Increasing chargen costs for non-humans by 50%, How to talk my DM out of it Options

[Elfenlied]

Hi all,
I'm playing in an SR game where the DM has decided that to highlight the facts that metahumans are much rarer than humans, the chargen costs for non-humans will be increased by 50%. Needless to say, I believe this idea is bollocks, since it unfairly punishes the group, especially since our group consists entirely of non-humans.

Question is: How do I talk him out of it in a civil way? Could you help me with arguments supporting my case? I don't want to leave the group over something as minor as that, but I believe this rule will put a great damper on the fun of this game. We've got a Drake and a Vampire character in our group, and it feels like they will be immensely gimped.

[Robineng]

I would probably suggest to the GM that one way to highlight their rarity would be to simply demand a very good character concept that he is happy and content with for players to be allowed to make non-human characters. But to me it sounds like your GM would rather have a all-human campaign, perhaps hes not really prepared or sure how to handle the non-human characters?

This post has been edited by Robineng: Apr 6 2010, 03:58 PM

[Ol' Scratch]

Yeah, no.

That's always been a really weak argument for metahuman prices. Shadowrunners are outliers by their very nature. Whatever the population is outside the scene, it has little bearing inside the shadows. Magicians are far more common, metahumans (the outcasts of society) are far more common, and people with a Panther Assault Cannon hidden in their closets are far more common.

Besides, negative reinforcement never works well. If anything, suggest that he simply makes Humans more attractive. Maybe give them a few free points in Qualities, or a floating boost to a single attribute maximum (but not minimum) of choice. Not that I personally think they need any more incentives, but clearly he does.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Besides, by 2070 the metahuman population has increased. Trolls are 5 times more commons than Awakened people, almost 1/3 of the world population is made of Orks, etc.

So, unless your GM has decided to increase the cost of Awakened and Emerged qualities because they are more rare, this is a lousy argument.

[nezumi]

Question is: How do I talk him out of it in a civil way? Could you help me with arguments supporting my case? I don't want to leave the group over something as minor as that, but I believe this rule will put a great damper on the fun of this game. We've got a Drake and a Vampire character in our group, and it feels like they will be immensely gimped.

You must sacrifice an offering. The traditional methods would call for a sacrifice of unblemished Pizza, but another may be substituted in its place, should it prove appropriate.

With this offering you must give up words of adulation and thanks. Only once this has been performed, may you make your request.


(BTW, another idea from 1st edition is, rather than increase the cost, include another penalty, such as a random flaw or specific allergy or some such.)

[tete]

I don't think its unfair but I don't think its needed either. Metahumans are a little bit better bang for the buck but only if your building to the bonuses, and cyberware can negate most of those differences.

[Makki]

I take the GM's side. If he doesn't want Vampires and Drakes then that's it! If you want to run a freak game, run it yourself afterwards...

However making pure humans more attractive is the better solution than making the others cost more.

[last_of_the_grea...]

I suggest that you point out to him that he is a Roody-poo candyass and that you threaten to check him into the Smackdown Hotel! Don't forget to raise your eyebrow at him when you do it.

[D2F]

I voted "No" on principle, because I don't think it is a fair solution. I do consider Vampires far too powerful, though. Your GM should be honest. If he thinks your chosen race is too powerful, he should simply ban it. That's why I banned several character options from my group.
If his concern is not balance but rather hi spersonal opinion of the "ideal" distribution of races among your group, talk to him. A SR group is not a representative sample of the general population. If the players want to play an all ghoul group or an all pixie group that is their thing and the GM should allow it. If he doesn't like GMing such a group, he needs to up front about it and let his players know.

Both, GM as well as players, play to have fun. If either party does not enjoy what they are doing it's best to work on a solution.

[Machiavelli]

Besides the excellent argument of Brazilian_Shinobi some posts above, metahumans have more than enough penalties just being different. If he (your GM) would be able to play with these flaws a little bit, a player would think twice before chosing a metahuman instead of a human char. Just an example: Of course trolls are big and strong and very tough, but they are also big, noticeable, hard to hide, not very clever, quick or agile and of course also not very cheap if you have to buy anything customized for their size. That nobody likes trolls is on another paper, especially if nobody is going to one and telling him.^^

[KeyMasterOfGozer]

The GM should, instead, penalize you in game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Make sure NPCs are mostly human, and make them behave racistly. Humans don't see metas very often, and so would be suspicious and frightened. Vamps would be targeted for violence. In our game, we play this. Metas are noticed as out-of-place in a lot of areas, and this can cause trouble for players.


Edit: Or you could just read Machiavelli's post above mine, which says the exact same thing. I should read more carefully.

[knasser]

The GM wants to run a game where metahumans are a bit less prevalent in the game. I'm going to turn this around and ask you what the best method of achieving this would be. Couldn't you all say "okay, most of us will be humans, one of us will be playing a troll, is that okay?"

K.

