Metavariants just don't add up., Breaking down the point values in the Runner's Companion. Options

[Rapier]

I have to apologize about my last post, now that I read it I see is too aggressive and rough, didn't meant to say it in that way. I think I had focused the thing in the wrong way, I’ll try now.

I'll say, meanwhile, that I also wanted to mention the unique two rules I found on the 7th Sea GM book (I'm not doing sponsor, play shadowrun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) ).
They were (in a big box in the middle of the page):

1. There are no rules in this game.
2. Anyways, Cheat the players

The first one was explained below and told me that the presented rules were only a guideline, if the players and the GM thought that any of the rules were unnecessary or needed better form, they are encouraged to erase that rule or change it.

The second one told me that GM screen is for something, and not every throw you make will make your game fun, ignoring a throw can save a player who performed great and was facing dead, cheating a throw can rise the fear of the players when is needed,...(there were some more examples, but I don’t remember them). Although that, it advices that this rule has to be used wisely.

I'm know that SR 4th Core book has these premises, but it's like comparing a whisper in the ear with a guy screaming with a stereo.

So, what's the point?
SR 4th is not a perfect system and GM and players are too wide and differents that it's impossible to have everyone happy. It’s that why houserules and GM/players comes to play. I'm sure Catalyst worked pretty hard in runner’s companion and gave values according to their preferences. For my game style, I wouldn't complain if some race is cheaper than other or costs a little more. If you and your players feel you need to change BP values in a more balanced way do it.

I'll put myself as example:
- I changed matrix (raised ratings, erased programs like Reality Filter and changed the Black IC; my players asked to a harder game like 3rd)
- I changed part of the combat (too slow, too much throws, danger is difficult to obtain and I improved grunt system; my street sam with 2 ares predator makes 12 throws(4 shots x 3 combat throws)each IP, when I finish I find other players sleeping, also there are too much exploits for players)
- I changed magic (living vessel preparation, adept powers; my adept asked more balance with street sam)

I don't blame Catalyst for their work*, I know they try their best and I'm sure all the products they make has serious testing*, but as a GM, I have the freedom to change the rules for my players if I need to.

What I mean is that is evident that Catalyst has ignored metavariants cost, and as they said, they feel the values are well adapted. If you don't feel the same, just change them. Complains don't reach high, and even less when the books are already printed.

Well, that's the point I wanted to reach, sorry about the bulk (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

*: Unwired is an exception to that phrase

[Rasumichin]

I'll say, meanwhile, that I also wanted to mention the unique two rules I found on the 7th Sea GM book (I'm not doing sponsor, play shadowrun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) ).
They were (in a big box in the middle of the page):

1. There are no rules in this game.
2. Anyways, Cheat the players

The first one was explained below and told me that the presented rules were only a guideline, if the players and the GM thought that any of the rules were unnecessary or needed better form, they are encouraged to erase that rule or change it.

The second one told me that GM screen is for something, and not every throw you make will make your game fun, ignoring a throw can save a player who performed great and was facing dead, cheating a throw can rise the fear of the players when is needed,...(there were some more examples, but I don�€™t remember them). Although that, it advices that this rule has to be used wisely.

Oh my god...no, that wouldn't work for me.

I mean sure, if there are minor details not suited to my game, i'll houserule them.
But if it boils down to viewing the rules just as some loose guideline that don't matter anyway, instead of something that is, all in all, good but probably could benefit from some minor personal adaptation, it's either not the right kind of game for me or a terrible case of bad game design.
And in too many cases, stating "rules are not that important, you can always change them" is an excuse for the latter.

