Karmagen Metatype cost, Need Explanation Options

[Udoshi]

Here's what I'm saying.

1. Humans get a +1 to Edge as their singular racial ability.
2. Edge, like most of the special attributes, doesn't have an augmented maximum.
3. Instead of introducing an augmented maximum solely for humans, they just say they can go to 7.
4. The +1 to Edge is applied just like any other racial ability is. You don't have to pay for it; it's always a +1 to Edge.
5. In the Build Point system, it doesn't matter when you apply the +1 to Edge; the cost is the same no matter who's interpretation you're using.
6. In the Karma Generation system, the "benefit" isn't this tragically broken bonus people are maxing it out to be. It's a minor benefit for a race that doesn't really get jack squat. So who cares if they get a minor discount relative to the others? It's still just a +1 to Edge.

I'm also saying that if you're going to try and twist "+1 Edge" into meaning something it is never stated as meaning, which is in no way intuitive or easily assumed, and is only being interpreted that way because that's just how you've always done it rather than question it, then you shouldn't bitch when someone else actually sees it for what it actually is -- a simple +1 to Edge.
But hey. Apparently it's okay to do just that. It's a good thing I find hypocrisy like that infinitely amusing.

Congratulations. You have finally got what the rest of the thread has been trying to tell you.
Nitpick: point 5: Yes, where you apply the edge does matter. If you can apply +1 edge at any point in the buying attributes process, you can avoid the increased cost for maxing an attribute, and that's cheating.

[Ol' Scratch]

Unfortunately for you, I've been saying that since the start of the conversation. Your nerd raging must have blinded you to it.

[Ol' Scratch]

Nitpick: point 5: Yes, where you apply the edge does matter. If you can apply +1 edge at any point in the buying attributes process, you can avoid the increased cost for maxing an attribute, and that's cheating.

Wrong.

Sorry, was a double post, so I just figured I'd put the edit here.

[Udoshi]

And yet another example of where you guys get to ignore one rule just to make yourselves feel better. Nevermind that rule is from a completely different creation system, written by a guy who often gets crap wrong anyway. Again: Just take a gander at the FAQs or the bizzare logic used to rationalize why he fucks over mages and technomancers on that same page for proof positive that he doesn't quite grasp the meaning behind several rules. Fluff, yes. Rules, no.

Are you seriously claiming 'i don't like the devs, therefore their rules don't apply because I say so'. At the same time as defending how your rules work in the same system, here:

[*] In the Karma Generation system, the "benefit" isn't this tragically broken bonus people are maxing it out to be. It's a minor benefit for a race that doesn't really get jack squat. So who cares if they get a minor discount relative to the others? It's still just a +1 to Edge.

Sorry.

Runner's Companion p. 70, Metatype Attribute Table: "Human Metatype Abilities: +1 Edge"
Runner's Companion p. 84, Sapient Critter Attribute Table: "Pixie Critter Abilities: Enhanced Sense (Astral Perception)"
Runner's Companion p. 84, Not Metahuman: "All sapient critters begin the game with an Essence of 6, and their maximum Edge is 5, except for pixies who have a maximum Edge of 7."

Good. Now here's a challenge for you - Core Book game only. No expansion books. Try to keep your argeument in one piece.

See, what -I-, personally, am saying, is this:
You buy human. You get edge 2. Your max is 7. Buy it up as usual. And..... thats it.

YOU are adding in shit about augmented maximums and metagenetic improvements. Its really not that hard.

[Ol' Scratch]

Go take a pill and lay down for a few minutes. When you get back, preferably after letting things sink in, we can continue. I'm kinda tired of repeating myself.

[Udoshi]

Hey, i'm good to go if you are. But if you need a break, go for it.

[Gamer6432]

You know, if you're repeating the same thing in almost every post you put in this thread and yet you still haven't convinced anybody, is there really any point to continuing this repetition another 6 pages?

[Ol' Scratch]

It's not my fault they keep asking for clarification.

[Medicineman]

.....oO( http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3502/395728...4b0ebd4a4_o.png )

with no futile Dances
Medicineman

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Humans receive a +1 to Edge as a racial trait. It's not an adjustment to their min/max ratings.

So, this was your first statement 5 days ago, and now you are trying to say that you were saying what everybody was also saying but they didn't understand you? Bullshit!

[Cabral]

Go take a pill and lay down for a few minutes. When you get back, preferably after letting things sink in, we can continue. I'm kinda tired of repeating myself.

