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

[Rystefn]

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.

QFT.

Most of my friends are of the opinion "I don't care if I live or die, so long as it's cool."

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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.

Can't argue that the recovery of the points for the race is pretty easy to acquire, which was indeed my point as well... if they are so easy to recover, why actually worry about that minimal 5 BP? Sounds like a point for my point of view actually...

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.

Awesome, I obviously missed that ... Thanks for pointing it out...

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?

I discuss what individuals find problematic, yes... but I tend to cast it in a light that the fluff supports... as such, I see no real need to actually houserule the rules, even If I disagree with them... as such, it is not because they are the Devs and their word is law, but because I do not wish to houserule the rules... they are two different things...

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.

So your mind is boggled... I just see no real reason to houserule... I just live with it (generally) and move on... and if you are as non-moving in your stance about your houserules, I am amazed that you can keep players for an extended time... you see, I do not HAVE to say love it or leave it... I just say, "the rules are in the book, if you need assistance deciphering them, let me know"... at that point, everyone is still on the same page... and if there is dissent, I work it out with them before the game (much like a lot of other people do), but since I keep to the rules, there is very rarely any dissent...

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 tend to evaluate what the PLAYERS want in a game and design from there... if there is a disconnect where groups of players want different things, there is always a compromise somewhere... after that, tehn we generate characters and move along... in our current game (I am not the GM) we are playing Cold Professionals (and have been for about 300 karma and going on 3 years or so)... Pink Mohawk is discouraged, and tends to get you dead rather quickly... in other games we have played Pink Mohawk... varies by game really.

And again, it is not about what we think about the designers... we avoid that by using the RAW... at that point, what we think about the actual designers is actually moot...

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.

I do know what a bias is... and you seem to be missing my point entirely... if I choose to use the RAW rather than Houseruling, then what I think of the actual rules does not even matter, and thus caries no bias... See Previous Paragraph above...

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.

I never once intimated that it would take MASSIVE rewrites... but you do have to keep track of what you change, and make sure that everyone else remembers what you have changed... too much work, for too little reward... as for Metatypes and Karmagen... I have always though that the Karmagen system as introduced by RC was horribly broken, and we do not allow it in play... we use BP, and Racial Costs are as they are statted in the Books... and if the costs of Metatypes are ultimately irrelevant then why do you argue for a "Rebalancing" of the costs... if they are irrelevant, then that should not actually matter...

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.

If you are relying upon some mystical system for costing, tehn that is where your problem actually is... I see it as teh metatypes cost what they cost, regardless of any underlying system... there does not have to be a correlation... there is no real correlation for the cost of an Elf, but people accept that for what it is...

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.

Again, you are assuming that hey are lying and rationalizing... I am not... again, benefit of the doubt, no bias...

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.

Which is probably why we are in disagreement here... I do not see it as punishing someone for playing the RAW...

Keep the Faith

[Rystefn]

Can't argue that the recovery of the points for the race is pretty easy to acquire, which was indeed my point as well... if they are so easy to recover, why actually worry about that minimal 5 BP? Sounds like a point for my point of view actually...

The recovery of bp in the form of karma is pretty easy when compared to the cost of recovering essence lost by the technological equivalent abilities, which is notably more problematic. The recovery of bp is much more costly when compared to... well, no cost at all. So, in your point of view, docking someone's essence for no reason isn't worth worrying about? Hell probably.

I discuss what individuals find problematic, yes... but I tend to cast it in a light that the fluff supports... as such, I see no real need to actually houserule the rules, even If I disagree with them... as such, it is not because they are the Devs and their word is law, but because I do not wish to houserule the rules... they are two different things...

You haven't exactly given reason that you do not except that you do not feel like doing the work and the designers can do no wrong. Laziness and slavish devotion is all I've seen so far. Feel free to point out if I've missed one in there.

So your mind is boggled... I just see no real reason to houserule... I just live with it (generally) and move on... and if you are as non-moving in your stance about your houserules, I am amazed that you can keep players for an extended time... you see, I do not HAVE to say love it or leave it... I just say, "the rules are in the book, if you need assistance deciphering them, let me know"... at that point, everyone is still on the same page... and if there is dissent, I work it out with them before the game (much like a lot of other people do), but since I keep to the rules, there is very rarely any dissent...

My house rules are improvements. That makes it easy to retain players. I generally surround myself with people who are intelligent enough to see the problems and have enough of a sense of fair-play to want to fix them.

