Understanding Metavariants., If someone could lend a hand. Options

[Rystefn]

Oh but I cannot award myself Called the Opponent Stupid points when you have already awarded yourself an "I am stupid" point. That would be stupid.

Oh... you're obviously using "stupid" in the same sense as you're using "balance." Got it.

No. The choice is to move the fulcrum. When you make any choice, you tilt the scales towards the side you choose to favor. But you can deny it if you wish, it won't help you come out ahead on the whose's right and who's wrong front, of course, but if it makes you feel like you're doing well, I won't begrudge you that.

Dude. You're really REALLY not getting this. Let me spell it out for you: I'm not talking in metaphor. Not. Metaphor. A literal, actual, physical scale. On my desk. Rocks from the garden. Move the fulcrum by choosing the heavier rock. Please. Tilt the scales by choosing the rock you want. I want to see this.

I know it's hard for you grasp, but I'm drawing an analogy, not talking in metaphors. Your desire cannot move a fulcrum. The choice does not make the lighter one heavier. There are different kinds of balance, yes, but none of them are obtained solely by your ability to choose the heavier side. Or the more valuable side. Can you balance the ledgers by choosing to use the more advantageous number when they sides don't match? That's also not a metaphor. It's an analogy. To an actual real physical ledger involving someone's actual, real money.

I don't how I can make this more clear. Frankly, I wish I was talking to someone who was claiming their choice would physically life 995lbs by the mere act of choosing. At least that person would be entertaining.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Okay, Now I remember...

Actually, the only reason makes poor bullets is because it costs too much money and lead is cheap. The weight and hardness is pretty similar, so they will perform in roughly the same manner.

I will give you that one... in the end I prefer lead to gold for bullets, but yeah, mostly for a cost reason... though I do think that lead is easier to work with than gold is (though having no real experience with melting gold for bullets, I cannot prove such a thing)... as for the Weight (and Troy Ounces vs. the Standard Weights and Measures), a standard pound is a Standard Pound... all things considered, the scales will balance whether it is gold, lead, or feathers... it does not really matter...

I disagree. it's not that balance is ephemeral and means different things to different people. It's more that you can balance for different properties. As I mentioned earlier, there are different kinds of balance. Things like "It looks cool" and "I dunno, I just like it" can absolutely add value. However, this value is not in any way universal, and YOU thinking it's cool in your game in no way creates a balance in my game. You seem to really like to point out the five points for Oni. What about the other ones? What about the ones where it costs less? Are they especially undesirable in some way? Keep in mind, what we're talking about here is the way the cost is applied unevenly. The devs offered the explanation that the cost was raised for rarity while more common, less powerful cost fewer bp than less common and more powerful variants in some cases. This isn't balance. This is an arbitrary line and attempts to rationalize it after th fact.

I point out the cost for Oni as it is the one that ususally gets pointed out as being way out of whack... And I would argue that rarity is not a flawed way to balance... it actually works out pretty well in our games, so something must be working okay there... of course table stats are in no way the average, and I do recogmnnize that, but it seems to me that a lot of people complain that things are "unfair" or "Unbalanced" and never actually play with those rules because of this, so there is no real basis for comparison... it is all opinion at that point...

Are you admitting it's wrong, only it's not wrong enough for you to feel like complaining about it? Because if that's the case, why are you defending it?

No, I am not admitting it is wrong... it is the way it is, and therefore I do not waste energy complaining about it, I use the cost as is and move along... Not every one is capable of that though... No Loss for me...

Really? Perfect Time has no value? Sense of Direction? Your GM is a lot nicer than mine... or alternately, he's a douche for seeing players with those abilities and never giving them a chance to show them off. Regardless, let's assume you're right, and there are qualities that cost points but give no real advantage - that's a design flaw. It's unbalanced. Things that cost 5bp should be roughly equal in value to other things that cost 5bp. Anything else is poor design.

Really... I have a perfectly accurate timepiece in my head... it is called an internal Comlink... I also have a perfectly useable orientation system that can tell me exactly where I am and what direction I am going, down to a scale that generally eliminates errors... SO my point is that characters that take those Qualities have just wasted 5 points, because I can get them with technology and it costs me far less than the 5bp (that the Qualities cost) to acquire them, so therefore the balance that you are so fond of touting has been destroyed... so, there you go... useless qualities, and very unbalanced by your definition.... In my book, I see it as a choice... the individuals who want the ability to do such things without technology must purchase the qualities, the ones who want can buy the tech well, they buy the tech... It is a choice, but is in no way balanced...

Because 1) the designers tried to explain their thought process and it doesn't make sense; 2) "Because I said so" is NEVER a good enough reason for anything; and 3) Nothing in this world is above question. The game designers have made mistakes in the past. That's why there's errata. During the course of SR4, stats on things have changed. I'm sure they changed because someone pointed out that there was a problem with the old stats. What makes those people more qualified to see skewed numbers than I am?

1. Made perfect sense to me...
2. Eliminates arguments and allows a game to contnue, and I have actually never had to resort to such statements in any game that I have run, so it is a useless argument (at least against me)
3. Things maybe errated from time to time. In some cases, it is not because there was an issue with the rule, it is because a vocal minority have engendered change over those who really did not care... and Other times, it is for clarification purposes... assuming that all errata is for FIXING MISTAKES in design is tripe... a lot of errata is actually for very obvious typos... I in no way see the costs of the metavariants as Typos... and have absolutely no problem with the argument that the costs reflect rarity...