Please do stop repeating yourself; no one is buying your misrepresentation of the Rules as Written. You can say it as many times as you want but wrong is still wrong.

I don't believe you're particularly qualified to tell us what the Rules as Intended are (not more so than the average poster). Perhaps Ancient or Jason will chime in on that count. So why don't we redirect the conversation to what the rules should be and why?

[Ol' Scratch]

Fine. You really want to get down to why you're the ones making stuff up, too? Answer these three questions for me.

1. Why does "+1 [Attribute]" mean one thing in this singular case when it means something else entirely in every other case? Using nothing but the core rulebook, let's look for a few other times we find "+1 [Attribute]" without any conditionals:

• SR4A pp. 257-258, Various Drugs: "+1 Reaction" "+1 Willpower" "+1 Body" "+1 Agility" etc.
• SR4A p. 342, Wired Reflexes: "+1 Reaction [...] per rating."
• SR4A p. 346, Suprathyroid Gland: "+1 to the user's Body, Agility, Reaction and Strength."

So where's the big disparity between these uses and "+1 Edge?" Where, exactly, do the rules tell you that in all cases "+1 [Attribute]" means what it does for drugs, Wired Reflexes, Suprathyroid Glands, etc., but not in the singular case of a Human's "+1 Edge?"

2. If "+1 Edge" obviously means a change in Human's minimum and maximum ratings, why is this the only case of it found anywhere in the rules? Every other time it comes up, it's referenced in a completely different way and fully spelled out. But if "+1 Edge" means what you guys are saying it so clearly and obviously means, why don't they use that exact same method of describing it in every other case? Examples:

• SR4A p. 91, Exceptional Attribute, "The Exceptional Attribute quality allows a character to possess a natural Physical or Mental attribute at a level above the metatype maximum."
• SR4A p. 91, Lucky: "This quality allows a character to possess an Edge attribute one point higher than his metatype maximum."
• RC p. 114, Metagenic Improvement: "In game terms, the minimum and maximum values for one of the character’s attributes are both raised by 1."

There is no example that I can find where it's ever detailed simply as "+1 [Attribute]." Anywhere in the rules.

3. Pixies have the same exact metatype maximum listed at 7 but do not have a +1 to Edge. Why is that? If that's all "+1 Edge" means, why don't Pixies have a +1 to Edge, too?

I mean, if you're all so obviously right and I'm so obviously wrong, these should all have easy answers that's directly backed up in the rules. Posts saying something more than "I hate you even after you changed your name," "duh, you're stupid, it clearly means something else as clearly stated in these wholly unrelated snippets," and "shut up" would be greatly appreciated.

[Jhaiisiin]

So if it's just a +1 to edge, then they can never get to 9, because it is still stated that their maximum is 7 (8 with lucky). So yay, 2 free points of edge, meaning they never have to pay for that maximum last point, right?

I don't agree with this interpretation, but as you mentioned, the +1 isn't an adjustment to min/max ratings, so all it does is boost it a point, unless you're already at maximum.

[Ol' Scratch]

Exactly. I choose to go with a middle ground (an actual +1 to Edge, but only to a range of 1/6, giving them an effective 2/7 only because it's clear the rules do not want to add Augmented Maximums to special attributes). Others are going with a 2/7 range with no +1 at all. Neither of those are correct by a strict reading of the rules. But apparently I'm more wrong somehow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Exactly. I choose to go with a middle ground (an actual +1 to Edge, but only to a range of 1/6, giving them an effective 2/7 only because it's clear the rules do not want to add Augmented Maximums to special attributes). Others are going with a 2/7 range with no +1 at all. Neither of those are correct by a strict reading of the rules. But apparently I'm more wrong somehow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

What the hell are you talking about? How your method is different to the method everyone else is saying?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

What the hell are you talking about? How your method is different to the method everyone else is saying?

It is somehwat confusing isn't it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Keep the Faith

[Ol' Scratch]

What the hell are you talking about? How your method is different to the method everyone else is saying?

That neither you nor I are right, despite your holier-than-thou attitude about your house rules. At least I can admit it.

But hey, all you have to do is answer the three questions above and problem solved.

[Tomothy]

Ol' Scratch: If there is an interpretation for which both +1 Edge and an increase in the min and max of Edge to 2/7 is true, don't you think that this interpretation is the most likely one? Your interpretation does not encompass both rules whereas the interpretation held by everyone else does. This suggests there is something wrong with your interpretation.