As far as the second one is concerned...just don't do it around me.
I use GM screens only to hide my notes or look up charts conveniently, i always roll openly and i expect GMs to do the same when i'm playing with them.
Fudging any rolls makes all rolls in the game ultimately meaningles, replacing the challenge of possibly lethal encounters, where rolling a 4 when you needed one more 5 does kill your character, where every decision made by the player counts, where surviving the evening offers a feeling of reward, of having accomplished something, in short : participating in an exciting game with an open outcome, with the mere simulacrum of danger that is provided by action movies, pulp novels and so on, where only our sympathizing and identification with the protagonist make us forget that genre conventions will ensure his survival no matter how desperate the odds, because the dictate of the story, even more : the dictate of what we expect from the story to not be disappointed and disturbed in our mode of receptional aesthetics, demands it.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing to be said against preferring such a "storytelling"-focussed style of play, but it will require you to GM differently, will require your players to behave differently and expect different things from a gaming session than what i'm looking for in a game of SR.

And frankly, SR isn't, and never was, the kind of game to be tailored for that kind of storytelling.
Not by intend and certainly not by the way the rules work out.

That doesn't mean a good gaming session will not generate a story, but it would in many, if not most cases, be troublesome and disappointing to try and enforce the dramatic structure and narrative techniques provided by movies and novels, which are a necessary means of good traditional, non-gaming-related storytelling in such a way that it enables the creation of what could be referred to as dramatic tension.

What a roleplaying game, and we have to emphasize the game part here, because games follow different dramatic laws than traditional narratives, provides in the means of tension and drama is the uncertainty and mercilesnes of die rolls, the tension of random and ultimately unpredictable outcomes, the rush of adrenaline by putting something the player holds dear and has put great effort in creating it, the player character, on the line.
Throwing the PC into a hostile, potentially destructive environment.
Risking terrible, cruel, even undeserved failure.
But thereby enabling a true feeling of victory if one succeeds.

Games depend on the kind of excitement generated by watching your favourite sports team face a worthy opponent- the outcome is uncertain, defeat may be unfair, disappointment is certainly a possibility and it is by no means assured that the meticulous buildup of drama one would expect from a good thriller or action movie will take place.
To be honest, this is even highly unlikely, but this also offers the opportunity of unlocking a kind of excitement no well-choreographed action movie will provide you with.
This is what all kinds of games that entail the possibility of loosing are ultimately about.

And RPGs can very well fall into that category, even if there are no predefined conditions for success.

I prefer it that way, i want my games not to be foolproof and secure.
I want them to be dangerous and not suited for small children.

And this is why i don't believe in self-appointed "storyteller" games.

[Jhaiisiin]

I feel compelled to point out that pg 265 and 266 in the BBB specifically mention changing rules you don't like, fudging rolls, and making sure there's a good story played out. It's not exclusive to "Storyteller" systems that you seem so set against.

[Rasumichin]

I feel compelled to point out that pg 265 and 266 in the BBB specifically mention changing rules you don't like, fudging rolls, and making sure there's a good story played out. It's not exclusive to "Storyteller" systems that you seem so set against.

I know, most games include advice like this.
Which neither takes away anything from the fact that simply breaking dysfunctional rules is hardly the panaceum for bad or inapropriate game design nor makes such advice beyond the self-evident "if it's broken, fix it" any more necessary.

Unsurprisingly, workable story games provide enough mechanisms to make rulebreaking redundant (consider the drama point system in the BtVS RPG that turns permanent character death into a sheer player decision and includes several ways of influencing dramatic developments to facilitate story development while staying completely within the rules).

In fact, SR4's Edge system already provides so efficient safeguards against unwanted character death that an advice like "don't let a PC die just because he rolled badly" seems merely redundant.

[NightmareX]

This reverse cpsting baffles me, and the only reason given so far is that rare races should be rare at the gaming table, which I find slighly offensive. I'm not asking you to find it offensive as well, I'm simply asking you to allow me to feel mildly offended without trying to tell me I am completely unjustified in feeling miffed.

Why would something as simple as an explanation for a game rule offend you? IMO that is a case of being thin-skinned to the point of irrationality.

My answer would depend on the answer to this question, "Is there a canon or RAW definition of abuse?"

If there is, then I would follow strictly by that. If there isn't, then there is not.

