Oni cost? Options

[Larme]

Aight, i've got a better idea..
Larme, stop trolling for god sake, and add something of use and substance to the thread instead of arguing about whether other peoples stated opinions are valid or not. It does nothing to help with the subject matter at hand and im hard pressed to see *any* useful information you have provided that has to do with the topic at hand.

I'm not even arguing about that. I'm arguing that they should accept other peoples' opinions and not pretend like they're the only ones who understand the system and know the right way it should have been designed. If you can accept that reasonable minds can differ, then I have no problem with you. I'd be perfectly happy with a house rule that changes the cost of Oni, I'm just trying to disprove the fallacious argument that such a rule is required for every gamer who isn't retarded.

EDIT: Please see previous page for my important, substantive post. If anything will put this thread to bed, it's my last post, not this one. Speaking of bed, good night.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Missing, unproven premise: The cost must always mechanically reflect the build points cost of the constituent qualities.

If it doesn't, the system, in this instance, is unbalanced. The build point system is predicated on the idea that putting points into one thing over another is an even trade. If I can make an "oni" for cheaper with no cost to me, the system has failed.

Fluff has no place in the BP system.

[Muspellsheimr]

Or more precisely, non-mechanical effects have no place dictating the mechanical cost of various options.

To do otherwise (as has Shadowrun, primarily in Runners Companion) is to create an unbalancing system, which in a game (PvP or cooperative) is, at best, undesirable.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Glyph]

Has the game ever had that, though? The game has always had options that were woefully suboptimal mixed in with options giving you a huge amount of bang for the buck. You have crap like the SR3 psionic "tradition", or SR4's spell knacks, mixed in with stuff giving huge in-game advantages, such as the SR3 pre-errata mnemonic enhancer, or SR4's empathy software. In SR3's Shadowrun Companion, which introduced the metavariants, they certainly didn't fare any better, and ghouls, especially, were a joke.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Has the game ever had that, though? The game has always had options that were woefully suboptimal mixed in with options giving you a huge amount of bang for the buck. You have crap like the SR3 psionic "tradition", or SR4's spell knacks, mixed in with stuff giving huge in-game advantages, such as the SR3 pre-errata mnemonic enhancer, or SR4's empathy software. In SR3's Shadowrun Companion, which introduced the metavariants, they certainly didn't fare any better, and ghouls, especially, were a joke.

Just because it doesn't, doesn't mean it shouldn't.

[Mäx]

If I can make an "oni" for cheaper with no cost to me, the system has failed.

But you can't, you can make a SURGE freak ork with strange colored skin, but thats not Oni.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

But you can't, you can make a SURGE freak ork with strange colored skin, but thats not Oni.

Why not?

[Dhaise]

Why not?

Because someone wanted to save a few build points hiding in "can't we just call it semantics instead of a difference?" land.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Because someone wanted to save a few build points hiding in "can't we just call it semantics instead of a difference?" land.

Rephrase?

[Ryu]

Marshall: Principles of Economics

When the necessaries of life are once provided, everyone should seek to increase the beauty of things in his possession rather than their number or their magnificence. An improvement in the artistic character of furniture and clothing trains the higher faculties of those who make them, and is a source of growing happiness to those who use them. But if instead of seeking for a higher standard of beauty, we spend our growing resources on increasing the complexity and intricacy of our domestic goods, we gain thereby no true benefit, no lasting happiness. The world would go much better if everyone would buy fewer and simpler things, and would take trouble in selecting them for their real beauty; being careful of course to get good value in return for his outlay, but preferring to buy a few things made well by highly paid labour rather than many made badly by low paid labour.

[Veggiesama]

In other words, making needlessly complex characters to circumvent poor rules is aesthetically undesirable.

In other words, "optimizing" (or "finding loopholes" to get the most by giving up the least) one's way through char-gen is annoying behavior.

In other words, are we done with this argument yet?

[Larme]

Fluff has no place in the BP system.

...in your opinion. And look, we're done! Now you know, you're just arguing for the system you prefer, and not the only possible system that a sensible person would like. That wasn't so hard, was it?

[suppenhuhn]

So I want to play a campaign that happens to take place in Japan, where Onis are the most common kind of Orc by far, how do you explain the premium you pay for being one then?
Do species have different costs in different ethnicities?

[Jhaiisiin]

If you go by the fluff, an ogre has a heavily pronounced jaw, shorter stockier build and generally less body hair. An ogre is physically dissimilar to an oni enough that anyone who uses surge to make an ogre with the same mods will suffer the hefty social penalties in-game.

So maybe you're paying that 5 points not to be a freak outcast. At least Oni are relatively accepted (except in Japan obviously)

And if you still don't like it, then use the costs suggested by myself or Muspellsheimr and call it good.

Bearing in mind that if you adjust the oni cost, you may as well adjust the rest as well.