Actually, your RAW character would be invalid in my games, very likely, because we houseruled several things. Do you know anyone who plays without house rules? I don't. Because the rules are, quite often, borked. But, more to the point, I'm not talking about houseruling things I don't like. I'm talking about the game rules being wrong, and needing correction. Do I think my saying something will get a change pushed through? No. But if no one says anything ever, nothing will ever change. The changes that have been made were made because someone pointed out something they disagreed with and why. This is me doing the same.

And yet your houserules would not fly in a Missions Campaign would they (Which are RAW, If I Remember Correctly)? And saying that the Rules are WRONG because you say so is the height of arrogance... Your interpretation may make more sense, but that does not invalidate the rule unless and until the developers agree with you... in this case they do not... so why continue to campaign for said change?

If your entire argument comes down to "The rules are right because they are the rules in the book, and the book is right," just come out and say it that way. Save us both a lot of trouble.

What I am saying is that this issue has been raised many, many times and has not been FIXED or Errated, so therefore the developers believe that they are in the right... and you know what, they are, it is their work... There are many things in the rules that I have issues with, but you know what, I just move along, knowing that a game can never represent reality in its entirety... many rules are put in place for "balance" (there it is again) reasons, and so I just go with it and move along...

In this case, the developers balanced rarity by making it cost more... so be it... sometimes, the developers will evaluate a rule after it has been in place for a while and tweak it here or there... and that is okay... sometimes they go overboard and have to retract something after the fact... perfectly acceptable... but once they have explained their reasons for whatever decision they have made, complaining about it further is a waste of energy, and I choose to just move along rather than waste the energy...It is a Game, Not Reality...

You may not agree, but there it is...

Keep the Faith

[Whipstitch]

I don't think it's wrong to have metatypes that don't start out on even footing with other metatypes, to be honest, and the stance isn't particularly counterintuitive or even outrageous. As I have said before, role playing games do not have a true win condition unless you take it upon yourself to introduce them, and handicapping your character slightly in the name of roleplaying is perfectly acceptable provided you do so with the consent of others at your table. Metatype costs honestly aren't that big of a deal. If I were to take aim at anything in the chargen process, it would be at the way costs change from BP to Karma, and even then I dislike it mostly just because it makes for some slightly messier book keeping.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I don't think it's wrong to have metatypes that don't start out on even footing with other metatypes, to be honest, and the stance isn't particularly counterintuitive or even outrageous. As I have said before, role playing games do not have a true win condition unless you take it upon yourself to introduce them, and handicapping your character slightly in the name of roleplaying is perfectly acceptable provided you do so with the consent of others at your table. Metatype costs honestly aren't that big of a deal. If I were to take aim at anything in the chargen process, it would be at the way costs change from BP to Karma, and even then I dislike it mostly just because it makes for some slightly messier book keeping.

Thank You Whipstitch for breaking it down to a succint and well-said point (I tend to ramble a bit, and sometimes lose track of what my point was going to be)... I would have to agree with you here...

Keep the Faith

[toturi]

Dude. You're really REALLY not getting this. Let me spell it out for you: I'm not talking in metaphor. Not. Metaphor. A literal, actual, physical scale. On my desk. Rocks from the garden. Move the fulcrum by choosing the heavier rock. Please. Tilt the scales by choosing the rock you want. I want to see this.

You REALLY are not getting this either. Your choice is the position of the fulcrum.

Rock A is Oni. Rock B is Orc. Your choice is where the fulcrum is.

[Draco18s]

You REALLY are not getting this either. Your choice is the position of the fulcrum.

Rock A is Oni. Rock B is Orc. Your choice is where the fulcrum is.

I don't want you designing games. Ever.
Because you fail at game design.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I don't want you designing games. Ever.
Because you fail at game design.

Well, to be fair... Effective Game Design is actually very difficult to perform if your intent is to create a coherent and dynamic world with little to no structural issues... which is why there is really no perfect system out there (except for maybe Feng Shui that is)... and why you tend to see a mass proliferation of somewhat "Good" systems, with fairly few Exceptional Systems, and a lot of just "okay" systems...

Anyways,

Keep the Faith

[Draco18s]

Well, to be fair... Effective Game Design is actually very difficult to perform if your intent is to create a coherent and dynamic world with little to no structural issues... which is why there is really no perfect system out there (except for maybe Feng Shui that is)... and why you tend to see a mass proliferation of somewhat "Good" systems, with fairly few Exceptional Systems, and a lot of just "okay" systems...

True, but arguing for something that is clearly less balanced towards something else is stupid, especially when the two things under comparison are exactly identical in every way except for some cosmetics, but one is more expensive.

Its harder to argue escaped clone versus perfect time, but orc and oni are exactly the same therefore need to have the exact same cost.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

True, but arguing for something that is clearly less balanced towards something else is stupid, especially when the two things under comparison are exactly identical in every way except for some cosmetics, but one is more expensive.

Its harder to argue escaped clone versus perfect time, but orc and oni are exactly the same therefore need to have the exact same cost.

perhaps... Which is generally why I do not argue many things I disagree with in Shadowrun, from a realism perspective...

