark, but you "insulted" him by paying too quickly or by not going through the right process, earning you an Enemy, or bad rumors spread around and you get Hung Out to Dry.

I like In Debt. You're giving me BP and money at the same time, so I usually end up taking it. I rarely take it to mean an actual debt though. For one character that had a criminal SIN, it represented the "rent" he payed his parole officer to keep from being put back in prison; for my current character it's child support payments. In either case it's not something I intend to pay off in the short term.

I actually rather like this way of using the quality. It is using the rules and effects of the quality and giving it some good roleplaying aspects and opportunities. One of the examples I have seen of In Debt (and one that did not work very well) was a character who's primary reason for running was because he had the quality. He was running because he needed the money to pay off the debt, and he needed the money because he was kind of a gun nut, but that's beyond the point. In any case, as luck would have it (the bad kind), our group made a little too much money on our first several runs, they were hard, so we weren't over-paid really, we just got quite a bit of money initially. This caused our Debtor (as well as another member of our team, who ran to maintain his High Lifestyle and quality of living) to no longer really need to run. Both of these characters, without motivation, eventually were dropped and new characters made.
In Debt should really be played up by the GM, maybe the loan shark doesn't really want to take back the money. He would much rather string things out, putting the character through red tape and problems paying back the loan. Thus causing it to take longer to pay off the debt. Or you should push why the character was in debt in the first place. Maybe, he has a gambling problem, or expensive to maintain equipment. As I said before, most negative qualities should have a reason to be taken. If it's something you are just going to get rid of as the first thing you do, why take it?

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?
I personally would probably have made them work very hard for it and let them lose the quality for free, or possibly given them a shortcut which, if they take it, makes things easier but gets them another negative quality in its place (Probably dependant). Also, failing in such a way as to get the loved one killed would technically resolve the situation, but would net you flashbacks (And if you got them killed in front of you, in a way you could have prevented that was due to your stupidity rather than the dice trying to kill you, then the flashbacks quality might cost you more than lost loved one was worth originally!)

An alternative, of course, is to simply go with 'your princess is in another castle' or what we might call 'princess peach syndrome', IE this loved one is regularly kidnapped.
You know, I think Mario should just man up and buy the quality off.

Now, I would not be against awarding a player Karma discounts on buying off a quality. Say, through great roleplaying, a player works to start getting rid of a Negative Quality. Many GM's might reward extra Karma for good roleplaying. If this roleplaying was explicitly toward working off the quality, consider awarding the extra Karma explicitly toward buying off the cost of said quality. If it is particularly good, and you want to be lenient, you might award more bonus Karma (or award it more often) if that Karma is explicitly being used for buying off the quality. This might be a good middle ground for allowing players to "not pay" for said quality.

[Lionhearted]

If a quality like lost loved one or enemy is resolved, I would personally find a sideways way to compensate the player for the karma he lost... A new contact, a wiz piece of gear, whatever... Closing such a chapter should be rewarding to the character in some way and not just a kick in the nuts.

[Darksong]

We use the "Replace a NQ with another logical NQ" if it is not bought off with Karma. So your examples all work for us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

yup, this is how we do it also

for example, in game I (relatively quickly) paid off a debt in nuyen but not with karma, but the guy I owed the money to wasn't that happy about losing an income stream, so he became an enemy.

[_Pax._]

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?

If they don't pay it off with Karma, then they will have to replace it with an equal value of other NQs that fit the results of the roleplay that wound up finding them.

For example, they may have picked up an Enemy. Or been damaged by psychotropic IC, and this have Scorched. Etc.

[_Pax._]

The approach I use basically amounts to "be fair at the minimum, to the player, be generous elsewise." If the NQ is Debt, then once they pay it off, the NQ is gone. the money is repaid plus whatever interest there was, and that is that.
If the NQ is Enemy, then the enemy will use the Hand of God to keep coming back unless and until the player uses Karma to pay off the NQ, unless they run out of Edge.

As observed, that approach is not fair.

If I were ever a player at yur table, I would always opt for "In Debt", and never opt for Enemy. Even for the exact same BP value. Because In Debt will be easier to remove, than Enemy; I'll be able to remove In Debt for zero Karma ... whereas, Enemy? I guarantee you, it'll cost cash AND Karma to permanently deal with an Enemy.

[_Pax._]

Going after a runner's family is a major no-no. A shadow faux-pas as it were.

The vory don't care for namby-pamby "shadow codes". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If I had a GM make his NPC mobsters go after a character's family like that, I'd help exterminate those mobsters with extreme prejudice.

And die - because criminal syndicates have immensely more resources than any five PCs put together, and if they elect to hold a grudge, the PC they dislike is doomed.