I tend to evaluate what the PLAYERS want in a game and design from there... if there is a disconnect where groups of players want different things, there is always a compromise somewhere... after that, tehn we generate characters and move along... in our current game (I am not the GM) we are playing Cold Professionals (and have been for about 300 karma and going on 3 years or so)... Pink Mohawk is discouraged, and tends to get you dead rather quickly... in other games we have played Pink Mohawk... varies by game really.

I tend to play with players who want game balance. In my last game (four years), we had a variety of playstyles, but were fairly united OOC in the idea of justice and fairness in the rules.

And again, it is not about what we think about the designers... we avoid that by using the RAW... at that point, what we think about the actual designers is actually moot...

If you use the RAW exclusively, you proclaim that you think the designers are right. What I think of the designers beyond the rules has no bearing on what I think of the rules. If someone could point me something I'm missing which makes the rules balanced, I will use them. Otherwise, they're wrong, and I change them. What I think of the designers is pretty much moot. Only what I think of the rules. The only reason my opinion of said designers has come up at all is because of the claim that rarity affects bp cost, which the actual bp cost and relative rarity of metatypes does not in any way reflect.

I do know what a bias is... and you seem to be missing my point entirely... if I choose to use the RAW rather than Houseruling, then what I think of the actual rules does not even matter, and thus caries no bias... See Previous Paragraph above...

Actually, it does. By using them, you endorse them. You seem to have decided to endorse them sight unseen, and parrot patently false claims by the designers which are easily disproven if you take a moment to look. If you see no bias in blindly following dogma, then I think there may be no hope for you.

I never once intimated that it would take MASSIVE rewrites... but you do have to keep track of what you change, and make sure that everyone else remembers what you have changed... too much work, for too little reward... as for Metatypes and Karmagen... I have always though that the Karmagen system as introduced by RC was horribly broken, and we do not allow it in play... we use BP, and Racial Costs are as they are statted in the Books... and if the costs of Metatypes are ultimately irrelevant then why do you argue for a "Rebalancing" of the costs... if they are irrelevant, then that should not actually matter...

I don't argue that they are irrelevant. The RAW does. That's your side of the argument, friend, not mine.

If you are relying upon some mystical system for costing, tehn that is where your problem actually is... I see it as teh metatypes cost what they cost, regardless of any underlying system... there does not have to be a correlation... there is no real correlation for the cost of an Elf, but people accept that for what it is...

There's a very simple system: If the metatypes are identical except for a couple of qualities, and rarity, then after you adjust for the qualities (right there in the book), the rarer type should cost more. If you do this with another pair, then the rarity cost should correlate with the degree of rarity. This is, quite simply, not even close to correct. There are just a bunch of arbitrary ruling which say "This metatype is better than this one in ever numerical sense." That's kind of the opposite of balance, and is unfair to any player not gaining such an advantage.

Again, you are assuming that hey are lying and rationalizing... I am not... again, benefit of the doubt, no bias...

I've presented the evidence of it. You ignore it out of hand. Sounds like you've got a bit of bias there to me.

Which is probably why we are in disagreement here... I do not see it as punishing someone for playing the RAW...

It's not punishing them for playing the RAW. The RAW are punishing them for no good reason. YOU are punishing them, not for playing the RAW, but by playing the RAW.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You haven't exactly given reason that you do not except that you do not feel like doing the work and the designers can do no wrong. Laziness and slavish devotion is all I've seen so far. Feel free to point out if I've missed one in there.

Has nothing to do with laziness... Slavish Devotuion I would also argue... I have NO PROBLEMS with the RAW as applied in the game... what I do have is disagreements between the RAW and the Real World... these two should never meet anyways, so I choose to not bother modifying things to FIT the REAL WORLD... I don't care enough... Like I have said before... The weapon/combat rules are a joke... but to fix them to something that I could agree with would take way to much work, and would bog the system down in minutia, which I would NOT like... the system works for what it does... does it have some issues, sure (what game does not), but I really do not care to fix any of them, and honestly, no one else in our group cares either... so they are not being punished in the slightest... so your assumptions of punishment are baseless...

My house rules are improvements. That makes it easy to retain players. I generally surround myself with people who are intelligent enough to see the problems and have enough of a sense of fair-play to want to fix them.

I am sure your houserules ARE improvements, otherwise you would not houserule them... but without knowing what you have houseruled, I cannot evaluate their use, so I am not fit to comment upon them... as for retaining players, we have never lost a player because of the RAW... EVER... the only players we have lost over the years was because of family issues (one had 3 kids in about 4 years or so, and the other was sporadic anyways becasue of family commitments)...