But for those gamemasters who either cannot (don't know how) or do not (don't care) adhere to the fluff of rarity, the increased cost insures that the choice is sub-optimal...

Keep the Faith

[Rystefn]

I point out the cost for Oni as it is the one that ususally gets pointed out as being way out of whack... And I would argue that rarity is not a flawed way to balance... it actually works out pretty well in our games, so something must be working okay there... of course table stats are in no way the average, and I do recogmnnize that, but it seems to me that a lot of people complain that things are "unfair" or "Unbalanced" and never actually play with those rules because of this, so there is no real basis for comparison... it is all opinion at that point...

You never change the rules, you say. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. There is no rule I have ever changed without playing it as written and testing it with the change. In my experience, that's how it's usually done, and your idea of people changing rules without trying them is a strawman.

No, I am not admitting it is wrong... it is the way it is, and therefore I do not waste energy complaining about it, I use the cost as is and move along... Not every one is capable of that though... No Loss for me...

You haven't shrugged this off and ignored it, you've spent longer arguing about it than I have.

Really... I have a perfectly accurate timepiece in my head... it is called an internal Comlink... I also have a perfectly useable orientation system that can tell me exactly where I am and what direction I am going, down to a scale that generally eliminates errors... SO my point is that characters that take those Qualities have just wasted 5 points, because I can get them with technology and it costs me far less than the 5bp (that the Qualities cost) to acquire them, so therefore the balance that you are so fond of touting has been destroyed... so, there you go... useless qualities, and very unbalanced by your definition.... In my book, I see it as a choice... the individuals who want the ability to do such things without technology must purchase the qualities, the ones who want can buy the tech well, they buy the tech... It is a choice, but is in no way balanced...

Implanted commlink costs essence. Non-implanted commlink can be taken away. The Perfect Time quality has neither of these limitations. The whole "Can never be taken away , no matter what" is a pretty profound bonus to add to something. Again, if it's useless in your games, then your GM sucks. If a player has a nifty ability, it is the GMs responsibility to give them an opportunity to show it off. It's like never giving the mage an opportunity to cast spells. Not as bad, but the difference is one of scale, not of kind.

1. Made perfect sense to me...
2. Eliminates arguments and allows a game to contnue, and I have actually never had to resort to such statements in any game that I have run, so it is a useless argument (at least against me)
3. Things maybe errated from time to time. In some cases, it is not because there was an issue with the rule, it is because a vocal minority have engendered change over those who really did not care... and Other times, it is for clarification purposes... assuming that all errata is for FIXING MISTAKES in design is tripe... a lot of errata is actually for very obvious typos... I in no way see the costs of the metavariants as Typos... and have absolutely no problem with the argument that the costs reflect rarity...

Where did I say all errata were design errors? Typos are errors, are they not?
Oh, and you have no problem with the idea that cost reflects rarity even when the metatype that is more common costs more? If it was applied equally, it would make sense. It is not, and I call bullshit on the claim that such a thing actually has anything to do with the costs at all. It is justification after the fact, and nothing more.

And yet your houserules would not fly in a Missions Campaign would they (Which are RAW, If I Remember Correctly)? And saying that the Rules are WRONG because you say so is the height of arrogance... Your interpretation may make more sense, but that does not invalidate the rule unless and until the developers agree with you... in this case they do not... so why continue to campaign for said change?

Who cares if my house rules will affect someone else's game? What does this have to do with the discussion at all? I disagree with the NFL's on and off ban on spiking the football, by the way. Why should the official NFL rules have any bearing on how I play the game with my friends? In short - I don't gives a damn whether or not the developers agree with me. Their opinions are NOT more valid than mine. If you feel they are more valid than yours, that's your call to make. As for me, I have a bit more self-confidence than that. You can call it arrogance if you like, but you could just as easily say that you have such a low sense of self-worth that you feel incapable of being right without someone else writing a book to back you up.

What I am saying is that this issue has been raised many, many times and has not been FIXED or Errated, so therefore the developers believe that they are in the right... and you know what, they are, it is their work... There are many things in the rules that I have issues with, but you know what, I just move along, knowing that a game can never represent reality in its entirety... many rules are put in place for "balance" (there it is again) reasons, and so I just go with it and move along...

Again: "The book is right because it's the book and the book is right" is not an argument. It's stubbornly refusing to make an argument. And again - going with it and moving along is going with it and moving. What you are doing is arguing for days about the rule with strangers over the internet. Pretty much the opposite of moving along, really. So tell me, what's your motivation here?

In this case, the developers balanced rarity by making it cost more... so be it... sometimes, the developers will evaluate a rule after it has been in place for a while and tweak it here or there... and that is okay... sometimes they go overboard and have to retract something after the fact... perfectly acceptable... but once they have explained their reasons for whatever decision they have made, complaining about it further is a waste of energy, and I choose to just move along rather than waste the energy...It is a Game, Not Reality...

No they didn't. They claim that they have, but it just isn't so. The rarer metatypes do NOT cast more in every case. Comparing rarity with point costs does not give you the key to seeing why some cost so much and others are so cheap. The rules simply do not back up this assertion. And, once again... if saying something against it is such a waste of energy (I disagree entirely of course), how much more of a waste is it to chant "The rules are always right... the rules are always right" ad infinitum? Are you so fundamentally incapable of thinking for yourself that other people doing so is a threat to you or something?