Congratulations, roll up a new character. And if this isn't the first time this has happened, "In Debt" is no longer a choice you are allowed.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The vory don't care for namby-pamby "shadow codes". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And die - because criminal syndicates have immensely more resources than any five PCs put together, and if they elect to hold a grudge, the PC they dislike is doomed.

Ain't this the truth. Members of our group went to war with the Mob... Wow, what a mistake that was... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

I think some people get the idea that the mob (or Yaks, or whoever) hires shadowrunners because "they don'thave anyone that good".

I don't subscribe to that school of thought. I believe the syndicates have many people that good and better.

Freelancers get hired because the syndicate wants an extra "cutout" in the operation, to provide some additional "firewalls" of deniability. Or because those "as good or better" in-house assets are occupied .... even if that occupation is just "laying low for a few weeks after their last op".

Or just because the freelancer will do the job for less money than the in-house asset would require.

...

But that doesn't mean the syndicate can't muster forces that are a challenge, an overwhelming challenge, for the PCs. Provided the syndicate gets irritated at a high enough level to prompt allocating those kinds of assets, of course. Which any protracted war with them, is going to eventually produce.

Sure, the PCs may absolutely devastate the syndicate before they go down. but a long enough war, even a shadow war, will eventually catch up with the PC(s), who will wind up part of the bodycount.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

They don't even need someone as good as the shadowrunners. Just someone who knows where they live and a car with a trunk full of explosives.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I think some people get the idea that the mob (or Yaks, or whoever) hires shadowrunners because "they don'thave anyone that good".

I don't subscribe to that school of thought. I believe the syndicates have many people that good and better.

Freelancers get hired because the syndicate wants an extra "cutout" in the operation, to provide some additional "firewalls" of deniability. Or because those "as good or better" in-house assets are occupied .... even if that occupation is just "laying low for a few weeks after their last op".

Or just because the freelancer will do the job for less money than the in-house asset would require.

...

But that doesn't mean the syndicate can't muster forces that are a challenge, an overwhelming challenge, for the PCs. Provided the syndicate gets irritated at a high enough level to prompt allocating those kinds of assets, of course. Which any protracted war with them, is going to eventually produce.

Sure, the PCs may absolutely devastate the syndicate before they go down. but a long enough war, even a shadow war, will eventually catch up with the PC(s), who will wind up part of the bodycount.

Definitely... as the war progressed, my uninvolved Assassin was continually being dragged back into the situation, so one day, he just.... disappeared, and never returned. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Kyrel]

OK. My 2c on this matter.

1) RAW getting rid of a Negative Quality requires 2xBP cost, GM approval, and potentially additional in-game requirements.
2) As a GM I have the oppinion: Never let the rules get in the way of the story, the group's fun, or something really cool. And I prefer something making sense, over something being "balanced".
3) If you pick a given Quality or Negative Quality for any other reason than because it fits the character concept, "BLEEEP!"...try again. I'm allergic to that kind of optimization antics. On the other hand I'd have no problem letting people getting away with removing the Debt NQ simply by paying off the debt in-game. And if you kill the Enemy you came up with me before the game, then depending on the nature of Enemy, I might just let you get away with it, and considder it over and done with, BP expenditure or not. On the other hand, there are plenty of Negative Qualities I wouldn't let you get rid of, no matter how much Karma you might be willing to throw at it, to make it go away.

IMO the prime purpose of Negative Qualities are character flavour and plot/story hooks, and if you ask me, I'd have no problem removing the bonus BP you get for taking them in the first place. And yes. As a player I'd still take some of them, if I felt like it suited the character.

[Shortstraw]

They don't even need someone as good as the shadowrunners. Just someone who knows where they live and a car with a trunk full of explosives.

That works both ways.

[_Pax._]

That works both ways.

Thre are more people in the syndicate, than there are shadowrunners. Especially, more than there are player character shadowrunners.

Look, it's really simple: don't get into a war of attrition, with any organisation that has a million times your resources.

[Shortstraw]

Of course not you find out where they are fighting with the other syndicates and hit them there and as soon as they are at a disadvantage you move to another point of conflict.

[Achsin]

The one time that paying off In Debt came up in my group with only ¥ the GM ruled that the character (a technomancer) had to pay the regular amount plus the ¥ equivalent of the karma cost to remove it (¥25,000/level). It was agreed upon by the player and the GM before the game began. It was worked into the story as different things happened that required the character to pay ever increasing amounts. The most memorable of which was when the guy who had loaned the money charged the character so that he could make a pay-off so that evidence that he was money laundering would be destroyed and prevent him from being busted, then passed the costs to his "clients" who wanted to remain anonymous as an unforeseen expense of doing business with them.

Other than that we've used the replace a quality that's become a non-negative with another of equal value.