[Ol' Scratch]

Ol' Scratch: If there is an interpretation for which both +1 Edge and an increase in the min and max of Edge to 2/7 is true, don't you think that this interpretation is the most likely one?

Yes, which is why I mentioned it. I'm also saying no one that I'm aware of goes by that literal by-the-rules version.

Your interpretation does not encompass both rules whereas the interpretation held by everyone else does. This suggests there is something wrong with your interpretation.

No, mine accounts for it just fine (without "nerfing" the actual racial bonus of +1 Edge), but assumes laziness on the design team's part by simply ignoring augmented limits to special attributes for... whatever reason. And no, the other interpretation doesn't do a better job of adhering to those rules either (especially since it does "nerf" it by pretty much completely ignoring it and treating it as something other than what it is).

<shrugs> There's only one right answer. No one goes by that, though. And for some reason, my preference makes me into a horrible, broken, stupid person simply because it's giving Human characters on the Karma Generation system a mild break. All the while those same people bitching at me are bitching about how pointless it is to play a Human under those same rules. C'est la vie.

[MJBurrage]

... And for some reason, my preference makes me into a horrible, broken, stupid person simply because it's giving Human characters on the Karma Generation system a mild break. All the while those same people bitching at me are bitching about how pointless it is to play a Human under those same rules. C'est la vie.

For the record most never said that giving humans their highest point of Edge for free would be a bad ruling, just that its not the official rules. I also corrected someone else as to how much of a Karma bonus such a ruling would be.

In the games I play in, human characters have never been in short supply; so such a ruling would not change things much. Of course my whole gaming group is over 30, and three of us have been running the shadows together since '89, so were all past min/max (been there, done that) and simply build characters that fit a concept we find interesting. The team were running now has both a low-magic human with only 1 IP (a former Lone Star CSI), and a combat monster (relatively-speaking) of a shape-shifter.

[Ol' Scratch]

For the record most never said that giving humans their highest point of Edge for free would be a bad ruling, just that its not the official rules.

Well, I'm not saying they get their highest point (ie, the 25 BP point) for free. I'm saying they have the normal range of 1/6 and have to buy Edge normally within that range. They just have a "maximum" of 7 courtesy of their +1 bonus, and it's only listed that way because the designers -- for whatever reason -- were adamant about not giving augmented maximums to Special Attributes. Whether it's 1 bought up to 6 or 2 bought up to 7, the price is the same regardless of when you want to apply the bonus.

That's said, as written, the +1 to Edge as a concrete bonus independent of minimums or maximums is the official rule. One that people seem to want to just flat out ignore rather than acknowledge and admit to house ruling. The increase to a Human's minimum and maximum Edge is not linked in any way to their +1 Edge in the actual rules. And, again, Pixies have the same bit of text about Edge, but they lack the +1 to Edge which just reinforces the distinction between the two rules. Likewise, changes to minimum/maximum ratings are never presented as +1 [Attribute]. +1 [Attribute] is only used in reference to augmentations to the score that are independent of the actual attribute for purposes of buying or increasing it unless specifically stated otherwise (such as with certain adept powers).

And yes, I'm the same way when it comes to building characters. I also like taking unusual or unconventional options (Shifter Faces, Troll Hackers, Pixie Made Men, etc.) and making them feasible compared to more natural combinations. The default Karma Generation system makes doing that a lot easier, which is why I'm not a fan of both the boost to attribute costs and forcing them to pay for their race. I'd rather have adjusted racial costs for the Karma system that account for the gross differences between it and the BP system instead.

[Cabral]

Uhm, no. I can refute that really easy. You do not have to follow any particular steps when creating your character; those are just recommendations. Proof? SR4A p. 81, Choose Your Metatype: "A character’s metatype sets his or her attribute limits, so it’s strongly recommended that you perform this step first." Emphasis mine.

You may not have to pick your metatype first, but you do effectively have to choose it before you purchase attributes because that will affect the purchase cost of those attributes (ie, a Troll's reduced Logic).

1. Why does "+1 [Attribute]" mean one thing in this singular case when it means something else entirely in every other case?

Singular case?

• Page 75-76 of the Runner's Companion, Dracoforms. Karmic improvements are made to the Metahuman attributes but the Dracoform modifiers are temporary and explicitly improve minimum and maximum attribute values in the dracoform ... form?
• Page 79 of the Runner's Companion. (also note related text on page 76/77, Building an infected character).