In answer to the first question, no there doesn't appear to be a definition of what constitutes abuse aside from the implication that taking the quality when the character is not intended to be a magician is abuse. So I take this to mean, according to your second statement, that there is no possible way to abuse these qualities in your opinion, since a player can always state "no I intended my Essence 1 street sam/hacker to be an adept" thereby fulfilling the RAW requirement.

This concept is completely contradictory to the simple fact that the sentence warning against abuse exists. Thus, there must logically be a definition to the term "abuse" that is not stated in the RAW. The dictionary would be a good place to start I think - "to use wrongly; misuse". Since SR RAW and fluff are intimately and expressly (by designer statement) linked, it logically follows that to use said qualities wrongly would be to use them in such a way that does not reflect the fluff descriptions of the world. Thus my conclusions.

Well, would you let four players play as British, troll immigrants? I mean, let's look at some numbers.

If the four characters had some sort of relationship prior to immigration, no problem - the players are telling me by doing that what sort of campaign they want. If the four characters never heard of each other before play started, hell no - the odds of four British immigrant formori all randomly coming together on one shadow team without prior relationship are in my estimation ridiculously low.

In fact, SR4's Edge system already provides so efficient safeguards against unwanted character death that an advice like "don't let a PC die just because he rolled badly" seems merely redundant.

Unfortunately, I agree.

[Platinum Dragon]

Why would something as simple as an explanation for a game rule offend you? IMO that is a case of being thin-skinned to the point of irrationality.

I don't find the explanation offensive, in fact I'm grateful it was explained at all. I find the rule itself offensive - and only mildly. It feels a little like the designers were thinking 'oh noez, metavariants are supposed to be rare, and GMs are too stupid to incorporate that into the fluff, so let's penalize anyone who wants to create a slightly non-standard character!'

Did the designers seriously think that making the costs balanced would lead to SUDDENLY SPIRITS, THOUSANDS OF THEM?

I like more fantastic games. In almost every RPG I play I lean towards the character races that diverge the most from reality - mostly because I find 'modern day' stuff boring. So things like shifters, free spirits and even most non-standard metatypes are interesting to me. I don't like the idea that a game-designers bias penalises me if I decide to indulge that interest.

Sure, the races are rare in the world, but shadowrunners are supposed to redefine the terms 'normal' and 'rare.' Having the rules try to enforce rarity where it shouldn't have any sway is annoying, and reeks of the designers trying to decide the mood of my games for me.

And I'm pretty sure I'm only repeating myself at this point, so I'm going to leave it at that; I've stated my (minor) grievance, so I'm done.

Aulthough, I would be very interested to see what the costing on each metatype was without the rarity factored in...

[Mäx]

I heartly support the rarity based part of the costing, becouse i agree that having variant be cheaper than the base type just doesn't seem right.

[Jhaiisiin]

I suppose "abuse" in the context of a game system like Shadowrun would be creating characters that deliberately twink for high stats or utilize combinations not in keeping with the spirit and setting of the Shadowrun universe.

Of course, that setting and spirit will vary from one gaming table to the next, and could be completely subjective. That said, spotting and preventing that abuse will be up to each individual GM, and it's hard to make solid rules against it that work for everyone. GM needs to just step up and enforce the rules of his reality. After all, it's their game. They can work with the players to help get it to a place everyone can enjoy, but in the end, the GM is the moderator, the storyteller, the all ruling god of that virtual world, and it'll be his final say that determines the fluff of the world. The players will help, but it's the GM providing the details in the end, and thus it's his world, his rules. Only he should be the one enforcing them.

[Rasumichin]

I suppose "abuse" in the context of a game system like Shadowrun would be creating characters that deliberately twink for high stats or utilize combinations not in keeping with the spirit and setting of the Shadowrun universe.

400BP chargen almost requires deliberate twinking if you want a character to be both effective and believable.
Ressources are too scarce to apply the rules wastefully.