I tend to play with players who want game balance. In my last game (four years), we had a variety of playstyles, but were fairly united OOC in the idea of justice and fairness in the rules.

Assuming that we do not agree with the idea of fairness and fairplay, neh even balance, is erroneous... we just do not really see anything unfair (especially about the metavariants) when you take into account the relevant fluff provided... some things are edge situations (of course) that may strain suspension of disbelief, but we have all been playing roleplaying games for 15+ years each (some of us for over 20) we do not let these things actually bother us...

If you use the RAW exclusively, you proclaim that you think the designers are right. What I think of the designers beyond the rules has no bearing on what I think of the rules. If someone could point me something I'm missing which makes the rules balanced, I will use them. Otherwise, they're wrong, and I change them. What I think of the designers is pretty much moot. Only what I think of the rules. The only reason my opinion of said designers has come up at all is because of the claim that rarity affects bp cost, which the actual bp cost and relative rarity of metatypes does not in any way reflect.

Actually we proclaim nothing... we use the RAW because it is there... we could houserule things... but we do not... My question for you would be ... Do you take the Fluff into account when you evaluate a rule? and when fluff and mechanic are at odds, how would you correct the situation? Just Curious myself...

Actually, it does. By using them, you endorse them. You seem to have decided to endorse them sight unseen, and parrot patently false claims by the designers which are easily disproven if you take a moment to look. If you see no bias in blindly following dogma, then I think there may be no hope for you.

I never endorse rules sight unseen, nor do I condemn them sight unseen either... much like you, I always play the game by the rules before trying to pick them apart... it is just that I prefer NOT to pick them apart... there are hundreds (if not thousands) of games out there to satisfy every whim of a genre... and if you do not like one game you go on to the next one... In this case, The issues that I have with Shadowrun do not outwiegh the fun I have playing it (even if I do use the RAW)... would I enjoy the game more with houserules? Maybe, but maybe not... I have seen a LOT of houserules proposed here on Dumpshock (and in other places) that I vehemently DO NOT agree with, as I think that they break the game even more than the rule they are meant to fix... Houserules are for those who want to customize the game to their particular tastes... RAW are for theose who just want to play the game...

I don't argue that they are irrelevant. The RAW does. That's your side of the argument, friend, not mine.

Point taken, but then again, I DO NOT think that they are broken, and that after Character Creation, the costs of the Race ARE irrelevant... You have chosen that race with the costs in mind, so how can anyone claim that it is broken or unfair... if it was so, then why did you choose it... it wasn't broken or unfair when you chose the race in the first place... and for the record, I would play ANY of the metavariants in tehir place given a concept that I enjoyed (many of which I actually do have character concepts for already)

There's a very simple system: If the metatypes are identical except for a couple of qualities, and rarity, then after you adjust for the qualities (right there in the book), the rarer type should cost more. If you do this with another pair, then the rarity cost should correlate with the degree of rarity. This is, quite simply, not even close to correct. There are just a bunch of arbitrary ruling which say "This metatype is better than this one in ever numerical sense." That's kind of the opposite of balance, and is unfair to any player not gaining such an advantage.

except that that is YOUR system... which is why it does not correlate to your standards... and it is not unfair, if the player so chooses to play that type of character... you could argue, by your definition, that playing a human is unfair, as they do not pay ANYTHING for the benefit of their +1 Edge Attribute... I would say that that interpretation is ridiculous, but using your formula, that is how it correlates... I have received something (+1 Edge) for absolutely nothing (0 BP Costs)...

I've presented the evidence of it. You ignore it out of hand. Sounds like you've got a bit of bias there to me.

Bias towards the writers is not the same as Preference for a ruleset... never has been, nor will it ever be. I can disagree with the writers, and still use their ruleset successfully...

It's not punishing them for playing the RAW. The RAW are punishing them for no good reason. YOU are punishing them, not for playing the RAW, but by playing the RAW.

I completely disagree with this... in essence, what you just stated is that anyone who plays in Missions games is being punished because they are forced to play by the RAW... I cannot disagree more... the rules are fair and balanced BECAUSE EVERYONE is forced to play under the same ruleset... at which point NO ONE has an advantage over anyone else... they are using a set of rules under enforced guidelines... You cannot claim imbalance or unfairness if every one is held to the exact same standards... which the RAW enforces... Just because you do not agree does not make it unfair and/or imbalanced...