This is not the singular case of +x to an attribute derived from metatype modifying the minimum and maximum attribute ratings. Every other instance does so. The question is actually, why is a human's +1 edge the only exception?

Using nothing but the core rulebook, let's look for a few other times we find "+1 [Attribute]" without any conditionals:

• SR4A pp. 257-258, Various Drugs: "+1 Reaction" "+1 Willpower" "+1 Body" "+1 Agility" etc.
• SR4A p. 342, Wired Reflexes: "+1 Reaction [...] per rating."
• SR4A p. 346, Suprathyroid Gland: "+1 to the user's Body, Agility, Reaction and Strength."

So where's the big disparity between these uses and "+1 Edge?" Where, exactly, do the rules tell you that in all cases "+1 [Attribute]" means what it does for drugs, Wired Reflexes, Suprathyroid Glands, etc., but not in the singular case of a Human's "+1 Edge?"

One thing these all have in common is that they are temporary (relatively speaking) and fairly external to the character's development.
Speaking of singular cases, why is it that Improved Attribute, the singular +1 to an attribute which affects karma paid to raise the attribute, was not on your list?

2. If "+1 Edge" obviously means a change in Human's minimum and maximum ratings, why is this the only case of it found anywhere in the rules? Every other time it comes up, it's referenced in a completely different way and fully spelled out. But if "+1 Edge" means what you guys are saying it so clearly and obviously means, why don't they use that exact same method of describing it in every other case? Examples:

• SR4A p. 91, Exceptional Attribute, "The Exceptional Attribute quality allows a character to possess a natural Physical or Mental attribute at a level above the metatype maximum."
• SR4A p. 91, Lucky: "This quality allows a character to possess an Edge attribute one point higher than his metatype maximum."
• RC p. 114, Metagenic Improvement: "In game terms, the minimum and maximum values for one of the character’s attributes are both raised by 1."

There is no example that I can find where it's ever detailed simply as "+1 [Attribute]." Anywhere in the rules.

Where is a permanent, innate +1 attribute, not an increase to minimum? It is likely the descriptions in the character generation are an artifact of the transition from SR3 (where trolls received +5 Body) to SR4 (where trolls have a Body from 5 to 10).

3. Pixies have the same exact metatype maximum listed at 7 but do not have a +1 to Edge. Why is that? If that's all "+1 Edge" means, why don't Pixies have a +1 to Edge, too?

Assuming that it is not an error, it means that Pixies are innately lucky with the possibility to take Lucky again (so a base edge of 1/7).

Instead of introducing an augmented maximum solely for humans, they just say they can go to 7.

Well, someone did suggest just making 6 edgier but the humans kept saying my edge goes to 7...

I think the rules are clear. I am honestly surprised you do not believe the rules mean humans have a minimum edge of 2. If you believe Humans should have an edge range of 1-6 (or 1-7 or 1-8) with +1 added after attributes are purchased, that's fine, if you think Humans need that boost.

[Ol' Scratch]

Singular case?

• Page 75-76 of the Runner's Companion, Dracoforms. Karmic improvements are made to the Metahuman attributes but the Dracoform modifiers are temporary and explicitly improve minimum and maximum attribute values in the dracoform ... form?
• Page 79 of the Runner's Companion. (also note related text on page 76/77, Building an infected character).

This is not the singular case of +x to an attribute derived from metatype modifying the minimum and maximum attribute ratings. Every other instance does so. The question is actually, why is a human's +1 edge the only exception?

No, it's still a singular case.

The bonuses that a dracoform receive are exactly that: Bonuses they receive in dracoform, and ones that expressly affect their minimum and maximum values. Similarly, the table you're referring to on page 79 is clearly labeled as an adjustment to the minimum/maximum values; they're only listed as +'s because they're in reference to their pre-infected attributes. Ghoul's don't receive a +4 to Body, they specifically have their minimums/maximums increased by 4.

The Human bonus of +1 Edge is never once described that way. And, yet again, they receive the same adjustment to their maximum Edge as a Pixie does, with a +1 Edge on top of that (which the Pixie lacks).

Speaking of singular cases, why is it that Improved Attribute, the singular +1 to an attribute which affects karma paid to raise the attribute, was not on your list?

I did reference that, citing Adepts as an example where it does. But the rules actually say that. My list was of examples that had no associated conditions or text telling you of any special changes to the baseline assumption.