[Rystefn]

You REALLY are not getting this either. Your choice is the position of the fulcrum.

Rock A is Oni. Rock B is Orc. Your choice is where the fulcrum is.

Once again. NOT METAPHOR. The rock is the rock. The fulcrum is the fulcrum. The choice is the choice. NOT METAPHOR. Say it with me now NOT METAPHOR. An actual, real physical scale. Come on, this isn't so hard. There's no metaphor. There's a scale on my desk. Right now. A scale. A real, physical scale. Real, physical rocks. One is bigger than the other. Not a metaphor.

Not.
A.
Metaphor.

[Rystefn]

But for those gamemasters who either cannot (don't know how) or do not (don't care) adhere to the fluff of rarity, the increased cost insures that the choice is sub-optimal...

Oni aren't more rare in Japan. They're HUGELY more common in Japan. The game is much more global now, isn't it? Where's the rule tat makes orcs more expensive in Japan and Oni cheaper? And you again continue to ignore the supposedly rare metatypes which are actually cheaper than their more common cousins. How do you explain this if the cost is supposed to reflect rarity?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You never change the rules, you say. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. There is no rule I have ever changed without playing it as written and testing it with the change. In my experience, that's how it's usually done, and your idea of people changing rules without trying them is a strawman.

This is just so much Drivel... and is not always the case... there are some (even here on DUmpshock) who change the rules before trying them because they just do not like how it plays out... the suggestion is to always try them out, but there have been those who refuse such things, because it is not the style that they prefer... Happens all the time in fact... and No, I am unaware of any Houserules that are in play at our table... you CAN play Shadowrun without Houserules... as a matter of Fact, that is what Missions is generally all about...

Implanted commlink costs essence. Non-implanted commlink can be taken away. The Perfect Time quality has neither of these limitations. The whole "Can never be taken away , no matter what" is a pretty profound bonus to add to something. Again, if it's useless in your games, then your GM sucks. If a player has a nifty ability, it is the GMs responsibility to give them an opportunity to show it off. It's like never giving the mage an opportunity to cast spells. Not as bad, but the difference is one of scale, not of kind.

I never said that the GM does not highlight special abilities... I am pointing out that your argument about balance is somewhat flawed... if special abilities do not effectively cost the same, in your opinion (I could probably link the post, but don't really care to) is that they are not balanced... I have just pointed out how at least 3 qualities are not balanced to the technological equivalent... ergo, they are not balanced according to your position.

Where did I say all errata were design errors? Typos are errors, are they not?
Oh, and you have no problem with the idea that cost reflects rarity even when the metatype that is more common costs more? If it was applied equally, it would make sense. It is not, and I call bullshit on the claim that such a thing actually has anything to do with the costs at all. It is justification after the fact, and nothing more.

Yes, Typo's are errors, and are generally easy to find, as such... and the majority of errata is exactly that... Typos... the costs of Metavariants and advanced Character Concepts do not fall into that particular category though...

Lets see... I am looking at the book now... there is NO METAVARIANT that costs LESS than its base... some are costed equally, but none are less... the ones that are costed Equally have either additional positive abilities, or aditional Negative abilities... over and above the rarity of said Metavariants... is it fair, maybe not, but is it the way the designers wanted them... and It makes perfect sens e to me... The opinion that "the claim that such a thing actually has anything to do with the costs at all." and that "It is justification after the fact, and nothing more." is just that, an opinion... just as my position is... opinions are neither right or wrong, they just are...

Who cares if my house rules will affect someone else's game? What does this have to do with the discussion at all? I disagree with the NFL's on and off ban on spiking the football, by the way. Why should the official NFL rules have any bearing on how I play the game with my friends? In short - I don't gives a damn whether or not the developers agree with me. Their opinions are NOT more valid than mine. If you feel they are more valid than yours, that's your call to make. As for me, I have a bit more self-confidence than that. You can call it arrogance if you like, but you could just as easily say that you have such a low sense of self-worth that you feel incapable of being right without someone else writing a book to back you up.

It is not about Self Confidence, which I have a great deal of... (Have you EVER designed a game from the ground up? Ever? I have)... The Problem is about playability... There are many things about the rules that I disagree with, but they were put in place for a reason... If you fix one thing you may disagree with, it very possibly throws something else out of whack, at which point you fix that, and break something else, which continues on until the game no more represents what it was intended to do... the rules are synergistic, and if you cannot see that then I am probably wasting my time here... Again, Self-Esteem has no bearing on how I play the game... I play the game to have fun, not get into arguments about House Rules every 20 minutes of play time...

Again: "The book is right because it's the book and the book is right" is not an argument. It's stubbornly refusing to make an argument. And again - going with it and moving along is going with it and moving. What you are doing is arguing for days about the rule with strangers over the internet. Pretty much the opposite of moving along, really. So tell me, what's your motivation here?

Your claim that the devs are wrong is also inaccurate... and that is what I am trying to get you to see... Developers cannot be WRONG... it is their game world, not yours... If you ever design a game that markets, you will have the esteem of actually producing something that you can say, without a doubt, is your Vision of that particular "World", and my saying that your vision is wrong would be erroneous... I might disagree with a few things, and offer suggestions, but me telling you that your creation is wrong is the height of arrogance, as it is not MY CREATION, buts YOURS... that is all I am trying to say here...

