[X] My Assistant

[toturi]

Some people think this is perfectly valid, and by the rules it is. Some of us think that, without a strong explanation via backstory, this is an excessive exploitation of the rules. We're in a thread that has 'Problem Players' in the title, so I assumed we were looking for rational ways to mitigate abuse of oversights in the rulebook. Instead, it looks like we're trying to find reasons to enable this behavior.

I guess all I can say is, to each their own. That's why each group has their own set of house rules.

Actually, I do not think it is a player problem or even excessive exploitation of the rules. I think it is a GM problem and such usage of the rules should be encouraged.

[Whipstitch]

A mage that doesn't want cyberware of any kind would get those 15 points in return for him paying double essense should he choose to change his mind. Just like any other Negative Quality, if the player is smart about it, he can get ahead; some people term it being cheesy, I just see it as both practical and pragmatic.

I'm in agreement with toturi on this one, except that I'd go so far as to argue that it's pretty darn tough to really get ahead with the Sensitive System quality. Yeah, sure, you'll have more points available than if you just went with no cyberware at all and skipped the flaw, but in my experience skipping cyberware entirely isn't really what it's cracked up to be anyway. Frankly, it takes a real effort for me to resist the urge to slap at least some cybereyes into every mage I make.

[toturi]

I'm in agreement with toturi on this one, except that I'd go so far as to argue that it's pretty darn tough to really get ahead with the Sensitive System quality. Yeah, sure, you'll have more points available than if you just went with no cyberware at all and skipped the flaw, but in my experience skipping cyberware entirely isn't really what it's cracked up to be anyway. Frankly, it takes a real effort for me to resist the urge to slap at least some cybereyes into every mage I make.

I find it tough to resist the urge to slap in a nanohive and O-cells into every character, Awakened or not.

[Cain]

Toturi is right, it's up to the GM to balance the flaw. If they can't, that's not a sign of a weak GM, but it is a place where you're going to have to come clean with your players.

For example, I despise the Day Job flaw. I cannot balance it out, no matter how hard I try. I've come to the point where that if a player tries and take it, I'll sit down with them and try and figure out an acceptable alternative. Usually it's not hard.

[Glyph]

I've got this mage concept I've been toying around with...

Scorched [10]
Sensitive Neural Structure [10]
Sensitive System [15]

And this is all perfectly valid even though I've got no cyberware installed, because if I ever decided to give up magic in the future and turn decker, I'd be in a really rough spot when it came time to get those implants...

-----

Some people think this is perfectly valid, and by the rules it is. Some of us think that, without a strong explanation via backstory, this is an excessive exploitation of the rules. We're in a thread that has 'Problem Players' in the title, so I assumed we were looking for rational ways to mitigate abuse of oversights in the rulebook. Instead, it looks like we're trying to find reasons to enable this behavior.

I guess all I can say is, to each their own. That's why each group has their own set of house rules.

No, that's not a valid set of negative qualities by RAW. Scorched and Sensitive Neural Structure are only 5 points each, unless you are a hacker. The rules are explicit on this point. Not "I could be a hacker, eventually, if I wanted to" - the character must actually be a hacker to get the higher amount of BPs for the flaw. So unless that mage actually has a more than token amount of skills put into hacking, the character would only get 25 points for that combination, not 35.

[MikeKozar]

What about the pacifist flaw? Does the character have to kill, and feel bad for it, to get the points?

Nice try. Was that a 'strawman'? It's been a long time since debate class.

Here's my assertion: Negative Qualities are intended to give the character a limitation or disadvantage in exchange for more points to spend on abilities or advantages.

For most archtypes in Shadowrun, Sensitive System is a major sacrifice, which explains why it is worth 15 points. For some archtypes, it is a minor inconvenience, if it even comes into play at all. If the character is playing an archtype where it is not a sacrifice, it should not be worth 15 points. It is.

The question that I raise is, do I have sufficient cause to implement some house rules if I feel a rule is being exploited? I say that in my game, I always have the right to implement house rules in the name of making the game more fun for myself and the players. Contest that if you like.

Given that:

A. The Negative Quality may not impact every player equally
B. The Negative Quality is worth a significant amount of points

It might appear that the simple solution is to either remove the Quality from my game, or to give it a graduated cost based on archtype, similar to how Allergy is handled. I think it's a good quality, and I'd like to keep it, and as has been pointed out not all casters are cyber-phobic.