Keep the Faith

[toturi]

It's not punishing them for playing the RAW. The RAW are punishing them for no good reason. YOU are punishing them, not for playing the RAW, but by playing the RAW.

The RAW doesn't punish anyone. The RAW doesn't punish, it simply is. It is the underlying physics of the game world. If you so choose an option that you think is disadvantageous when no one is forcing you to choose that particular option, then either you choose to punish yourself; or that you think it is balanced and acceptable to you.

The RAW states that there are 2 stores: store A or store B. Store A sell X at $Y. Store B sells X at $Z, where Z>Y. RAW gives you the choice to buy from either. The RAW doesn't force you to buy from Store B. If you buy from Store B, it is your choice.

Your house rules are simply that: house rules. If your players think that your house rules are improvements, then they are improvements for them. If your players think your house rules are fair and balanced, then it is fair and balanced to you and your players. It does not necessarily make it fair and balanced to everyone that plays this game.

I think the RAW is fair and balanced, because you have the choice to choose freely. You do not think so and I can accept that. I am not so prideful as to think that you must agree with my point of view. I, however, do insist that you have the courtesy to acknowledge that other people are fine with the RAW as it is. I think you are wrong but I do not insist that you admit it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The RAW doesn't punish anyone. The RAW doesn't punish, it simply is. It is the underlying physics of the game world. If you so choose an option that you think is disadvantageous when no one is forcing you to choose that particular option, then either you choose to punish yourself; or that you think it is balanced and acceptable to you.

The RAW states that there are 2 stores: store A or store B. Store A sell X at $Y. Store B sells X at $Z, where Z>Y. RAW gives you the choice to buy from either. The RAW doesn't force you to buy from Store B. If you buy from Store B, it is your choice.

Your house rules are simply that: house rules. If your players think that your house rules are improvements, then they are improvements for them. If your players think your house rules are fair and balanced, then it is fair and balanced to you and your players. It does not necessarily make it fair and balanced to everyone that plays this game.

I think the RAW is fair and balanced, because you have the choice to choose freely. You do not think so and I can accept that. I am not so prideful as to think that you must agree with my point of view. I, however, do insist that you have the courtesy to acknowledge that other people are fine with the RAW as it is. I think you are wrong but I do not insist that you admit it.

Well Said Toturi... Much better than I have been attempting to say...

Keep the Faith

[Rystefn]

Has nothing to do with laziness... Slavish Devotuion I would also argue... I have NO PROBLEMS with the RAW as applied in the game... what I do have is disagreements between the RAW and the Real World... these two should never meet anyways, so I choose to not bother modifying things to FIT the REAL WORLD... I don't care enough... Like I have said before... The weapon/combat rules are a joke... but to fix them to something that I could agree with would take way to much work, and would bog the system down in minutia, which I would NOT like... the system works for what it does... does it have some issues, sure (what game does not), but I really do not care to fix any of them, and honestly, no one else in our group cares either... so they are not being punished in the slightest... so your assumptions of punishment are baseless...

I'll drop the accusation of laziness, since you are only too lazy to make the rules accurately mirror the real world, which, in truth, everyone is. It is not merely a Herculean task (which implies that a superhuman person could do it), but an impossible one. The only game which accurately reflects the real world is... well, we call it Real Life™, and sometimes, it's just not a lot of fun. (Sometimes it is, but that's really a completely different discussion altogether.) I'll stand by the slavish devotion with hopes that the reader understands that it's hyperbole... and not a very good one, since most slaves chafe under the rules, I would think.

I am sure your houserules ARE improvements, otherwise you would not houserule them... but without knowing what you have houseruled, I cannot evaluate their use, so I am not fit to comment upon them... as for retaining players, we have never lost a player because of the RAW... EVER... the only players we have lost over the years was because of family issues (one had 3 kids in about 4 years or so, and the other was sporadic anyways becasue of family commitments)...

And I have never lost a player to house rules. SR Missions, by the way, has lost this player, at least, to strict adherence to RAW. As have the Living FR in D&D, and a stack of other, similar campaigns I could name. I highly doubt that I am alone in this.

Assuming that we do not agree with the idea of fairness and fairplay, neh even balance, is erroneous... we just do not really see anything unfair (especially about the metavariants) when you take into account the relevant fluff provided... some things are edge situations (of course) that may strain suspension of disbelief, but we have all been playing roleplaying games for 15+ years each (some of us for over 20) we do not let these things actually bother us...