No they didn't. They claim that they have, but it just isn't so. The rarer metatypes do NOT cast more in every case. Comparing rarity with point costs does not give you the key to seeing why some cost so much and others are so cheap. The rules simply do not back up this assertion. And, once again... if saying something against it is such a waste of energy (I disagree entirely of course), how much more of a waste is it to chant "The rules are always right... the rules are always right" ad infinitum? Are you so fundamentally incapable of thinking for yourself that other people doing so is a threat to you or something?

And their claims should be enough for you; if they have taken into consideration the feedback provided, and then, as you say, claim to have fixed it... at that point... it is Fixed... Now, I will say that game designers should evaluate feedback from the ir audience, of course, and take any action that they deem appropriate... without doing so means that the y will not be designing games very long... Games must improve or they die (or they acquire a loyal following and continue on without support, which is the same as death in a lot of books)... I have said it before, and I will say it again, there is no such thing as a perfect game.... thoguh Chess comes close.

Obviously you do not agree though... Okay with me... I like debate, how about you?

Keep the Faith

[Rystefn]

This is just so much Drivel...

Translation: I cannot even pretend to argue against what I said, you are 100% correct, but I refuse to openly admit it.

I never said that the GM does not highlight special abilities... I am pointing out that your argument about balance is somewhat flawed... if special abilities do not effectively cost the same, in your opinion (I could probably link the post, but don't really care to) is that htey are not balanced... I have just pointed out how atr least 3 qualities are not balanced to the technological equivalent... ergo, they are not balanced according to your position.

Actually, your attempt to point out the inferiority of the qualities failed. The qualities cannot be taken away and cost no essence. That's a pretty huge advantage over the tech equivalents, and so, I think they're reasonably balanced. However, let's pretend for the moment that I agree with you. This is no way supports your stance. "Look, here are more unbalanced rules" isn't a defense of unbalanced rules. It's pointing out that the game design is flawed in even more ways. This is less reason to use the RAW and less reason to accept something the designers say merely by weight of their say-so.

Lets see... I am looking at the book now... there is NO METAVARIANT that costs LESS than its base... soem are costed equally, but non are less... the ones that are costed Equally have either additional positive abilities, or aditional Negative abilities... over and above the Freak Nature of sdaid Metavariants (that Striking Skin Represents for the ONI... notice that the Oni does not receive the Flaw again, while Satyr gets Satyr Legs, and the Ogre gets Ogre Stomach, while Hobgfoblin gets Vindictive)... all to make the costs as they are... is it fair, maybe not, but is it the way the designers wanted them... Yes...

Adjust for the cost of extra abilities and limitations and then add them up again. Also remember to compare them against one another, not just the base. Also, remember that in Japan, the Oni is the standard, and the Orc is the variant. Ohm and once again "The designers said so" is NOT a valid argument in and of itself. We aren't arguing whether the designers put a certain rule or not, merely whether or not they were right to do so.

It is not about Self Confidence, which I have a great deal of... ahve youEVER designed a game from the ground up? Ever? I have... The Problem is about playability... There are many things about the rules that I disagree with, but they were put in place for a reason... If you fix one thing you may disagree with, it very possibly throws something else out of whack, at which point you fix that, and break something else, which continues on until the game no more represents what it was intended to do... the rules are synergistic, and if you cannot see that then I am probably wasting my time here... Again, Self-Esteem has no bearing on how I play the game... I play the game to have fun, not get into arguments about House Rules every 20 minutes of play time...

Yes, I have. But thank you for pointing out your bias towards supporting the designer in every choice they make. I think I understand you better now. If they are right, then you are also also right... so long as you can make others think that designers are always right, you'll never be wrong in what you did in the game you designed. Sounds so very confident to me.
Oh, and if your group can't make a house rule without arguing about it every 20 minutes, your problem is the players, not the rules. I've been implementing house rules into games for more than 20 years now, and it's never cascaded into making the game a completely different game, and it's never caused a huge stack of arguments. Let me repeat that: Never. Never to both of your catastrophic strawmen.

Your claim that the devs are wrong is also inaccurate... and that is what I am trying to get you to see... Developers cannot be WRONG... it is their game world, not yours... If you ever design a game that markets, you will have the esteem of actually producing something that you can say, without a doubt, is your Vision of that particular "World", and y saying that you are wrong would be erroneous... I might disagree with a few things, and offer suggestions, but me telling you that your creation is wrong is the height of arrogance, as it is not MY CREATION, it is YOURS... that is all I am trying to say here...

Your claim that devs are always right is wrong. Devs can be wrong. They are as human as anyone else. Once I plonk down my cash for the book, it becomes my game, not theirs. I am just as qualified to make decisions about the game as they. More so, in fact, since I'm on the ground, slogging through the mud, seeing how it works in my game up-close. Game developers are like directors in film. They can say whatever they like about their "vision," but it's always bullshit. If you can see their hands on the work, they did their job wrong.

And their claims should be enough for you; if they have taken into consideration the feedback provided, and then, as you say, claim to have fixed it... at that point... it is Fixed... Now, I will say that game designers should evaluate feedback from the ir audience, of course, and take any action that they deem appropriate... without doing so means that the y will not be designing games very long... Games must improve or they die (or they acquire a loyal following and continue on without support, which is the same as death in a lot of books)... I have said it before, and I will say it again, there is no such thing as a perfect game.... thoguh Chess comes close.