Cheshyr's suggestion is elegant. In my games, only cyborgs may take a Sensitive System. Nobody here has convinced me that there's a good reason to allow it otherwise.

I think it is a GM problem and such usage of the rules should be encouraged.

Okay, not to pick fights, but what does that mean exactly?

[MikeKozar]

the character must actually be a hacker to get the higher amount of BPs for the flaw.

How do you tell a hacker from a guy with an overpowered commlink in this edition, anyway?

[Jhaiisiin]

The question that I raise is, do I have sufficient cause to implement some house rules if I feel a rule is being exploited? I say that in my game, I always have the right to implement house rules in the name of making the game more fun for myself and the players. Contest that if you like.

I would simply ask a couple of questions to this:

First, are those 15 points *really* breaking the fun for you and/or your players? If 15 points are that big of a deal, maybe there are other underlying issues you need to look at.

Second, over the course of a campaign, how much are those 15 points really bringing to the table? Again, is it that much of a problem?

If it really is a gamebreaker for you and your group, then by all rights and means, ban, change or limit it as you need. That's the prerogative of every GM, and not something a single person on this board can reasonably argue against unless they are strict RAW adherents to the point of fanaticism. (not an overly bad thing, of course... everyone needs a cause)

[Cheshyr]

No, that's not a valid set of negative qualities by RAW. Scorched and Sensitive Neural Structure are only 5 points each, unless you are a hacker. The rules are explicit on this point. Not "I could be a hacker, eventually, if I wanted to" - the character must actually be a hacker to get the higher amount of BPs for the flaw. So unless that mage actually has a more than token amount of skills put into hacking, the character would only get 25 points for that combination, not 35.

Only 25 then, for flaws that will never see the light of day. I'm certain I can find 10 more points of flaws that will be equally untouched. Even if I can't, 25BP isn't insignficant. This same run-around could be used with Cursed and Reduced Sense (Astral Sight) by a Street Sam. There are certain qualities where the developers didn't explicitly call out the limitations required for them to have an impact on the game. If a GM wants to allow freebie points like this, it's his perogative. There are those that don't that are looking for reasonable compromises to allow them to work with the player without it just being 'because I said so'.

And no, in the long run, 15 points isn't that big of a deal. It's only about 6 runs worth of Karma. This isn't entirely about game-breaking qualities... it's about encouraging the characters to make well rounded, interesting characters, starting with a level playing field and fixed amount of recources. If that's not really important to you, you could just tell the players "You have anywhere from 365 to 435 BP to use to create your character. Have fun."

This may be appropriate for your campaign. Again, GMs call.

[toturi]

Okay, not to pick fights, but what does that mean exactly?

Exactly as it says? Like Cain said, it is up to the GM to enforce the Negative Quality.

Sensitive System, for example, makes you pay through the nose for the useful cybernetics that do not have a magical counterpart. In essense(forgive the pun), he is cut off from having those cyber. You may think that you should not have Sensitive System unless you have cyber but the problem is that with Sensitive System and if you do want quite a bit of cyber, you are essentially shooting yourself in the head, it is quite suicidal to take Sensitive System and try to implant a basic Rating 2 wired reflexes. My take is that Sensitive System is precisely there to provide points to non-cyber characters. Then when they do find that they want a cyber implant, they have to weigh the pros and cons very carefully indeed.

[Cheshyr]

Exactly as it says? Like Cain said, it is up to the GM to enforce the Negative Quality.

Sensitive System, for example, makes you pay through the nose for the useful cybernetics that do not have a magical counterpart. In essense(forgive the pun), he is cut off from having those cyber. You may think that you should not have Sensitive System unless you have cyber but the problem is that with Sensitive System and if you do want quite a bit of cyber, you are essentially shooting yourself in the head, it is quite suicidal to take Sensitive System and try to implant a basic Rating 2 wired reflexes. My take is that Sensitive System is precisely there to provide points to non-cyber characters. Then when they do find that they want a cyber implant, they have to weigh the pros and cons very carefully indeed.

Sensitive System doesn't impact Bioware. If you've got a Bioware heavy player with Sensitive System, you've got a rational character concept. If they decide to add cyberware later, and their bioware essence costs are greater than their cyberware essence costs, the cyberware is 50% essence cost. Sensitive System would make this 100% again... so those Cybereyes or wired reflexes would go back to normal essence cost. There are situations where the flaw makes sense, and adds depth.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sensitive System doesn't impact Bioware. If you've got a Bioware heavy player with Sensitive System, you've got a rational character concept. If they decide to add cyberware later, and their bioware essence costs are greater than their cyberware essence costs, the cyberware is 50% essence cost. Sensitive System would make this 100% again... so those Cybereyes or wired reflexes would go back to normal essence cost. There are situations where the flaw makes sense, and adds depth.