What relevant fluff? As I've said over and over - the fluff does not actually reflect these numbers. I've played too many systems for too many years to shrug off imbalance. What if the Oni cost 200bp? Would that bother you? How about if they were one in a million? Would that make sense?

Actually we proclaim nothing... we use the RAW because it is there... we could houserule things... but we do not... My question for you would be ... Do you take the Fluff into account when you evaluate a rule? and when fluff and mechanic are at odds, how would you correct the situation? Just Curious myself...

Exactly, you could house rule, but you do not. You choose the RAW. That is tacit endorsement. I take fluff into account when I evaluate a rule if I am playing in the world presented with the system (which I usually do). If I didn't, there would be no magic in my Shadowrun games. It exists only because of fluff, you see. An extreme example, I admit, but I think the point is valid. When the fluff and rules are at odds, the conflict is resolved by altering one, the other, or both, on a case-by-case basis. This is decided by a combination of playability, balance, whether or not it actually affects the anyone at the table, how critical it is to the fluff (i.e. Magic existing is very important, orcs having pointed ears is trivial), how well the rule meshes with other rules and how well the fluff meshes with other fluff, and general awesomeness. This would be handled in a group discussion, usually on the forum we created for the purpose, but occasionally hanging out after a game or socially in a different context than the game. Very rarely, we might discuss it at the gaming table, but if it cannot be resolved quickly to everyone's satisfaction, the GM makes a temporary call, and we move on, revisiting it after the game.

I never endorse rules sight unseen, nor do I condemn them sight unseen either... much like you, I always play the game by the rules before trying to pick them apart... it is just that I prefer NOT to pick them apart... there are hundreds (if not thousands) of games out there to satisfy every whim of a genre... and if you do not like one game you go on to the next one... In this case, The issues that I have with Shadowrun do not outwiegh the fun I have playing it (even if I do use the RAW)... would I enjoy the game more with houserules? Maybe, but maybe not... I have seen a LOT of houserules proposed here on Dumpshock (and in other places) that I vehemently DO NOT agree with, as I think that they break the game even more than the rule they are meant to fix... Houserules are for those who want to customize the game to their particular tastes... RAW are for theose who just want to play the game...

If I like most of this game, it's easier to fix a few rules I disagree with than to throw fifty bucks at a different game that may or may not have the same (or worse) problems. The rules I disagree with out of the box with SR do outweigh the fun I have, and I more or less refuse to play without at least some tweaks to the system. The fun I have with the game after tweaks is worth the work I put to tweak it and more to me (obviously, or I wouldn't do it). Of course, it's in my nature to find flaws and pick things apart, so that may have something to do with it.

Point taken, but then again, I DO NOT think that they are broken, and that after Character Creation, the costs of the Race ARE irrelevant... You have chosen that race with the costs in mind, so how can anyone claim that it is broken or unfair... if it was so, then why did you choose it... it wasn't broken or unfair when you chose the race in the first place... and for the record, I would play ANY of the metavariants in tehir place given a concept that I enjoyed (many of which I actually do have character concepts for already)

Yes, the old "It's your fault. You chose to play the gimped race" non-argument. Sorry, I dislike punishing my players for desiring to play a metatype the designers didn't like for some reason... or, more likely, because the designers didn't think much about the math, and just pulled a number out their asses. I simply don't think it's fair to charge a player 5bp for designer ass or for someone else's mathematical inability.

except that that is YOUR system... which is why it does not correlate to your standards... and it is not unfair, if the player so chooses to play that type of character... you could argue, by your definition, that playing a human is unfair, as they do not pay ANYTHING for the benefit of their +1 Edge Attribute... I would say that that interpretation is ridiculous, but using your formula, that is how it correlates... I have received something (+1 Edge) for absolutely nothing (0 BP Costs)...

Show me the system that was used, and let's see if it's fair... If they used the system they have claimed (which would be fair if evenly applied), the numbers for several metatypes would look different. As for the humans, remember when I said that adjusting bp cost for rarity is a valid idea? Humans are more common. 68% of the human population. +1 Edge is the benefit for playing the most common metatype. I call it one of the instances that actually follows the formula the designers claim to have used. Compared to the Nartaki (the only human metavariant), I see Shiva Arms (15bp) and Striking Skin Pigmentation (-5 bp) and a cost for the metavariant of 25bp. This gives us 15bp worth of "rarity" value. How rare are the Nartaki? Total population estimated at below 5,000. That's pretty rare. I think it's steep, and if a player asked to lower the cost to 20bp, I'd very seriously consider it.