[Machiavelli]

Naa, just try "we are the people". This sentence even managed germany to unify again. So it should work on a GM too.^^

[Muspellsheimr]

I can easily detail why changing point costs to account for 'rarity' is bullshit. The problem is, some people disagree - often for the sake of disagreement - and will not, regardless of argument, alter their position.

So instead, I ask does the rest of your group feel similar about this decision (I am guessing yes, as most people call this bullshit). If yes, speak to them a little; if the GM does not change this decision, he will simply not have any players to run the game with.


I know from experience - not playing in a game is far preferable to playing in a game that sucks, especially one that sucks because of how the GM handles game mechanics.

[tete]

Saying no Vampires and Drakes I think is a better solution for races not in the core book. I always felt everything in the Runners Companion was up to the GM and not always a good idea to include (I learned that with the first Shapshifter Shaman I saw). Giving Humans a bigger bonus is also a cool idea (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) rather than making metas cost more.

I can easily detail why changing point costs to account for 'rarity' is bullshit. The problem is, some people disagree - often for the sake of disagreement - and will not, regardless of argument, alter their position.

Its simply a metagame mechanic to encourage a certain style of play (in this case more human PCs). D&D gives XP for killing stuff & Exalted gives bonus dice for doing over the top action, these are other examples of a metagame mechanic used to encourage a certain style of play. It just in this particular case the metagame is part of character creation rather than in game (Exalted) or after game (D&D) rewards. The GM could also just ask 1/2 the players or whatever to be human rather than using a metagame mechanic.

[edit] If you look at SR history ver 1 being a Metahuman cost a bundle at character creation. 2e gave the choice of costing a bundle or the more metahumans option. 3e lowered the cost a tad lower than more metahumans but increased the cost of edge (karma pool back then) for the metahumans. So traditionally we have had a higher cost metagame for the metahumans.

[Machiavelli]

I definitely agree to that. There were a LOT of game-sessions i would have better stayed away from, because at the end of the day everything was worse than before.

[knasser]

I have a similar preference for more humans in the group, though I've never gone so far as enforcement with increased BP costs. Basically where I come from is as follows.

I prefer my game not to be one where the group is made up entirely of unlikely or rare groups. Not because this couldn't happen (indeed, they might band together for that reason), but because generally speaking it's done without regard for its unlikelihood and rarity. If you want to portray a setting where the majority of people are human and metahumans different to that baseline, a mob of unlikely metahumans obscures that there is a baseline. All this goes quadruple for things like drakes, vampires, etc. And how a metahuman is different to humans becomes meaningless when there's so little to be different to. The details of metatypes tend to get lost in this sort of set up. Instead you get something that feels like a computer game with people plugging in any character without rhyme or reason.

Also, I see people tending to conflate race with character. "What's your character?" "He's an ork."

The more I trust a group's role-playing ability and grasp of the setting, the less I care what they play. The more they treat it like a computer game or disregard how unsual their characters actually are, the more I have to tone things down by returning everything to the baseline and allowing only a few differences so that they can notice there is a difference.

The OP is turning to Dumpshock to try and bolster support for influencing his GM's preferences. The poll only allows "Yes" or "No". I'd point out that the GM clearly wants to achieve a particular atmosphere or setting so maybe you should consider providing that. It is often boring for a GM to run a game suited to preferences other than his own and ultimately can lead to no game at all. Best thing to do is ask your GM why he wants this and see if you can accomodate. One thing I don't get is that you already have a drake and a vampire in the group? So how is his decision affecting your characters? Is he retro-actively changing their abilities or has he in fact not approved these characters for his game yet? If the latter, then it's not penalizing the group, you can create different characters.

K.

[Dragnar]

There's nothing wrong with a GM saying "X doesn't fit the campaign, so you may not play X", but the passive-aggressive "Sure you can play X *you bastard*, but you will suck as a punishment" needs to die. In a fire. With lots of gasoline.
Besides, the prices for metahumans in SR are already altered away from their actual worth by the designers to force a more "realistic" group composition, so the GM would just double up on the stupid.

Apart from that, though, starting a thread on an internet forum is by far the worst method to change your personal game. Your GM won't change his opinion just because you show him a print of 20 random people voting "no" on your poll. Even making a poll out of it at all doesn't help.
The GM thinks that's a good idea, you disagree. What about the rest of the group? What's the majority opinion? Have you talked about the issue at all? Could you compromise in a different way? Those are the questions you should actually ask. Not "Is increasing the costs of non-humans sensible?".

[Elfenlied]

Thanks for all your replies so far. Looks like I'll need to clarify a few things:

The group currently consists of 3 people, with a fourth one joining us this weekend (not known what he will play though). The current DM and I take turns DMing, with the players keeping their characters. The news about the planned cost raising has been rather unexpected, especially since the current DM's character is a Tiger Shapeshifter, and the last player is playing a Fomori. See, none of us are exactly fond of humans (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

He hasn't said anything about wanting to turn the game towards a more mainstream angle, nor has he indicated that he considers the group's races too powerful. It just seems like he wants to enforce a "rarity tax" for non-humans. Thus far, I've only heard the opinion of the Drake player, and he supports my case.