[Jaid]

OK. My 2c on this matter.

1) RAW getting rid of a Negative Quality requires 2xBP cost, GM approval, and potentially additional in-game requirements.
2) As a GM I have the oppinion: Never let the rules get in the way of the story, the group's fun, or something really cool. And I prefer something making sense, over something being "balanced".
3) If you pick a given Quality or Negative Quality for any other reason than because it fits the character concept, "BLEEEP!"...try again. I'm allergic to that kind of optimization antics. On the other hand I'd have no problem letting people getting away with removing the Debt NQ simply by paying off the debt in-game. And if you kill the Enemy you came up with me before the game, then depending on the nature of Enemy, I might just let you get away with it, and considder it over and done with, BP expenditure or not. On the other hand, there are plenty of Negative Qualities I wouldn't let you get rid of, no matter how much Karma you might be willing to throw at it, to make it go away.

IMO the prime purpose of Negative Qualities are character flavour and plot/story hooks, and if you ask me, I'd have no problem removing the bonus BP you get for taking them in the first place. And yes. As a player I'd still take some of them, if I felt like it suited the character.

ok, let's try this another way:

2 people are in the same group. they face the same challenges, and for the sake of discussion, roleplay equally well, and there characters are identical except one of them has... oh, for the sake of argument, rating 4 gremlins (20 BP), while the other has in debt for 20 BP.

after playing several sessions, having received equal rewards in every way, the player with in debt decides to pay off his debt. now then, the player who took in debt suddenly has removed his negative quality entirely. the other player, having played just as well, contributed just as much, and for the sake of discussion being in all ways equal, would also like to remove his negative quality (gremlins).

now, if you would just say "ok, sure, you'll need to spend a few thousand nuyen on some sort of procedure that will remove your negative quality", then ok, you're being fair to both players.

if, on the other hand, you tell that second player they can't remove their gremlins flaw at all, you're treating the second player differently from the first, in spite of the second player having done everything just as well as the first. this is very clearly not fair to the second player, who has done nothing to deserve a lesser reward than what the first player got.

if you tell the second player that they must first resolve the negative quality in-game and then pay double the BP in karma, you are also treating the second player unfairly.

they have, for the sake of discussion, behaved identically. if the first player get to have a reward and the second player does not, is that not the very definition of unfairness? to treat one person poorly and the other well, for essentially no good reason?

now let's add in that most likely, they haven't been equal at all; the guy with gremlins 4 is probably suffering FAR more from the negative quality than the guy with in debt, because having to pay 3k a month is an inconvenience but suffering from a drastically increased number of glitches is a serious disadvantage. the guy who has gremlins most likely has been affected far more often, and has likely incorporated such a noteworthy flaw into his character as a fairly significant element. the guy who took in debt, it's probably barely even a footnote in their life. it certainly won't be around their character for very long, or at least it doesn't have to be.

as has been said: in the interest of treating your players fairly, you should be consistent. otherwise, expect your players to suddenly imagine lots of characters that have debts (because frankly, i can't think of a single character concept that couldn't owe someone a lot of money very plausibly), and for your players to set aside their characters with other (far more character-defining) negative qualities to get put on a shelf for someone else's game, because you are punishing a certain behaviour (choosing significant flaws that are difficult to remove) and rewarding another (purchasing easily-removed flaws that are not a significant part of the character's identity). or, alternately, expect some player dissatisfaction, because if you arbitrarily decide that one person is going to get slapped in the face, and the other is going to get a $10 bill, and neither of them did anything significant to deserve it, being upset is bloody well a perfectly reasonable response to that kind of treatment.

[All4BigGuns]

ok, let's try this another way:

2 people are in the same group. they face the same challenges, and for the sake of discussion, roleplay equally well, and there characters are identical except one of them has... oh, for the sake of argument, rating 4 gremlins (20 BP), while the other has in debt for 20 BP.

after playing several sessions, having received equal rewards in every way, the player with in debt decides to pay off his debt. now then, the player who took in debt suddenly has removed his negative quality entirely. the other player, having played just as well, contributed just as much, and for the sake of discussion being in all ways equal, would also like to remove his negative quality (gremlins).

now, if you would just say "ok, sure, you'll need to spend a few thousand nuyen on some sort of procedure that will remove your negative quality", then ok, you're being fair to both players.

if, on the other hand, you tell that second player they can't remove their gremlins flaw at all, you're treating the second player differently from the first, in spite of the second player having done everything just as well as the first. this is very clearly not fair to the second player, who has done nothing to deserve a lesser reward than what the first player got.

if you tell the second player that they must first resolve the negative quality in-game and then pay double the BP in karma, you are also treating the second player unfairly.