Bias towards the writers is not the same as Preference for a ruleset... never has been, nor will it ever be. I can disagree with the writers, and still use their ruleset successfully...

I didn't say bias towards these writers. Just bias towards writers in general. Hence, your insistence on the RAW.

I completely disagree with this... in essence, what you just stated is that anyone who plays in Missions games is being punished because they are forced to play by the RAW... I cannot disagree more... the rules are fair and balanced BECAUSE EVERYONE is forced to play under the same ruleset... at which point NO ONE has an advantage over anyone else... they are using a set of rules under enforced guidelines... You cannot claim imbalance or unfairness if every one is held to the exact same standards... which the RAW enforces... Just because you do not agree does not make it unfair and/or imbalanced...

Yes I can. Everyone is being held to the imbalanced and unfair standard. See how I just did what you said I can't? I'll probably do it again at some point. No one has an advantage over anyone else... except the people who care about point cost than following their character concept.

[Rystefn]

I think the RAW is fair and balanced, because you have the choice to choose freely.

You also think that you can move a fulcrum with your mind by choosing the heavier side of the scale. Try not to take this the wrong way, but you have long blasted any chance you had of your opinion carrying any weight with me.

Oh and the bit about acknowledging that other people are fine with the RAW - When have I ever pretended otherwise? Kindly provide a quote of me saying "no one likes the RAW" or anything similar to it. I'll give you the thousand pounds of gold if you can. The closest I came was to say that I highly doubt that I am alone in finding the RAW so skewed that I refuse to play by them.

[toturi]

You also think that you can move a fulcrum with your mind by choosing the heavier side of the scale. Try not to take this the wrong way, but you have long blasted any chance you had of your opinion carrying any weight with me.

Oh and the bit about acknowledging that other people are fine with the RAW - When have I ever pretended otherwise? Kindly provide a quote of me saying "no one likes the RAW" or anything similar to it. I'll give you the thousand pounds of gold if you can. The closest I came was to say that I highly doubt that I am alone in finding the RAW so skewed that I refuse to play by them.

I do not require that my opinion have any weight with you. You have the choice to decide that.

I think that the position of the fulcrum is decided by me, that is my choice is where the fulcrum should be, you have demonstrated that you either cannot understand that or do not wish to acknowledge that. You want to limit my choice to either side, I understand that it is more beneficial to your argument if you do so, but I think it is choice in this case should be represented instead by the position of the fulcrum, not by the 2 sides themselves.

What is similar is your accusation that people who simply use the RAW is being unfair and your statement that the RAW is wrong. The implication, I take of your argument, is that people should not be fine with the RAW, that people that are fine with the RAW are wrong. I simply ask that you acknowledge that other people are not wrong in differing from you on whether the RAW is right or not.

[Glyph]

The RAW isn't right or wrong, it's simply... the RAW. I admit a bit of a bias towards the RAW, mainly because it makes it a lot easier for everyone to be on the same page. Plus, while not all of it may be perfectly balanced, it has been tweaked and playtested. While I have liked a few house rules, a lot of them seem to go into the area of unintended consequences, and cause more problems than the (sometimes nonexistent) ones they are trying to fix.

Still, most people seem to use some house rules. Even I would, for example, nerf or disallow empathy software. On the oni thing, for example, it falls into the category of "meh, it's overpriced, but it isn't something I really care that much about". But if I were the GM, and a player wanted to play an oni, and complained about the price, I would probably drop it to 20 for them, if the other players were okay with that.

[Mäx]

Show me the system that was used, and let's see if it's fair... If they used the system they have claimed (which would be fair if evenly applied), the numbers for several metatypes would look different. As for the humans, remember when I said that adjusting bp cost for rarity is a valid idea? Humans are more common. 68% of the human population. +1 Edge is the benefit for playing the most common metatype. I call it one of the instances that actually follows the formula the designers claim to have used. Compared to the Nartaki (the only human metavariant), I see Shiva Arms (15bp) and Striking Skin Pigmentation (-5 bp) and a cost for the metavariant of 25bp. This gives us 15bp worth of "rarity" value. How rare are the Nartaki? Total population estimated at below 5,000. That's pretty rare. I think it's steep, and if a player asked to lower the cost to 20bp, I'd very seriously consider it.