And then there are examples like this that seem positively ludicrous to me... Apples and Oranges... the Drawback has absolutely no real detrimental effect in the above example and you have a "freebie" Negative Quality... Using that argument, the guy with all the Bioware never buys cyberware... is he now "cheating" to get those 15 freebie poiints?

Keep the Faith

[Cthulhudreams]

I'd personally consider just giving my players 35 extra BP. Really, players who don't want to have actual disadvantages will be allergic to stuff they don't care about, and players that do don't need to be nerfed for no reason.

Seriously, there is literally no viable character archtype for which sensitive system is ever going to be a material disadvantage.

Any sammie would have to be mad to take it, mages can minimise the impact and faces/riggers are not impacted materially.

[Cheshyr]

And then there are examples like this that seem positively ludicrous to me... Apples and Oranges... the Drawback has absolutely no real detrimental effect in the above example and you have a "freebie" Negative Quality... Using that argument, the guy with all the Bioware never buys cyberware... is he now "cheating" to get those 15 freebie poiints?

Keep the Faith

Heh... yeah, I'd say he was. Hence why I suggested the 'If you want it, buy some cyberware first' limitation on Sensitive System. It was a suggested check-and-balance to make sure a flaw the GM has no in-game influence over has some effect on gameplay. And it does have a significant impact... without the flaw, the guy might not have purcahsed the ridiculously expensive bioware in the first place.

What is it everyone here says?.. YMMV.

[toturi]

Sensitive System doesn't impact Bioware. If you've got a Bioware heavy player with Sensitive System, you've got a rational character concept. If they decide to add cyberware later, and their bioware essence costs are greater than their cyberware essence costs, the cyberware is 50% essence cost. Sensitive System would make this 100% again... so those Cybereyes or wired reflexes would go back to normal essence cost. There are situations where the flaw makes sense, and adds depth.

So? In the first place if he didn't have the Sensitive System, he would have a 50% reduction in Essense costs and that kind of reduction is comparable to having Delta Grade. So he trades off the 50% essense to his cyber for the 15 BPs of Sensitive System. I would think that that is a bad trade and a stupid move unless that piece of cyber is absolutely essential to his continued survival.

[Glyph]

Sensitive system is only one of many negative qualities that fall under "lateral limitations", flaws that might not affect your initial character concept, but limit ways in which that character can improve. With hard-wired limits that can often be reached at char-gen, lateral limits are not insignificant. If a mage with sensitive system is cheesy, then so is a bunker rigger with infirm, or an assault-cannon toting minotaur with uncouth, or any character with incompetence.

Of course, people will tend to get these kind of flaws when they aren't that interested in that particular area anyways. Any flaw a player takes for a character will generally either fall under 1) Doesn't mess up my character, or come up too often; or 2) Fun to roleplay, even if it gets my character into trouble. I don't have too much of a problem with 1) if it is something that at least comes up occasionally. Now, if someone tried to take severe allergy: dinosaur poop, or a mundane character tried to take incompetence: spellcasting, then I would disallow it. Things like weak immune system, allergy: silver, or nano-intolerance might not come up much, but at least the possibility is there and the effect is quantifiable.

Remember, the last stage of character creation is GM approval, so if you are more stringent on flaws, simply let the player know.

[Ravor]

Also, flaws like sensitive system aren't nearly as toothless if the DM in question is willing to forcibly implant some cyber if it is realistic to do so.

[kzt]

There is no Threshold 0 in the Perception rules.

There is no threshold 0 in the game. People are confusing net hits with the threshold. You always need at least one success. One success is zero net hits. The SR4 writers occasional get this wrong too. This produced the crazy example in SR4 magic (p174) where they redefined a "success test" as requiring one net hit on page 173, then used a threshold per the regular game mechanics in the example. In SR4a page 183 they seem to have fixed this, as they now only require a net hit for an opposed test.


"The standard threshold is 1 (so only 1 hit is
necessary to succeed), though other tests may have thresholds as high
as 4 or more. The Success Test Difficulties Table lists a range of difficulty
levels along with a standard threshold for each. In some cases,
a threshold modifier may apply to an action, raising or lowering the
threshold by the stated amount.