Argument from Authority carries exactly zero weight with me. Their claims mean nothing without facts to back them up. If they refuse to take into consideration the feedback provided, and offer transparent rationalizations rather than actually looking at what they did and why, the game is not fixed, is it?

Obviously you do not agree though... Okay with me... I like debate, how about you?

I find it endlessly entertaining.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Translation: I cannot even pretend to argue against what I said, you are 100% correct, but I refuse to openly admit it.

Actually, your attempt to point out the inferiority of the qualities failed. The qualities cannot be taken away and cost no essence. That's a pretty huge advantage over the tech equivalents, and so, I think they're reasonably balanced. However, let's pretend for the moment that I agree with you. This is no way supports your stance. "Look, here are more unbalanced rules" isn't a defense of unbalanced rules. It's pointing out that the game design is flawed in even more ways. This is less reason to use the RAW and less reason to accept something the designers say merely by weight of their say-so.

You are right in that the qualities cannot be taken away, but neither can my technologial replacements, even if they do cost a minimal amount of essence... it is a tradeoff... but the fact remains that for less than 5bp I can get both, while you need 10bp to get the qualities... sounds pretty unbalanced to me...

Adjust for the cost of extra abilities and limitations and then add them up again. Also remember to compare them against one another, not just the base. Also, remember that in Japan, the Oni is the standard, and the Orc is the variant. Ohm and once again "The designers said so" is NOT a valid argument in and of itself. We aren't arguing whether the designers put a certain rule or not, merely whether or not they were right to do so.

The Oni is more prolific in Japan than in other areas, they are not, however, more prevalant than the actual Ork is... The designers have every right to implement rules, it is their world... whether they are right is immaterial to the point you are apparently trying to make (at least here), which is that the Dev/Designers DO NOT have that right? Or am I mistaking what your last sentence implies?

Yes, I have. But thank you for pointing out your bias towards supporting the designer in every choice they make. I think I understand you better now. If they are right, then you are also also right... so long as you can make others think that designers are always right, you'll never be wrong in what you did in the game you designed. Sounds so very confident to me.

Oh, and if your group can't make a house rule without arguing about it every 20 minutes, your problem is the players, not the rules. I've been implementing house rules into games for more than 20 years now, and it's never cascaded into making the game a completely different game, and it's never caused a huge stack of arguments. Let me repeat that: Never. Never to both of your catastrophic strawmen.

I actually do not have a Bias towards supporting the designers in their choices... in fact, you may have noticed that I did indeed say that I disagree with some of their decisions... as for whether or not I am wrong about the decisions I might make in game design, you would be mistaken... just like I would be mistaken in calling your design principles Wrong... However, much like you (apparently) I can take criticism about my design decisions and have in fact participated in several revisions over the years (before I eventually quit for lack of time) and I think that the game was both better and worse for the revisions... probably like every other designer out there... I have no lack of confidence, just a lack of time...

As for House Ruling, I have just not seen any reason to Houserule anything in Shadowrun... htere have definitely been games where it was a necessity, but not always... as for the arguments about rules changes, I never said my group was like that either, you just assumed, but from the evidence I have seen on this very discussion board, it seems to be pretty prevalant in a lot of places, and I just do not have the time or energy to argue such things anymore... maybe 20 years ago I would have said it differently, but not now... My gaming time is just to precious to waste it away in arguments that eventually mean nothing.

I would say that you are lucky in that you have exceptional players, not every one is so lucky though... and I do remember a few groups many years ago, that were terrible about this very thing... again, I just don't have the time or energy...

Your claim that devs are always right is wrong. Devs can be wrong. They are as human as anyone else. Once I plonk down my cash for the book, it becomes my game, not theirs. I am just as qualified to make decisions about the game as they. More so, in fact, since I'm on the ground, slogging through the mud, seeing how it works in my game up-close. Game developers are like directors in film. They can say whatever they like about their "vision," but it's always bullshit. If you can see their hands on the work, they did their job wrong.

I never view a designer decision as Wrong... I may not agree with them, and I may wish to change the design from time to time... however, I have found that excessive changes tend to alter the game a bit (sometimes a lot), and it makes it harder to integrate someone from out side your nirmal group when you do so, especially if they are familiar with the basics of the game...

You are right that it is your game once purchased, no arguments, as I generally feel the same way about it, but we again come back to interlocking decisions (on the mechanics mostly, fluff never survives contact with a GM) that could fundamentally change the game...in some cases I am wiulling to go through all the work necessary to personalize the game for my group... in others, I just want a fast game, with little to no interruption, so no changes are made (or desired)... individual taste and flavor...

Argument from Authority carries exactly zero weight with me. Their claims mean nothing without facts to back them up. If they refuse to take into consideration the feedback provided, and offer transparent rationalizations rather than actually looking at what they did and why, the game is not fixed, is it?

But apparently you are disagreeing with their "Facts" as well, which causes issues in the end... if they disregarded the feedback, it is probably because they:

1. Disagreed with the Feredback and see no actual issues or
2. Actually have a reason for doing what they did, and you just disagree with Them...

Either way, Neither of you are WRONG, there is just disagreement on how to proceed from that point...