Most complaints about rules abuse i tend to see on discussion boards are rooted in insufficient rules knowledge on part of the other players (happens all the time in a game as complex as SR, nothing to be ashamed of).

Of course, there are examples where builds stretch the limits of the rules.
Most of them will be too overspecialized or too cost-intensive to see actual play, however (i can't really imagine a PC becoming Binky, the equine MBT).
They are thought exercises, nothing more.

The remainder will also rarely be applied in their full extend, most players will rather salvage the insight gained from such builds to expand their understanding of the rules and enable themselves to deliberately create a character at a desired power level.

Then, there's groups where everybody, including the GM, brings the full scope of the rules to the gaming table without mercy.
In such cases, not twinking = suicidal, best twinkage = success.

In cases where a single player hogs the spotlight with a build overpowered compared to the rest of the group, i would not speak of abuse either, but rather of poor communication between the group members, as this player's decisions would be legitimate, even desired, in other constellations.


The remaining cases of "rules abuse" usually boil down to design failures like bloodzilla, used alpha ware, pointless and unnecessary DP inflation and so on.
In such cases, abuse is also the wrong term, as this "abuse" actually is a valuable service spotlighting candidates for errata and houserules (of course, given that the group is able to reach a consensus regarding the fix of such malfunctioning rules parts).

In conclusion, i do not believe in rule abuse.
If rule application causes problems that cannot be solved, the problem is never that somebody actually dares to make efficient use of the rules, but rather a failure to establish a commonly accepted style of gaming.
Given a functional group with a good grasp of the rules' implications and their effect on gameplay, every player will easily instrumentalize the rules to facilitate the desired gaming experience.

If this doesn't happen, i'd rather search for an explanation on the social level or suggest to RTFM.

[PlatonicPimp]

OK, back on topic for fixing the cost (for those of us who want to)

Does it work, cost wise, simply to say "buy your metatype, and then purchase the metatraits for your variant type?" Much like surging a matahuman, only without the specified amounts of good and bad that come with that.

[toturi]

In conclusion, i do not believe in rule abuse.

Amen.

[Mäx]

The remaining cases of "rules abuse" usually boil down to design failures like bloodzilla, used alpha ware, pointless and unnecessary DP inflation and so on.

Whats wrong with used alphaware, execp that it doesn't do anything else than giving -1 to availebility.

[Apathy]

My personal preference is against BP adjustments to signify rarity, especially if it's applied inconsistently. Trolls are less common than orks, and appear to be penalized BP-wise. Orks are less common than standard humans, but do not appear to be similarly penalized. Mages are less common than any metahuman race, but don't appear to be penalized at all for their rarity (IMO). Statistically, you'd expect trolls with str 6 to be more common than those with str 5, but nobody expects to get a BP discount for making them more 'typical' (or at least I don't - can't speak for the rest of you.)

My personal preference is to keep my fluff (rarity of a given species or set of abilities) separate from my crunch (a fair balance of power among the choices available at character creation. Factoring in a penalties for the 'Distinctive', Criminal SIN (for infected), Hunted (for Drakes) and similar seems approprate, but I personally see the rarity rules as less fun.

[Stahlseele]

Whats wrong with used alphaware, execp that it doesn't do anything else than giving -1 to availebility.

IIRC, halved price and still some essence discount and the alpha grade i used for about anything else where grade is actually important . . but i am at work, have no access to the books and have been wrong before

[Mäx]

IIRC, halved price and still some essence discount and the alpha grade i used for about anything else where grade is actually important . . but i am at work, have no access to the books and have been wrong before

Nyuen and essence cost multipliers of the used and alpha grade negate each other, so the only think left is the -1 to availability, as i mentioned earlier, and the fact that it's an alphaware implant.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

If the four characters had some sort of relationship prior to immigration, no problem - the players are telling me by doing that what sort of campaign they want. If the four characters never heard of each other before play started, hell no - the odds of four British immigrant formori all randomly coming together on one shadow team without prior relationship are in my estimation ridiculously low.