"The more net hits a character scores (the more hits exceed the
threshold), the more the task was pulled off with finesse and flair. So
a character who rolls 4 hits on a threshold 2 test has scored 2 net hits."

[MikeKozar]

"The more net hits a character scores (the more hits exceed the
threshold), the more the task was pulled off with finesse and flair. So
a character who rolls 4 hits on a threshold 2 test has scored 2 net hits."

Wow, that *really* changes things. In our first SR4 game, somebody got 2 successes on an attack roll and added 2 to his DV; we couldn't find a rule in the SR4 book that said it didn't work that way, so that's been how we've been handling it. Being able to quote chapter and verse will really help me reign that in. Thanks, Kzt!

[Glyph]

Wow, that *really* changes things. In our first SR4 game, somebody got 2 successes on an attack roll and added 2 to his DV; we couldn't find a rule in the SR4 book that said it didn't work that way, so that's been how we've been handling it. Being able to quote chapter and verse will really help me reign that in. Thanks, Kzt!

How you've been handling combat is correct. Combat is an opposed test. On page 57 of the SR4 book, it plainly states:

Note that thresholds are never applied to Opposed Tests.

I don't have SR4A, but I doubt it changes anything, since the quote kzt gives is exactly what my basic SR4 book says on page 56.

[Dakka Dakka]

Wow, that *really* changes things. In our first SR4 game, somebody got 2 successes on an attack roll and added 2 to his DV; we couldn't find a rule in the SR4 book that said it didn't work that way, so that's been how we've been handling it. Being able to quote chapter and verse will really help me reign that in. Thanks, Kzt!

If the defender didn't score any hits that's indeed correct. In an opposed test like combat the net hits however are equal to the attacker's hits minus the defender's hits. The relevant passages are on p. 149 of SR4A or p. 139 f. of SR4.

[MikeKozar]

If the defender didn't score any hits that's indeed correct. In an opposed test like combat the net hits however are equal to the attacker's hits minus the defender's hits. The relevant passages are on p. 149 of SR4A or p. 139 f. of SR4.

Oh, I see...because in this case the Threshold is the Defender's Dodge roll - or at least, that's one way to look at it.

Let me make sure I've got this:

I'm shooting a DV6 weapon at a Merc.
I get three hits; he gets three hits; I miss.
I get four hits; he gets three hits; I hit for DV7

Is that right?

[Dakka Dakka]

Yes.

[Cthulhudreams]

Also, flaws like sensitive system aren't nearly as toothless if the DM in question is willing to forcibly implant some cyber if it is realistic to do so.

what a dick move. "I'm going to make you lose 30-50 karma in one GM fiat move, resulting in you losing 6-10 sessions of progress. BL"

I'd seriously get annoyed if someone pulled that on me! Invalidating 2-6 months of gameplay in one fell swoop is just not nice.

[kzt]

How you've been handling combat is correct. Combat is an opposed test. On page 57 of the SR4 book, it plainly states:

"Note that thresholds are never applied to Opposed Tests."

I don't have SR4A, but I doubt it changes anything, since the quote kzt gives is exactly what my basic SR4 book says on page 56.

Yup, that was the text from success tests. Opposed tests are different, as the combat opposed tests (note that there is a special "combat opposed test" vs regular "opposed test"- I have no idea why) redefine net hits as successes [A-B=successes] (which I think is unfortunate - the game would be cleaner if they used the same definition as success tests - but they don't).

However some of the optional rules do actually use thresholds for combat, though by turning combat into success tests. Plus, on step 3 of the combat sequence, they say that you can succeed on a tie in certain cases - like touch only attacks, plus on page 159 they give you a +2 die pool for touch only attacks... I hate special rules like "but you succeed on a tie".

There is nothing wrong with any GM choosing to use thresholds for opposed tests, as long as the GM understands this is a variant rule, has told everyone how stuff will work up front, and uses them appropriately. Every point of a threshold has the same effect (in theory) as reducing the attackers pool by 3 dice, but in practice I'd expect it to be harsher. (This is kind of what they do with mana barriers in SR4a, though only for success tests)

I've toyed with having wards impose their force as a threshold on spells that target or affect targets inside a, as I think the protection they provide in the rules is too wimpy. But that is definitely not RAW.