they have, for the sake of discussion, behaved identically. if the first player get to have a reward and the second player does not, is that not the very definition of unfairness? to treat one person poorly and the other well, for essentially no good reason?

now let's add in that most likely, they haven't been equal at all; the guy with gremlins 4 is probably suffering FAR more from the negative quality than the guy with in debt, because having to pay 3k a month is an inconvenience but suffering from a drastically increased number of glitches is a serious disadvantage. the guy who has gremlins most likely has been affected far more often, and has likely incorporated such a noteworthy flaw into his character as a fairly significant element. the guy who took in debt, it's probably barely even a footnote in their life. it certainly won't be around their character for very long, or at least it doesn't have to be.

as has been said: in the interest of treating your players fairly, you should be consistent. otherwise, expect your players to suddenly imagine lots of characters that have debts (because frankly, i can't think of a single character concept that couldn't owe someone a lot of money very plausibly), and for your players to set aside their characters with other (far more character-defining) negative qualities to get put on a shelf for someone else's game, because you are punishing a certain behaviour (choosing significant flaws that are difficult to remove) and rewarding another (purchasing easily-removed flaws that are not a significant part of the character's identity). or, alternately, expect some player dissatisfaction, because if you arbitrarily decide that one person is going to get slapped in the face, and the other is going to get a $10 bill, and neither of them did anything significant to deserve it, being upset is bloody well a perfectly reasonable response to that kind of treatment.

Now, you add in a statement at the beginning laying out what qualities can be removed with karma and an intervening action, which ones can be removed without karma by performing an appropriate intervening action and which ones can't be removed at all, and boom, it's fair again.

[Shortstraw]

Also since when was Shadowrun meant to be fair?

[Glyph]

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?

If they spent some extra effort on it, then they would get roleplaying Karma, and thus be able to buy off the negative quality. Same thing with someone dealing with a bad reputation, or easing themselves out of a day job to transition to being a runner full time. They are earning karma during this time, so they can spend it to remove the negative qualities.

Also since when was Shadowrun meant to be fair?

The game world may be dark and gritty, but the game itself has always been meant to be fair. Not in the sense of every choice being optimal, but as All4BigGuns says, players should all have the same choices available, and know what those choices are.

[Medicineman]

Now, you add in a statement at the beginning laying out what qualities can be removed with karma and an intervening action, which ones can be removed without karma by performing an appropriate intervening action and which ones can't be removed at all, and boom, it's fair again.

but then You should expect a lot of Players taking these ....easy-to-remove-NQ just for the sake of being easy BPs and not because it fits their Char, their Backgroundstory,expect everyone to have indebt NQ
Its kind of urging the Players to taking these Easy NQs,a kind of GMs Fiat.

he who rather dances fairly
Medicineman

[Medicineman]

Also since when was Shadowrun meant to be fair?

Not Shadowrun, not the World, but the Rules and how You treat the PLAYERS !

with a Fair Dance
Medicineman

[All4BigGuns]

but then You should expect a lot of Players taking these ....easy-to-remove-NQ just for the sake of being easy BPs and not because it fits their Char, their Backgroundstory,expect everyone to have indebt NQ
Its kind of urging the Players to taking these Easy NQs,a kind of GMs Fiat.

he who rather dances fairly
Medicineman

Oh well. Not like I personally give a rat's tush what qualities a player takes.

[Jaid]

Oh well. Not like I personally give a rat's tush what qualities a player takes.

you should care about treating your players fairly.

the characters are in the game world, and the game world is not fair. that's fine. the unfairness is part of the challenge, which is part of what makes the game fun for many people.

but the players are presumably people you care to spend time with. at the very least, they are (probably) human beings. they are not showing up to be treated unfairly. and if it happens consistently, i would expect them to eventually just leave.

it's fine to have unfair things happen to the characters (provided the game calls for it). it is not fine to choose to make unfair things happen to the players, because

[All4BigGuns]

you should care about treating your players fairly.

the characters are in the game world, and the game world is not fair. that's fine. the unfairness is part of the challenge, which is part of what makes the game fun for many people.

but the players are presumably people you care to spend time with. at the very least, they are (probably) human beings. they are not showing up to be treated unfairly. and if it happens consistently, i would expect them to eventually just leave.

it's fine to have unfair things happen to the characters (provided the game calls for it). it is not fine to choose to make unfair things happen to the players, because

If they know ahead of time what qualities require what to remove (or which ones can't be removed at all), then it is fair. With such information given at the outset, then they've made a choice to take the harder to remove ones, and as such it is on them--another good reason for full disclosure of everything before starting a game.