Assuming that it is not an error, it means that Pixies are innately lucky with the possibility to take Lucky again (so a base edge of 1/7).

Just like Humans. They just happen to be even luckier by default courtesy of their additional +1 that they don't have to pay for.

I think the rules are clear. I am honestly surprised you do not believe the rules mean humans have a minimum edge of 2. If you believe Humans should have an edge range of 1-6 (or 1-7 or 1-(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) with +1 added after attributes are purchased, that's fine, if you think Humans need that boost.

Read my posts again. I'm saying Humans in the BP system do effectively start with an Edge of 2. I'm just saying it doesn't matter if you're applying their +1 before or after you pay for it as long as you're consistent. I'm also saying the only reason they have a listed maximum of 7 is for the same reason. If the damn designers weren't so fucking weird, they could have simply just given special attributes the same augmented maximums and forgotten about it. Why they mysteriously don't have an augmented maximum is beyond me. If they didn't want people to augment, hey, don't include any. But... that's a different but related rant.

Whether you want to call it 1/6 with a +1 or assume the +1 and call it 2/7, the prices are exactly the same in the BP system. A final Edge of 7 costs no different either way, nor does an Edge of 2. The only place it matters one iota is the Karma system.

The problem is that neither of those are the default rules. They're assumptions both side of the 'argument' are making, with most of the people sticking their head in the sand and refusing to see how fucked up the rules are in this regard. Instead of doing that, it's apparently more fun to insult and attack my stance, where the only net result is a slight boost to the one race those same damn people are whining and complaining about not existing for Humans in the Karma system. So... one big 'whatever.'

[Cabral]

First, let me apologize for this bit of necromancy; I've been meaning to respond to Ol' Scratch's comments for a while ...

No, it's still a singular case.

No, it's a singular case under your view and a consistent trend under the generally accepted views expressed by the posters in this thread. Just like the simplest conclusion is most likely the correct one, the conclusion with the least abnormalities is most likely the correct one.

Ghoul's don't receive a +4 to Body, they specifically have their minimums/maximums increased by 4.

Page 79 of Runner's Companion: Ghouls N+4 Body.

Just like Humans. They just happen to be even luckier by default courtesy of their additional +1 that they don't have to pay for.

Humans have a maximum edge of 7 because of their +1 to Edge. When events settles down enough for an Errata/New Errata to the RC and/or SR4A, perhaps they'll address whether the Pixie text was am error (most likely).

Read my posts again. I'm saying Humans in the BP system do effectively start with an Edge of 2. I'm just saying it doesn't matter if you're applying their +1 before or after you pay for it as long as you're consistent.

Within the BP System, you are correct. Within the Karmagen System you are incorrect; the sequence matters.

The problem is that neither of those are the default rules. They're assumptions both side of the 'argument' are making, with most of the people sticking their head in the sand and refusing to see how fucked up the rules are in this regard. Instead of doing that, it's apparently more fun to insult and attack my stance, where the only net result is a slight boost to the one race those same damn people are whining and complaining about not existing for Humans in the Karma system. So... one big 'whatever.'

I did not insult your stance. I answered the questions you provided. I would say you have been consistently the most caustic poster - to your fellow posters and to the game developers (at least within this thread).

In this regard, forum posters have voiced opinions that indicates to me that there is a consistent understanding of how the rules work. In which case, I would say the rules have not failed to communicate their mechanic.

Fine. You really want to get down to why you're the ones making stuff up, too? Answer these three questions for me.

I have done as you requested and provided a solid rationale as to why my stance is not only valid but the most reasonable.

As I said before, I don't think the Rules as Written are unclear, nor do I believe the Rules as Intended are unclear. I welcome a discussion on what the rules should be.

[Zoot]

Humans receive the equivalence of a metagenic improvement to Edge, raising both the minimum and maximum rating to 2/7 (even though the core rules never mention that it starts at 2)

um, its right there on p82 SR4A

Characters also start with a value of 6 in Essence, 1 in Edge (2 for humans), and a value of 0 in Magic and Resonance.

How is that not mentioned in the core rules!!!

In the Build Point system, it doesn't matter when you apply the +1 to Edge; the cost is the same no matter who's interpretation you're using.

Not strictly true. If you apply the bonus at the bottom, making the stat 2 automatically, you save 10BP. if you apply it at the top end as an increase from max-1 to max, you are saving 25BP.



edit.

Sorry, didn't realise this was a resurrected thread. Got half way through and couldn't take anymore