[DireRadiant]

After Chargen, unless your doing Shadowrun Dueling Miniatures in an Arena, the entire game is fluff.

The act of rolling dice dice to resolve an action is entirely based on a fluff decision in game between GM and players.

Look at your typical game session. Is it an endless stream of dice roll, counter dice roll ala chess match, or a bunch of people sitting around having fun IC and OOC with occasional dice rolls for drama?

If you want a game system with BP = Effects, play GURPS or Champions, those systems are explicitly designed where Build Points = Effects across the board. SR4 isn't, and hasn't been for several editions.

[Draco18s]

...in your opinion.

Never eaten a Pickle
"It's not that I don't like pickles or anything, I just challenge myself"
BP Bonus: 5

I Beat Stuff
"I guess I like punching people"
BP Cost: 5

African
"I'm black. What of it?"
BP Bonus: 15

Private Education
"I'm $40,000 more in debt, but GAWD, the cheerleaders were so much hotter."
BP Cost: 15

[eidolon]

So I want to play a campaign that happens to take place in Japan, where Onis are the most common kind of Orc by far, how do you explain the premium you pay for being one then?
Do species have different costs in different ethnicities?

Up to the GM. I might consider altering them if I was going to base my campaign somewhere that they were prevalent and the character was from that area.

[deek]

Up to the GM. I might consider altering them if I was going to base my campaign somewhere that they were prevalent and the character was from that area.

And I'd also consider altering them (or anything for that matter) if the players brought up a solid argument. Often times its about respect and trust. If a player comes to me with a considerate plea, I usually work something out and we move on.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

...in your opinion. And look, we're done! Now you know, you're just arguing for the system you prefer, and not the only possible system that a sensible person would like. That wasn't so hard, was it?

My assumption is that balance is what a sensible person looks for looks for in a system. I have yet to see this disproven.

[Lordmalachdrim]

My assumption is that balance is what a sensible person looks for looks for in a system. I have yet to see this disproven.

I'd like to submit myself and all my fellow Palladium Fans as a counter to your assumption.

[DireRadiant]

My assumption is that balance is what a sensible person looks for looks for in a system. I have yet to see this disproven.

Define sensible.

Is using a logical argument based on personal values preference to convince others of changing personal valuations going to work?

There are games already in print that use the same balance credo for mechanical effects. Yet even they suffer from some preference decisions in the core attributes. Why is Dex and Int a different build cost in GURPS then STR? Why is STR so much cheaper then DEX in Champions?

I have different value assumptions then you, and no matter how elegant and precise your argument, as long as your fundamental assumption differs from mine, we'll arrive at different logical conclusions.

My assumption isn't wrong, right, better, or worse, it's just mine.

The developers design decisions were made with known or unknown assumptions and values that you disagree with. I have figured that out. But the decisions are not inherently wrong.

Otherwise there wouldn't be a game, or books, or a company in business selling them, or people having fun.

[Larme]

Bearing in mind that if you adjust the oni cost, you may as well adjust the rest as well.

Yeah, I agree that Oni costs could be changed. A lot of things could be changed, especially when it comes to metatypes. But it takes a lot of work, and there's no guarantee that what you come out with is any better than what you started with. For instance, Mus worked all the races up based on mathematical consistency, but ran into problems -- what about the fact that strength technically costs 10 points at chargen, but is generally a worthless dump stat? What about the fact that Agility costs 10 points at chargen, but is technically the best skill in the game? If you just do it mechanically, you come up with a result that's more consistent, but still not perfect.

In the end, I'm not willing to open the can of worms that is house rules. The costs are a little unbalanced, but they haven't so far managed to ruin the game for me. If they did threaten to ruin the game, that's what the GM is for. I think pixies happen to be very undercosted at 35 points, for instance -- they lose out on two of the crappiest stats, strength and body, and they gain big bonuses to every single other stat, including the best stats in the game like agility, reaction, and intuition. And this might cause me to sit down to a table where 3/4 of my players want to be pixies. So what do I do? Do I spend hours meticulously reworking the system until it is a lean, mean machine of pure game balance? No, I just say "NO PIXIES ALLOWED FROM NOW ON YOU CHEESEMONGERS!" Problem solved!

[Muspellsheimr]

I'd like to submit myself and all my fellow Palladium Fans as a counter to your assumption.

Except for at least one of my friends, Palladium is his single favorite RPG setting, & he claims it is unplayable without nearly as many house-rules as there are rules as written - something I fully agree with from my experience with the game.

Because of that, Rifts & other Palladium systems are very rarely played with my group, & such campaigns never last long. I have also never seen a public Palladium game.

[Draco18s]

Because of that, Rifts & other Palladium systems are very rarely played with my group, & such campaigns never last long. I have also never seen a public Palladium game.

Rifts? Oh god. You can play a dragon right out of the book. Claw damage: 1d2 megadamage (that's 100 normal damage).

Yes.

Very.

Balanced.