[Jaid]

If they know ahead of time what qualities require what to remove (or which ones can't be removed at all), then it is fair. With such information given at the outset, then they've made a choice to take the harder to remove ones, and as such it is on them--another good reason for full disclosure of everything before starting a game.

no, i wouldn't really say that's fair at all.

it's a game. within reason, i should be able to play what i want, without being punished for it. if i want to play a character with gremlins or infirm, i shouldn't be dramatically worse off than a player with in debt or mysterious cyberware (allowing for difference in quality values, etc).

or rather, i shouldn't be punished for thinking "hey, it would be cool if i played a character with <insert negative quality here>". your system is set up such that someone who wants to play certain negative qualities is stuck with them, while others are essentially getting a free ride.

in short, you are making a system where rather than playing what they think will be fun and interesting, they've got a strong incentive to play only what will be effective. and there isn't even a good reason behind it.

i'm fine with "i don't want to charge players karma for role-playing the removal of their negative qualities". the problem is when only some negative qualities are treated that way, while others are not.

for example, suppose i was to set up a system whereby people who profess to believe in my religion are treated one way (which religion it is isn't important for the purposes of this discussion) and those who do not profess to believe in my religion are treated another way, which is less desirable.

if i announce ahead of time that people who do not profess to believe my religion will be punished in some way (regardless of how major or minor the punishment is), did my announcement ahead of time, and allowing them to then choose what they want to claim as their religion, make this any more fair? is it fair that if they want to avoid punishment, those who don't believe in my religion must lie?

personally, i would look at that system and say no, that isn't fair. it is, in fact, distinctly unfair.

so what makes you think that when you have functionally the same scenario, except with negative qualities instead of religions, you get a fair system? shouldn't people be free to choose their negative qualities to fit their characters without being unduly punished? obviously, this isn't as important an issue as religious freedom, but if treating your players fairly is a goal (and it should be), then why would you not be fair by applying the same rule equally to all negative qualities instead of only some?

[Glyph]

Qualities are far from equal already - I don't know if I would want to add more inequity to the mix by making some easier to get rid of. I mean, yeah, there are going to be some options that are flat out better than the others in a wide-open point build system like Shadowrun's - heck, look at the controversy over the cost of playing an oni metatype. But this is taking things that should be the same and giving them different underlying mechanics, for what seems to be arbitrary reasons. Of course, the GM is free to fiddle with things like that if encouraging or discouraging certain qualities is the goal (I still think just tweaking the point values would be better, even for that), but it is essentially cutting down on meaningful player choices.

[toturi]

Qualities are far from equal already - I don't know if I would want to add more inequity to the mix by making some easier to get rid of. I mean, yeah, there are going to be some options that are flat out better than the others in a wide-open point build system like Shadowrun's - heck, look at the controversy over the cost of playing an oni metatype. But this is taking things that should be the same and giving them different underlying mechanics, for what seems to be arbitrary reasons. Of course, the GM is free to fiddle with things like that if encouraging or discouraging certain qualities is the goal (I still think just tweaking the point values would be better, even for that), but it is essentially cutting down on meaningful player choices.

I think that it is not so much giving them different underlying mechanics but instead confirming and making clear that the underlying mechanics are different and the GM is aware of such differences.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Of course not you find out where they are fighting with the other syndicates and hit them there and as soon as they are at a disadvantage you move to another point of conflict.

Sometimes that works, and sometimes it does not. The last mob war we were involved in (at our table) included multiple factions, becuase some of the PC's figured that it was good to piss in EVERYBODY's wheaties. Once the commonalities were identified, well, lets just say that the Syndicate (Multiple Families; 3 if I remember correctly), Triad and Yakuza dedicated themselves to eradicating the PC's instead of going after each other. It was quite brutal.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Now, you add in a statement at the beginning laying out what qualities can be removed with karma and an intervening action, which ones can be removed without karma by performing an appropriate intervening action and which ones can't be removed at all, and boom, it's fair again.

Or, you go with the actual book, and all NQ's must be resolved in game, and then removed with Karma. *shrug*

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Qualities are far from equal already - I don't know if I would want to add more inequity to the mix by making some easier to get rid of. I mean, yeah, there are going to be some options that are flat out better than the others in a wide-open point build system like Shadowrun's - heck, look at the controversy over the cost of playing an oni metatype. But this is taking things that should be the same and giving them different underlying mechanics, for what seems to be arbitrary reasons. Of course, the GM is free to fiddle with things like that if encouraging or discouraging certain qualities is the goal (I still think just tweaking the point values would be better, even for that), but it is essentially cutting down on meaningful player choices.

I so LOVE my Oni Ninja... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

In fact, you know what? Thinking about In Debt, I've decided that in the future, the PC w=ill not be allowed to even begin paying their principle down, not by one single nuyen, until they've paid enough Karma to reduce the BP value of the NQ.