As I just said, the odds of that happening over four British immigrant base trolls are six times more likely than having one Awakened in the game.

[Rasumichin]

Nyuen and essence cost multipliers of the used and alpha grade negate each other, so the only think left is the -1 to availability, as i mentioned earlier, and the fact that it's an alphaware implant.

No, used alpha costs the same as new standard (doubled price for alpha and halved price for 2nd hand cancel out), but it is -slightly- more Essence friendly.
You multiply by 0.8, then by 1.2 and end up with 0.04 Essence saved per 1 point.
The example in the chapter on second hand ware makes it crystal clear that by the print edition of Augmentation, it works that way, as the example character gets used alpha muscle replacement (2) for 1.92 Essence instead of the usual 2.

I'm not making this up, it is actually written that way :

The base cost of the implant would be 1.92 (the original 2 Essence cost for rating 2 muscle replacement x 0.8 for alphaware grade x 1.2 for the second hand state of the implant), while the availability would be 9R (10R for the original implant, -1 for being second hand) and the cost 10000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (10000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) x2 x0.5).

Typed it into my calculator several times and it seems to be correct...
Therefore, whenever possible, it would be better to use second hand alpha.
Besides fluff reasons, new standard is decidedly second rate ruleswise.

I've houseruled it to cancel out, especially as the devs have mentioned several times that different modifiers should be added before calculating the total Essence cost (which makes this passage a prime candidate for the Augmentation errata), but by RAW, in this case you apply each modifier seperately.

Therefore, you would apply the 1.2 multiplier to a lower Essence cost than the 0.8 modifier and squeeze out a small discount this way.

[Glyph]

My personal preference is against BP adjustments to signify rarity, especially if it's applied inconsistently. Trolls are less common than orks, and appear to be penalized BP-wise. Orks are less common than standard humans, but do not appear to be similarly penalized. Mages are less common than any metahuman race, but don't appear to be penalized at all for their rarity (IMO). Statistically, you'd expect trolls with str 6 to be more common than those with str 5, but nobody expects to get a BP discount for making them more 'typical' (or at least I don't - can't speak for the rest of you.)

Trolls may have some of their racial bonuses in Strength, one of the less useful stats in Shadowrun, but they are hardly "penalized". An ork costs 20 BP, loses a point of Edge, and gets 50 points of Attribute bonuses, for a net gain of 20 BP compared to a human. A troll costs 40 BP, loses a point of Edge, and gets 80 points of Attribute bonuses, for a net gain of 30 BP compared to a human. Mages are penalized for their rarity, BP-wise. Getting the mage positive quality and soft-maxing Magic costs a total of 55 BP, and that's assuming no mentor spirit or hard-maxed Magic.


I agree overall with the notion that rarity of a metatype shouldn't make it costlier, but it is hard to figure out how much a metatype is worth purely by number-crunching. Elves cost 30 BP, lose a point of Edge, and get 30 points of Attribute bonuses, for a net loss of 10 BP compared to a human. But where they get those bonuses makes them the best choice for certain builds. You aren't really paying 10 BP for the "cool" factor, you are paying 10 BP to make an optimal build for roles such as shaman/face or marksman.

[NightmareX]

I don't find the explanation offensive, in fact I'm grateful it was explained at all. I find the rule itself offensive - and only mildly. It feels a little like the designers were thinking 'oh noez, metavariants are supposed to be rare, and GMs are too stupid to incorporate that into the fluff, so let's penalize anyone who wants to create a slightly non-standard character!'

Fair enough. I don't precisely agree, but fair enough.

I like more fantastic games. In almost every RPG I play I lean towards the character races that diverge the most from reality - mostly because I find 'modern day' stuff boring. So things like shifters, free spirits and even most non-standard metatypes are interesting to me. I don't like the idea that a game-designers bias penalises me if I decide to indulge that interest.