It appears that at that point, your inclination is to just fix the rule yourself... mine is just to play what is there and enjoy it... it may strain my Suspension of Disbelief (like the weapons/combat rules do currently) but that is okay... it is a game, not real life... it is just too much work to constantly try and keep a game "Fixed" in this regard than it is to just play it and enjoy it for what it is...

I find it endlessly entertaining.

As do I... I may not always be good at it (my mind is being corrupted by 4 year old TV, and I must keep purging the demons), but I do enjoy it...

Keep the Faith

[toturi]

Once again. NOT METAPHOR. The rock is the rock. The fulcrum is the fulcrum. The choice is the choice. NOT METAPHOR. Say it with me now NOT METAPHOR. An actual, real physical scale. Come on, this isn't so hard. There's no metaphor. There's a scale on my desk. Right now. A scale. A real, physical scale. Real, physical rocks. One is bigger than the other. Not a metaphor.

Not.
A.
Metaphor.

Then in your example there is no choice. Choice is the position of the fulcrum. In your example, if the fulcrum cannot be moved, there is no choice. Simple as that.

[Rystefn]

You are right in that the qualities cannot be taken away, but neither can my technologial replacements, even if they do cost a minimal amount of essence... it is a tradeoff... but the fact remains that for less than 5bp I can get both, while you need 10bp to get the qualities... sounds pretty unbalanced to me...

If you take them as cyberware they cannot be taken away, but they cost essence. Not much, but essence is a pretty limited resource. It's a rare character that never has to worry about it. The BP will be recovered in Karma after a small handful of runs at the most. Yet again, though, let's pretend I agree with you: It's an argument that the devs screwed up and the game is poorly designed and needs correcting. That's a point for my side, not yours.

The Oni is more prolific in Japan than in other areas, they are not, however, more prevalant than the actual Ork is... The designers have every right to implement rules, it is their world... whether they are right is immaterial to the point you are apparently trying to make (at least here), which is that the Dev/Designers DO NOT have that right? Or am I mistaking what your last sentence implies?

Actually, my understanding is that in Japan, the Oni is more common than the Orc. Let me check... Yup. RC page 51 calls them above 75% of the Japanese robustus population.

I actually do not have a Bias towards supporting the designers in their choices... in fact, you may have noticed that I did indeed say that I disagree with some of their decisions... as for whether or not I am wrong about the decisions I might make in game design, you would be mistaken... just like I would be mistaken in calling your design principles Wrong... However, much like you (apparently) I can take criticism about my design decisions and have in fact participated in several revisions over the years (before I eventually quit for lack of time) and I think that the game was both better and worse for the revisions... probably like every other designer out there... I have no lack of confidence, just a lack of time...

You disagree with their choices but refuse to propose alternate choices... Sounds like you support them despite their mistakes, regardless, because they are the devs and their word is law. You have literally said that game designers can do no wrong in their own game. How is that not bias again?

As for House Ruling, I have just not seen any reason to Houserule anything in Shadowrun... htere have definitely been games where it was a necessity, but not always... as for the arguments about rules changes, I never said my group was like that either, you just assumed, but from the evidence I have seen on this very discussion board, it seems to be pretty prevalant in a lot of places, and I just do not have the time or energy to argue such things anymore... maybe 20 years ago I would have said it differently, but not now... My gaming time is just to precious to waste it away in arguments that eventually mean nothing.

You disagree with the rules, but see no need to change them? I cannot imagine the mentality required to make such a stand. It literally boggles my mind. Oh, and there's no argument in the game about house rules. You say "This is the rule in my game. Don't like it? Don't play." Alternately, you have the house rules discussion before the game starts. It's exactly the same as deciding whetehr your'e playing gritty, street-level or world-class super-criminals.

I would say that you are lucky in that you have exceptional players, not every one is so lucky though... and I do remember a few groups many years ago, that were terrible about this very thing... again, I just don't have the time or energy...

Did they also decide to play a retired super-soldier in a street-level game? I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine that players would argue any less over a rule in the book they perceive as bullshit than they would about a rule the GM made up. A bad rule is a bad rule, regardless of who wrote it. The designers are not superhumans with abilities beyond that of other people, and most players will recognize this simple fact. If you play with other people who think the designers can do no wrong (like you) I can see how this might be so, but again, I cannot fathom the mindstate required to do such a thing.

I never view a designer decision as Wrong... I may not agree with them, and I may wish to change the design from time to time... however, I have found that excessive changes tend to alter the game a bit (sometimes a lot), and it makes it harder to integrate someone from out side your nirmal group when you do so, especially if they are familiar with the basics of the game...

Again, they can do no wrong. This is not bias in your mind? I think you fail to grasp what the word "bias" means. Oh, and it's easy to integrate new players into the game. You say "we play with these house rules." Done. No muss, no fuss. So long as you're honest and up-front, there's no problem. If they disagree with the choices you made, they don't have to play with the group. Same as the tone and style on that front, really. See, the last game I was a part of ran for four years with three rotating GMs and a constant stream of players cycling in and out of the game. There was discussion after sessions and on the forum we set up about house rules, but we never had a problem with someone showing up and not being able to handle house rules.