Otherwise, their creditor refuses to accept extra money, or "loses" it somewhere in red tape, or "forgets" to apply it to the principle, whatever suits the story best.

[Medicineman]

My Char NOX (Ork Rigger) has indebt (10.000 ¥ from his Fixer Eve Donovan)
he pays it back in 10 Payments of 2000(no Time Limit) and with every Payment He's paying back I also pay 2 Karmapoints.
Until he has paid every rate he's inclined to do Runs for her even though they're kinda dangerous Ones
Thats a Deal I made with my former GM.I don't have to worry about interest rates and growing debt and He's got a Hook to get my Char into his Runs

with an agreed upon Dance
Medicineman

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

My Char NOX (Ork Rigger) has indebt (10.000 ¥ from his Fixer Eve Donovan)
he pays it back in 10 Payments of 2000(no Time Limit) and with every Payment I also Pay 2 Karmapoints.
Until he has paid every rate he's inclined to do Runs for hereven though they're kinda Dangerous ones
Thats a Deal I made with my former GM.I don'T have to worry about interest Rates and Growing debt and He's got a Hook to get my Char in his Runs

with an agreed upon Dance
Medicineman

Which is not a bad way to go.
We tend to go that route, but we do keep the timeframe.

[FuelDrop]

Sometimes that works, and sometimes it does not. The last mob war we were involved in (at our table) included multiple factions, becuase some of the PC's figured that it was good to piss in EVERYBODY's wheaties. Once the commonalities were identified, well, lets just say that the Syndicate (Multiple Families; 3 if I remember correctly), Triad and Yakuza dedicated themselves to eradicating the PC's instead of going after each other. It was quite brutal.

You had Archangel on your team?!?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You had Archangel on your team?!?

Well, a couple of characters (and Players) decided that The Underworld organizations could not treat them that way (poorly. because they were pissing in the organization's wheaties) because they thought that they were the top of the heap, as far as the Shadows went. They really started to get the picture when the Assassin just disappeared, with no forwarding address/contact information. He literally hung them out to dry, since he was the most deadly one in the group, followed by the insane Merc Troll, who separated from the group as well. In the end they had to eat some crow and make nice with everyone (and some various other things that were going on) or they were going to be eliminated. Shadowrunners cannot compete with organizations. They can hurt them, to be sure, but they WILL lose in the end.

[toturi]

Well, a couple of characters (and Players) decided that The Underworld organizations could not treat them that way (poorly. because they were pissing in the organization's wheaties) because they thought that they were the top of the heap, as far as the Shadows went. They really started to get the picture when the Assassin just disappeared, with no forwarding address/contact information. He literally hung them out to dry, since he was the most deadly one in the group, followed by the insane Merc Troll, who separated from the group as well. In the end they had to eat some crow and make nice with everyone (and some various other things that were going on) or they were going to be eliminated. Shadowrunners cannot compete with organizations. They can hurt them, to be sure, but they WILL lose in the end.

It really depends. It largely depends on the attitude of the GM and his views on whether shadowrunners can or cannot compete with such organisations.

[_Pax._]

Which is to say, "it really depends on how sane the GM is, in terms of whether or not the believe four or six guys can take down world-spanning multi-trillion-nuyen organisations just because they have secret 'I'm a player character, Bitch!' tattoos."

[toturi]

Which is to say, "it really depends on how sane the GM is, in terms of whether or not the believe four or six guys can take down world-spanning multi-trillion-nuyen organisations just because they have secret 'I'm a player character, Bitch!' tattoos."

No. It is to say that if the player characters have such leet skills like Fastjack, have initiation levels approaching Caimbeul's, wealthy enough to be on the A-list of the Grand Tour, then as a GM, I will not say that they cannot take down such world-spanning multi-trillion-nuyen organisations just because they have secret 'I'm a player character, Bitch!' tattoos."

Unlike some GMs, I will not dismiss the possibility out of hand. If you as a GM want to close your mind to such a possibility, then it is your perogative as a GM. But I am open to reasonable approaches to the issue and I am of the opinion that as the characters increase in their power level, the probabilities of success at any endeavour increases.

[Glyph]

I believe that a syndicate with leverage over a violent career criminal would typically exert that leverage in subtle and incremental ways, rather than making serious threats against the runner and literally backing him into a corner.

If it does come down to a war of attrition, syndicates will usually win, just because they have more people and resources. But syndicates are composed of individuals. Sometimes you can deal with an adversary within an organization without declaring a scorched earth war against the entire organization.

[_Pax._]

No. It is to say that if the player characters have such leet skills like Fastjack, have initiation levels approaching Caimbeul's, wealthy enough to be on the A-list of the Grand Tour, then as a GM, I will not say that they cannot take down such world-spanning multi-trillion-nuyen organisations just because they have secret 'I'm a player character, Bitch!' tattoos."