Therein lies a distinct difference. I for one prefer cyberpunk + fantasy/magic games, more like 1st edition, rather than magicpunk/fantastic games. Had enough of the former with the horrors plotline back in 2nd edition.

I suppose "abuse" in the context of a game system like Shadowrun would be creating characters that deliberately twink for high stats or utilize combinations not in keeping with the spirit and setting of the Shadowrun universe.

Agreed.

In conclusion, i do not believe in rule abuse.

It would seem then that you (and Toturi) are in disagreement with the RAW, which is fine IMO. To each their own.

But Toturi, please then do not tell me that you would "follow strictly by" RAW when you are in obvious disagreement with it at least in part. It would seem you are putting your on interpretation ahead of the RAW, just as I am to some degree. Just saying.

As I just said, the odds of that happening over four British immigrant base trolls are six times more likely than having one Awakened in the game.

For four Brit immigrants existing in a given population center yes. For four Brit immigrants happening to come together without prior knowledge of each other on a shadow team, no. As I just said. Note we are not talking about "in the game" - that population includes all PCs and possible NPCs that the PCs can interact with. We are talking about the much small set of "in the same runner group".

OK, back on topic for fixing the cost (for those of us who want to)

Does it work, cost wise, simply to say "buy your metatype, and then purchase the metatraits for your variant type?" Much like surging a matahuman, only without the specified amounts of good and bad that come with that.

I personally don't see any real problem with that approach.

[NightmareX]

Double post deleted

[Mäx]

No, used alpha costs the same as new standard (doubled price for alpha and halved price for 2nd hand cancel out), but it is -slightly- more Essence friendly.
You multiply by 0.8, then by 1.2 and end up with 0.04 Essence saved per 1 point.
The example in the chapter on second hand ware makes it crystal clear that by the print edition of Augmentation, it works that way, as the example character gets used alpha muscle replacement (2) for 1.92 Essence instead of the usual 2.

I'm not making this up, it is actually written that way :




Typed it into my calculator several times and it seems to be correct...
Therefore, whenever possible, it would be better to use second hand alpha.
Besides fluff reasons, new standard is decidedly second rate ruleswise.

I've houseruled it to cancel out, especially as the devs have mentioned several times that different modifiers should be added before calculating the total Essence cost (which makes this passage a prime candidate for the Augmentation errata), but by RAW, in this case you apply each modifier seperately.

Therefore, you would apply the 1.2 multiplier to a lower Essence cost than the 0.8 modifier and squeeze out a small discount this way.

Oh right i have been doing it the way devs stated it should be done(1 - 0,2 + 0,2 = 1) , so i forgot how RAW handles it.
But seeing that it will be errated to be that way, my statement holds.

[Jhaiisiin]

OK, back on topic for fixing the cost (for those of us who want to)

Does it work, cost wise, simply to say "buy your metatype, and then purchase the metatraits for your variant type?" Much like surging a matahuman, only without the specified amounts of good and bad that come with that.

Wonder if any dumpshockers would be up to doing a "build your metatype" system? Some of us, obviously, like things as is and likely wouldn't use it. But it sounds like others would rather rebalance the metatypes based on their own info, and leave out the rarity. Would be interesting to see the final result anyway.

[Rasumichin]

It would seem then that you (and Toturi) are in disagreement with the RAW, which is fine IMO. To each their own.

Can't speak for Toturi here, but yes, if you count the devs' advise as part of the rules, i am.
Not that it bothers me, as i prefer having a bug-fixed system over playing RAW anyway, so some digressions on advise how to run the game shouldn't be an issue for me.

@ Mäx : Agreed. Once the errata come out, i'm also certain it will be fixed to the way we both handle it.

[NightmareX]

Can't speak for Toturi here, but yes, if you count the devs' advise as part of the rules, i am.
Not that it bothers me, as i prefer having a bug-fixed system over playing RAW anyway, so some digressions on advise how to run the game shouldn't be an issue for me.

Agreed.