You cant just use the traight cost of positive and negative qualities when talking about metavariant prices.
You have to consider that your getting qualities that dont count against the very tight limit of 35BP of qualities at chargen, if i want a character with Shiva-arms i would cladly pay the 25bd for nartaki unless i really dont want to make a human, becouse that leaves me the full amount of 35points to spend on other qualities. Your essentially paying premium price for the ability to have more qualities then is normally possible.

[Rystefn]

I think that the position of the fulcrum is decided by me, that is my choice is where the fulcrum should be, you have demonstrated that you either cannot understand that or do not wish to acknowledge that. You want to limit my choice to either side, I understand that it is more beneficial to your argument if you do so, but I think it is choice in this case should be represented instead by the position of the fulcrum, not by the 2 sides themselves.

That's because you still don't understand the phrase "not a metaphor." Until you demonsrtate understanding of this simple concept, In my mind, everything you post will be replaced "Durrrrrr.... I kin move de fulcrum wif my MIIIIIIND!"

[Rystefn]

You cant just use the traight cost of positive and negative qualities when talking about metavariant prices.
You have to consider that your getting qualities that dont count against the very tight limit of 35BP of qualities at chargen, if i want a character with Shiva-arms i would cladly pay the 25bd for nartaki unless i really dont want to make a human, becouse that leaves me the full amount of 35points to spend on other qualities. Your essentially paying premium price for the ability to have more qualities then is normally possible.

You haven't look too closely at SURGE, have you? SURGE is basically raising the cap on how many bp worth of qualities you can take (with a limit on which qualities apply) as well as allowing you take a slew of qualities you can't otherwise get. Drop 15bp on SURGE, and you get 30Bp worth of positive and 15 of negative, right? Leaves you 20 more you can use on positive qualities, effectively allowing you to spend 50bp on positive qualities. Nartaki give you 15 (shiva arms) + 35 (normal) = 50. Huh... You would gladly pay to play the nartaki because you're bad at math, it seems. Just Surge, and you get the same effect, only you get to choose which qualities you get, and have access to the whole list of metagenic qualities for all of your quality points, where the Nartaki does not have that option for the 35 points.

[Draco18s]

That's because you still don't understand the phrase "not a metaphor." Until you demonsrtate understanding of this simple concept, In my mind, everything you post will be replaced "Durrrrrr.... I kin move de fulcrum wif my MIIIIIIND!"

Pffft. If he can move just a pencil with his mind I'll pay $20.

[etherial]

Pffft. If he can move just a pencil with his mind I'll pay $20.

The Amazing Randi will give him $1,000,000.

[Whipstitch]

That's because you still don't understand the phrase "not a metaphor." Until you demonsrtate understanding of this simple concept, In my mind, everything you post will be replaced "Durrrrrr.... I kin move de fulcrum wif my MIIIIIIND!"

Now you're just being rather rude. If you never intended it to be a metaphor of any sort, then what is the point? The direction you apparently wish to take this conversation is without merit. Toturi is merely saying that balance is subjective when you consider that some people value some things more than they value others. In this case, an oni may not have the same point "weight" as a regular ork, but the fact that it is rarity has value to a lot of people, so the regular ork has a handicap to overcome to be considered equivalent to the oni by some standards. Whether the oni or the ork are in balance depends on where you choose to put the fulcrum.

[etherial]

Now you're just being rather rude. If you never intended it to be a metaphor of any sort, then what is the point? The direction you apparently wish to take this conversation is without merit. Toturi is merely saying that balance is subjective when you consider that some people value some things more than they value others. In this case, an oni may not have the same point "weight" as a regular ork, but the fact that it is rarity has value to a lot of people, so the regular ork has a handicap to overcome to be considered equivalent to the oni by some standards. Whether the oni or the ork are in balance depends on where you choose to put the fulcrum.

Which is the primary reason why "game balance" is a flaming crock of bantha poodoo.

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, if this were at least an outright competitive tourney game where playing to win was the sole objective, I'd come down harder on the dev team here. I reallly do have sympathy for those people who say that it's somewhat offputing that the devs make some metavariants have better performance value for the bp than standard races while oni take an outright penalty. After all, even if you buy into the notion that rarity should cost you something it still doesn't explain why that standard appears to be applied somewhat inconsistently when looked at in a vacuum.