So you think being a Bright Light on Jackpoint / Shadowland, makes yu immortal? Unkillable? Untouchable?

...

Go ask Hachetman how that's working out for him.

[toturi]

So you think being a Bright Light on Jackpoint / Shadowland, makes yu immortal? Unkillable? Untouchable?

...

Go ask Hachetman how that's working out for him.

So you think that being a syndicate or a corp makes you immortal? Indestructible? Untouchable?
...
Shadowrun history is littered with as many failed corps and dead syndicates as dead runners, go ask them how that's working out for them.

[_Pax._]

So you think that being a syndicate or a corp makes you immortal? Indestructible? Untouchable?

No, but it definitely means you have more "hitpoints", cash, karma, and expensive toys than any one, or even ten, shadowrunners.

and that's just this week's petty cash fund.

Shadowrun history is littered with as many failed corps and dead syndicates as dead runners, go ask them how that's working out for them.

How many of them were killed solely by a single small group of runners?

[toturi]

No, but it definitely means you have more "hitpoints", cash, karma, and expensive toys than any one, or even ten, shadowrunners.

and that's just this week's petty cash fund.


How many of them were killed solely by a single small group of runners?

No. I disagree what it "definitely" means, it probably means that it has more resources but it is not definite. For what it is worth, to me, Damien Knight, Richard Villiers and Mile Lanier are no more than very successful NPC runners.

I don't know. The very best runs are those you never know about.

[_Pax._]

No. I disagree what it "definitely" means, it probably means that it has more resources but it is not definite.

Who do you think has more money? A PC Shadowrunner ... or the entire Seattle Yakuza ...?

Now, who do you think owns more guns? More grenades? More shoulder-launched missiles?

Who has more warm bodies to wield them?

Hint: it ain't the shadowrunners.

[Medicineman]

some say Dragons can't be killed, some say Syndicates can't be messed with.
They're wrong ! Dragons CAN be killed and Syndicates CAN be toppled.
Its nothing any of my Chars would ever do (I'm not Insane )
but with the right Idea(s) and the right Resources& Actions it might be possible !
As a GM You should give Your players a fair chance to try it and not bar it right from the Start
be fair, be objektive and let the players dig their own grave ,but maybe they succeed ?(and that is where the epic Stories come from)

with an epic Dance
Medicineman

[Shortstraw]

Who do you think has more money? A PC Shadowrunner ... or the entire Seattle Yakuza ...?

Now, who do you think owns more guns? More grenades? More shoulder-launched missiles?

Who has more warm bodies to wield them?

Hint: it ain't the shadowrunners.

You forgot who has more enemies/competitors to stab them in the back the moment they are distracted.

Hint: it ain't the shadowrunners.

[Medicineman]

Who is an Organisation who's Bosses can die just as easily

Hint: it ain't the shadowrunners.
If the Runners find out the whereabout of the Syndicate Leaders and strike out very fast, very efficiently
(like in "Gone in 60 Seconds "with Kills instead of GTA) they have a decent Chance of "winning"

with a decent Dance
Medicineman

[toturi]

Who do you think has more money? A PC Shadowrunner ... or the entire Seattle Yakuza ...?

Now, who do you think owns more guns? More grenades? More shoulder-launched missiles?

Who has more warm bodies to wield them?

Hint: it ain't the shadowrunners.

Probably the Seattle Yakuza. But I won't discount the possibility that a PC shadowrunner having more money than the entire Seattle Yakuza. (One of the possible "rewards" at the end of SOTF was Lowfyr's counteroffer, guess who has more money than the several times the Seattle Yakuza? Hint: Not the Seattle Yakuza)

The correct answer to your questions is quite possibly the shadowrunners. But hey, you can keep your mind closed to the possibility.

[Darksong]

we've had organized crime conflicts in our games before, and I usually run them where as long as they can keep things below the "city" level the runners have a good chance of surviving.

Once they get the attention of the entire "Seattle" organization, they had better have some savvy political moves to go along with their physical ones if they want to survive (ie, they might be able to help bring about a change in power structure but that's only helpful if they have an ally to fill the vacuum)

If they happen to get the attention of the worldwide organization it is time to change your face, prints, and DNA and find a deep, dark hole to climb into for a few years.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I believe that a syndicate with leverage over a violent career criminal would typically exert that leverage in subtle and incremental ways, rather than making serious threats against the runner and literally backing him into a corner.

If it does come down to a war of attrition, syndicates will usually win, just because they have more people and resources. But syndicates are composed of individuals. Sometimes you can deal with an adversary within an organization without declaring a scorched earth war against the entire organization.