You are right that it is your game once purchased, no arguments, as I generally feel the same way about it, but we again come back to interlocking decisions (on the mechanics mostly, fluff never survives contact with a GM) that could fundamentally change the game...in some cases I am wiulling to go through all the work necessary to personalize the game for my group... in others, I just want a fast game, with little to no interruption, so no changes are made (or desired)... individual taste and flavor...

So you are suggesting that it would fundamentally change the game, requiring a massive rewrite or such that the game would be nigh unrecognizable to outsiders to rebalance the BP cost of the metatypes? Because the karmagen system says all metatypes cost the same: zero. After character creation, there is no difference between the two. Looks to me like the designers have already admitted that the relative costs for metatypes just aren't that important anyway.

But apparently you are disagreeing with their "Facts" as well, which causes issues in the end... if they disregarded the feedback, it is probably because they:

1. Disagreed with the Feredback and see no actual issues or
2. Actually have a reason for doing what they did, and you just disagree with Them...

I might agree with you here, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, except for one thing: They gave a reason for disregarding this feedback, and it's clearly not true. The numbers in the book do not line up as they would if the stated reason was the actual reason. There is no correlation between bp cost and relative rarity of metatypes.

Either way, Neither of you are WRONG, there is just disagreement on how to proceed from that point...

No. Lies and post hoc rationalizations which do not fit the data are wrong. proceeding by pretending no one caught you in you bullshit is also wrong. If the answer had been "It's arbitrary, but that's what it is," I could at least respect them while disagreeing with their arbitrary line. Dishonesty, though... that's just wrong.

It appears that at that point, your inclination is to just fix the rule yourself... mine is just to play what is there and enjoy it... it may strain my Suspension of Disbelief (like the weapons/combat rules do currently) but that is okay... it is a game, not real life... it is just too much work to constantly try and keep a game "Fixed" in this regard than it is to just play it and enjoy it for what it is...

It's not easy for me to enjoy a broken game for being broken. I'd rather not punish my players for no good reason.

[Rystefn]

Then in your example there is no choice. Choice is the position of the fulcrum. In your example, if the fulcrum cannot be moved, there is no choice. Simple as that.

So... you also don't know what the word "choice" means? Why am I not surprised?

[Draco18s]

Then in your example there is no choice. Choice is the position of the fulcrum. In your example, if the fulcrum cannot be moved, there is no choice. Simple as that.

Hehehe.

Silly toturi, the choices are what sit on either side of the scale: those rocks and pounds of gold we've been talking about.

[hahnsoo]

I don't want you designing games. Ever.
Because you fail at game design.

As an OT aside (I'm munching on the popcorn with interest in this flamewar drama), I wouldn't quote frickin' Sirlin for game design, especially for roleplaying game design. He states things in a very simple manner and quite eloquently, but he can't even balance the games in which he has direct control, like Super Street Fighter II HD Remix. A lot of horrible decisions were made in that game without actually balancing the characters because he used the rule "if it's unbalanced, beat me with it." He used his position of authority as a poor substitute for thought and good design. For example, Honda's jab headbutt now soaking fireballs has rocketed him up near the top tier characters, especially since they kept his idiosyncratic Ochio Slam charging (you don't have to execute the joystick motion at the same time as the button press). He didn't even thoroughly playtest his own damn game... on release, there was a bug where you could hold a charge using the analog stick while moving at the same time with the digital. It took a bit of thumb-twisting, but I was able to execute moves fairly easily with this hidden charge for some cheap wins. Hell, it's as bad as roll-canceling in the arcade version of CvS2.

Besides, roleplaying games aren't multiplayer competitive video games where you want people to compete in tournaments at the top end. They are co-operative in nature, and Sirlin's voice is lacking when it comes to co-op games.

[Rystefn]

I dunno... I thing most of the philosophy in that article is valid. If the author fails his own test... well, that's actually a pretty common human trait, isn't it?

[Draco18s]

As an OT aside (I'm munching on the popcorn with interest in this flamewar drama), I wouldn't quote frickin' Sirlin for game design, especially for roleplaying game design. He states things in a very simple manner and quite eloquently, but he can't even balance the games in which he has direct control, like Super Street Fighter II HD Remix.

Oh, I know his game design skills aren't up to the level of his philosophy, Kongai (a card game varient of mortal kombat on Kongregate) sucks ass.

[Whipstitch]

Sirlin has good points to make, but I do think he's a poor example for a table top rpg. He balances games around the concept of competition. The goal in such a case is to have meaningful decisions that affect how you pursue a known win condition. Meanwhile, "winning" chargen is a pretty damned nebulous concept. Shadowrun chargen exists to give you a breadth of choices that lead to a highly personalized character that can also function as a shadowrunner in a shadowrun campaign. Internal point balance within the rest of the system is a tertiary goal, at best-- particularly since some people want to run a flawed character. I actively try to tone down my characters at times-- my run-fu is strong, so handicapping myself is often for the best. A lot of people's houserules would probably just inspire me to pick up a boat load of useless knowledge skills to blow some points on.

[Draco18s]

Sirlin has good points to make, but I do think he's a poor example for a table top rpg. He balances games around the concept of competition.

Still, the concept of balance is still there, you're just balancing for "PvE" rather than "PvP," which while different, does embody some of the same principles.

[Whipstitch]

Right, except a lot of people don't view beating the environment as a win condition. It's not even really PvE for some people.