But with that said, I'm still kind of tired of people telling Toturi he's insane merely for taking a hands off approach to the RAW. The chargen rules in a table top RPG attempt to do two things: provide playable characters and to make those characters line up with setting fluff. So by that token it's not really all that crazy for there to be a disincentive for playing a character type that is rare and has the misfortune of being native to a land that is notoriously intolerant of metas and ork metavariants in particular. Being an oni ain't easy, and discouraging players from creating one helps keep them rare. Whether you think that trade off is healthy for the game or not is a matter of opinion.

[Glyph]

You haven't look too closely at SURGE, have you? SURGE is basically raising the cap on how many bp worth of qualities you can take (with a limit on which qualities apply) as well as allowing you take a slew of qualities you can't otherwise get. Drop 15bp on SURGE, and you get 30Bp worth of positive and 15 of negative, right? Leaves you 20 more you can use on positive qualities, effectively allowing you to spend 50bp on positive qualities. Nartaki give you 15 (shiva arms) + 35 (normal) = 50. Huh... You would gladly pay to play the nartaki because you're bad at math, it seems. Just Surge, and you get the same effect, only you get to choose which qualities you get, and have access to the whole list of metagenic qualities for all of your quality points, where the Nartaki does not have that option for the 35 points.

What he was saying is that you can be a Nartaki, then get 50 more points of SURGE qualities on top of that. Or, alternately, maybe you really want to play someone with 4 arms, but you also want to be a mystic adept with a mentor spirit and two levels of focused concentration. So I see where he's coming from.

On the other hand, a character concept that requires being a Nartaki or a dryad, in order to work, is probably pretty rare in actual practice, and I would not see myself taking either option in most instances.

[Draco18s]

On the other hand, a character concept that requires being a Nartaki or a dryad, in order to work, is probably pretty rare in actual practice

All because wielding four guns is worse than wielding two.

[Rystefn]

Now you're just being rather rude. If you never intended it to be a metaphor of any sort, then what is the point?

Analogy. Not metaphor. There's only so many times I can say that before I question a person's mental capacity for failing to understand. In this case, I count no less than nine instances of me explaining that I'm not talking in metaphor. You see, in a metaphor, you choice might be a fulcrum. I'm just talking about balance. In balance, the fulcrum is the fulcrum. The weight is the weight. Your choice is the choice. By his logic, a thousand pounds of gold is balanced perfectly with five pounds of gold because he could choose the heavier pile. I call bullshit on this. It's bullshit with gold. It's bullshit with rocks. It's bullshit with build points.

[toturi]

Analogy. Not metaphor. There's only so many times I can say that before I question a person's mental capacity for failing to understand. In this case, I count no less than nine instances of me explaining that I'm not talking in metaphor. You see, in a metaphor, you choice might be a fulcrum. I'm just talking about balance. In balance, the fulcrum is the fulcrum. The weight is the weight. Your choice is the choice. By his logic, a thousand pounds of gold is balanced perfectly with five pounds of gold because he could choose the heavier pile. I call bullshit on this. It's bullshit with gold. It's bullshit with rocks. It's bullshit with build points.

Main Entry: analogy
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: agreement, similarity
Synonyms: affinity, alikeness, comparison, correlation, correspondence, equivalence, homology, likeness, metaphor, parallel, relation, relationship, resemblance, semblance, simile, similitude
Notes: analogy is when two different things share characteristics that lead to a comparison between them; an analogue is one of the things compared
Antonyms: disagreement, dissimilarity, unlikeness

syn⋅o⋅nym  /ˈsɪnənɪm/
–noun
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language.
2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something.

In your anal-ogy for balance, I see the fulcrum as anal-ogous to choice. But this is likely not going to matter really, because the person questioning my mental capacity is choosing(see? choice!) to be anal. I can certainly see his point but evidently he doesn't see mine. That's quite alright, I am insane and people like me see things other people usually can't. Does anyone else see the irony?

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, the big difference between metaphor and analogy is that metaphors generally leave less room for differences, but I hardly see that li'l difference as being worth fussing over.

[Emy]

But with that said, I'm still kind of tired of people telling Toturi he's insane merely for taking a hands off approach to the RAW.

They're not telling Toturi he's insane. Toturi is the one that says "I'm crazy I seeeee things". You could even say it's a gimmick of his.

[toturi]

They're not telling Toturi he's insane. Toturi is the one that says "I'm crazy I seeeee things". You could even say it's a gimmick of his.

Actually even way back in '03, people were already calling me crazy for sticking to canon. I got so tired of people calling me insane, I decided to save them the trouble and put it in my sig and sometimes I take it out and wave it about.