This is true, yes. In our case, we started that way... unfortunately, I am sure that several of the Characters DID have those secret tattoos, and becasue of it they expanded their personal vendetta to an all out war (there was a LOT of character EGO involved, go figure... "They can't do that to ME"). It was entertaining, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ShadowDragon8685]

That approach is not fair. Fair is not relative to the player. Fair is relative to the game. The only thing that is fair is to follow the rules that are listed.

Stop. Fair is, in fact, relative to the player. I'm not going to make someone pay Karma to remove an NQ which they have gone to extraordinary in-game lengths to remove - such as removing NQ Enemy by finding the guy who's hounding you, interrogating him for information on everyone who would want to avenge him if he suddenly went missing and on his insurance policies, and then pre-emptively killing them and disarming his "in case I die" bombs before executing him, and making absolutely sure the HoG couldn't apply by (for instance) removing and incinerating his head.

As observed, that approach is not fair.

If I were ever a player at your table, I would [b]always opt for "In Debt", and never opt for Enemy. Even for the exact same BP value. Because In Debt will be easier to remove, than Enemy; I'll be able to remove In Debt for zero Karma ... whereas, Enemy? I guarantee you, it'll cost cash AND Karma to permanently deal with an Enemy.

Then so be it. I'd rather not abrogate all forms of common sense by trying to suggest that someone is going to be so stupid as to continue to try to collect money on a debt that has been paid in full, from a member of a professional group of violent felons-for-hire, because the player has paid up the money but not the Karma.


It's not as if Shadowrun even remotely tries to pretend that all NQs of the same point value actually have the same amount of negative impact on the player anyway. I'd just as soon that players bought cheap NQs for extra points and paid them off/sorted them out early than try to crack down on point-grubbing, especially since it's basically impossible under standard chargen to make an effective character who isn't a minmaxxed munchkin in the first place.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Stop. Fair is, in fact, relative to the player. I'm not going to make someone pay Karma to remove an NQ which they have gone to extraordinary in-game lengths to remove - such as removing NQ Enemy by finding the guy who's hounding you, interrogating him for information on everyone who would want to avenge him if he suddenly went missing and on his insurance policies, and then pre-emptively killing them and disarming his "in case I die" bombs before executing him, and making absolutely sure the HoG couldn't apply by (for instance) removing and incinerating his head.

So, there is absolutely no way that the guy you killed was not the real guy? Magic, Cloning, Patsy, Misdirection of Information, Etc. Plenty of ways to keep that enemy after all that "Hard Work" you seem to be so proud of. Or, they do not buy off the Enemy Quality and it morphs into a NEW thing (A NEW Enemy or something else entirely), based upon your actions. You do not get to remove NQ's from your sheet without paying the Karma Costs. You seem to be forgetting that ALL NQ's must have extensive and quality roleplaying involved in resolving them to start with. That is the Condition to actually removing them from your sheet, which takes Karma. *shrug*

[ShadowDragon8685]

So, there is absolutely no way that the guy you killed was not the real guy? Magic, Cloning, Patsy, Misdirection of Information, Etc. Plenty of ways to keep that enemy after all that "Hard Work" you seem to be so proud of.

There's only so many times you can pull that shit, especially when an entire Runner group invests as much effort into supermurdering someone who's giving the whole team grief. Especially with "Enemy" - that NPC effectively gets "Enemy: That whole goddamn Runner team" on his NPC sheet, too.

Or, they do not buy off the Enemy Quality and it morphs into a NEW thing (A NEW Enemy or something else entirely), based upon your actions. You do not get to remove NQ's from your sheet without paying the Karma Costs. You seem to be forgetting that ALL NQ's must have extensive and quality roleplaying involved in resolving them to start with. That is the Condition to actually removing them from your sheet, which takes Karma. *shrug*

"You do not get to remove NQ's from your sheet without paying the Karma Costs." - Yes, you do, if it makes sense that you do. If you owe money, you pay back the money and whatever interest is owed you. It's that simple. If you're being hunted by someone who's a schmuck, you off the schmuck and go the extra mile to ensure his torch doesn't get picked up by someone else. Not simple, but it works. Resolving all NQs does not require extensive and quality roleplaying. Sometimes it really is as simple as putting a fat credstick in a courier box and sending it to your local Mafia bookie with a note saying "Now we're even." Sometimes it is as simple as just deciding you've had enough Gremlins in your life and pay the Karma and your "curse" goes away.

[Lionhearted]

(A NEW Enemy or something else entirely)

"Hold on didn't I kill you already?"
"No that was my brother!"
"Wasn't the last guy I killed a brother too?"
"Big family... Now then! My name is Insistento Menacoya, you killed my brother, prepare to die!"
"I wish you would stop saying that..."