[Wandering One]

It sounds like a response made after seeing just how unbalancing crunching the system can be, which sadly means he's probably not agile enough to raise the threat response accordingly. For starters, the public reknown a team like that would get after being on camera *once*, forget caught or identified, would be dangerous, just because of the oddity. Like a trid flick come to life.

A better mechanic to this would be something to up a human to be more useful, a house rule of a different nature. IE: A Human's one bonus is edge, let it refresh twice as often. Let cyberware, originally designed around the human physique and then modified to the others, take 10% less essence for being the 'common' species. There are carrot alternatives to the stick, and perhaps presenting a couple of ideas that way might make it more appealing to both the players and GM, and also not destroy the current game by forcing rewrites.

I personally agree there's some rediculousness in the character designs available, especially after Runner's Companion. The entire character building schematic needs to be overhauled, with karma-style generation being the most reasonable that I've seen so far, but to penalize players in an existing game seems silly. You've got insanity and commonality of the idea already. Add in more paranormal critters, data bomb everything, etc. It's not hard to up the threat level to the group.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Humans don't see metas very often, and so would be suspicious and frightened.

Not true, 1/3 of world's population is made of Orks, besides Elves can be found in pretty much every kind of advertising, if this adds to the "Elven conspiracy" is another problem. I can totally understand why the Immortal Elves would want to create "Realms" for their own kind because they could probably foresee what would happen a few centuries later. Who would like to have a boss who will live "un-retired" until you own grandchildren do?
Orks and Trolls are hired ALL the time to work as nightclub bouncers or any other activity where strength is important (even for intimidation purposes).

Sure, a Japanese corporate wageslave living inside an archology might have never seen a metahuman in the flesh, but most people will.

[tete]

Thanks for all your replies so far. Looks like I'll need to clarify a few things:

The group currently consists of 3 people, with a fourth one joining us this weekend (not known what he will play though). The current DM and I take turns DMing, with the players keeping their characters. The news about the planned cost raising has been rather unexpected, especially since the current DM's character is a Tiger Shapeshifter, and the last player is playing a Fomori. See, none of us are exactly fond of humans (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

He hasn't said anything about wanting to turn the game towards a more mainstream angle, nor has he indicated that he considers the group's races too powerful. It just seems like he wants to enforce a "rarity tax" for non-humans. Thus far, I've only heard the opinion of the Drake player, and he supports my case.

Based on this I call foul... Because you are in the middle of the game. If any changes were made I would just say that any new PCs are human ie yours and the new guy but thats it.

[hermit]

This is stupid.

If he cannot bear some of the character options, eh should ban them. I know I do (with all the WoD creatures, Technomancers, Free Spirits, AI and critters). He should be honest and upfront about it and not insult players who want to play them. Just say "not in my game, pal".

Metahumans should not be penalised even more, though. He should just select his characters. I think Funkenstein had it right. The shadows do not reflect general demographics. More metas, more Mages, ect, just happen there (not only for them being outcasts, but also because of the shitloads of money they can make there).

He hasn't said anything about wanting to turn the game towards a more mainstream angle, nor has he indicated that he considers the group's races too powerful. It just seems like he wants to enforce a "rarity tax" for non-humans.

Hand him a broom and tell him to go bugger himself with it. Jeez.

If you're more diplomatically inclined, raise the other players against it and have them tell him in unison that he can play with himself if he wants this stupid rarity tax.

[Aerospider]

The GM seems to have forgotten his responsibility to put on a game the players want to play. He may be writing the story and doing most of the work, but it is a communal experience for everyone's pleasure. Penalising a player's choices through GM fiat is to stop idiots from ruining everyone else's fun and to make idiots learn harsh lessons. It's not there for the GM to bully people into playing his game his way.

Now I also impose my will on chargen – I'm about to start a new campaign and refused someone the choice to play a technomancer. Why? Because he was not just new to SR but new to roleplaying in general and would have to learn the whole Matrix thing from scratch and on the job. So he couldn't be a technomancer in this game because I said so and I said so because it would cause universal frustration, but had he been heartbroken I would have reconsidered.

Ultimately, point cost has so little to do with rarity the very suggestion is non-sensical anyway.

So you end up with three different vampires, two drakes, an AI and something small and purple that chuckles every time you step on it, so what? The character concepts that players put forward are the best indication of the kind of game they want to play and I don't put my adventure-writing pen anywhere near the paper until I see some.

[tete]

The GM seems to have forgotten his responsibility to put on a game the players want to play.

I think you can (and should) run the game you want, but the players need to know that going in. You cant say we are going to play Shadowrun then when they show up pull out Star Wars and say make characters using that because you like the mechanics better. You needed to say in the beginning that you were going to run a game set in the Shadowrun world with the Star Wars rules. Games are always best when the GM is running something they want to run and if the GM is good he can convince his/her players to try anything once.