Max Starting Cash, If you really tweaked everything Options

[Yerameyahu]

That's not what I said. Karma is earned through basically being there, not necessarily roleplaying; neither is the 'roleplaying karma' kept separate, or separately used to buy off the Quality. It's not correct to equate the two.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's not what I said. Karma is earned through basically being there, not necessarily roleplaying; neither is the 'roleplaying karma' kept separate, or separately used to buy off the Quality. It's not correct to equate the two.

Maybe it is because, with my In-Debt Quality, I am asked to de favors from time to time, and the Kazrma earned from those applies directly to the reduction of the Karma Debt... This is, of course, in combination with repaying the Vig and original Debt as well...

If I am looking to remove a Negative Quality, the Karma earned in the actions that are helping me to reduce my Quality is applied to the Karma Debt, incrementally until it is paid off... I still suffer under the effects of the Quality until it is FUlly paid of, of course...

In my mind, the idea still stands, but I do understand your point there Yerameyahu.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

Hey, technically in Missions you earn at least 3 Karma if you complete the mission successfully, even if you sat there like a lump of clay!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)




-karma

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Hey, technically in Missions you earn at least 3 Karma if you complete the mission successfully, even if you sat there like a lump of clay!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

-karma

Must be nice... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Traul]

The effects are resolved through rolepaying, not the quality itself. This line does not say anything about getting rid of the quality; but even if it did, it would not contradict the core rule: buying off with karma does not dispense you from from roleplaying. It is actually the opposite: you may only buy the quality back after roleplaying the cleansing.

And there is no need for an exception anyway: the GM can already grant any negative quality off for free within RAW. Who cares about the BP*2 cost? The GM is the one who awards karma. In the case of plot hook qualities like Lost loved one and Hung out to dry, it makes sense to give extra karma to the player who fuels the campaign, especially if he lives up to his central role. 10 extra karma at the end of the campaign? What a surprise! That's just the cost to buy the quality off...

[The Jopp]

The In Debt quality is one that the GM can really control and the player should be informed or talked to the GM about the quality before the game starts.

We are not talking about a bank loan here, we are talking about loan sharks, organized crime, organleggers that lend money or a megacorp with a runner on a leash.

Not to mention that who says the creditors cant get greedy? The karma debt could be paid of with the Cash for Karma option in reverse to represent the character being pressed for more money and one thing I can tell you that no creditor wants the customer to pay their debt, they want the interest.

If they plan for the character to only pay of interest of a 30BP loan for at least six months then we are talking about 45K and 10% interest each month is 4500Y and for six month that’s 27K. If the player pays of their debt in say a VERY good run in ONE month they have gotten 49500Y instead of at least 45K+27K.

Remember, in the In Debt quality the creditors set the rules.

And when my streetsam learns that organleggers have 'bought' his debt from the yakuza...

[sabs]

What if In Debt instead, said that you owe 'Favors' to an organization to be determined between you and the GM. Everytime a 'Favor' is completed at least 1 Karma awarded goes towards buying off this Quality. The Rating of the Quality determines the size and willingness to accept No as an answer.


And then, like Born Rich the Quality lets you increase the amount of BP/Karma you can spend on resources.

So you can take "In Debt" for BP without getting money for it.. if you want.

[Saint Sithney]

I take that Flaw, with the "Obviously Punitive" nature of having to pay the Karma back when the Money is payed back... so I guess that you cannot say that NOBODY will ever take it... It is a FLAW for a reason... I personally like the flavor of the roleplaying that it generates... Not everyone agrees with that though... so Your Mileage may Vary...

Just sayin'

Yeah. You just don't take the 30 point version.
Because any 30 point flaw is, and should be, crippling.

10 points of in debt? That's flavor, something you can get out from under. 30 points defines your life.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yeah. You just don't take the 30 point version.
Because any 30 point flaw is, and should be, crippling.

10 points of in debt? That's flavor, something you can get out from under. 30 points defines your life.

My Current character's version is worth 25bp (50 Karma)... and yes, it defines the character's life in a lot of ways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Kruger]

Ahh, so the reason you're arguing this so vehemently is because your current GM is cornholing you with the "pay it back, buy it off" version and you want to make sure other people's characters get punished like yours, huh? lol.

It does all make sense now, lol.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Ahh, so the reason you're arguing this so vehemently is because your current GM is cornholing you with the "pay it back, buy it off" version and you want to make sure other people's characters get punished like yours, huh? lol.

It does all make sense now, lol.

You are so wrong it is funny, and even a little pathetic... I am the one who argued for that at our table, as it only makes sense based on the entirety of the rules in the book... so unless you play at our table, do not make assumptions of my motivations... You are very unqualified to do so...

It amazes me that you just do not understand that I have absolutely no problems with how this works...

Have a nice day... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

[Kruger]

All that smoking is unhealthy for you. Besides, some people like being cornholed. I'm not so narrow minded as to believe my preferences are the same as everyone else's.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

All that smoking is unhealthy for you. Besides, some people like being cornholed. I'm not so narrow minded as to believe my preferences are the same as everyone else's.

I do not agree with the negative connotations of your post... They do indicate a bit of narrow mindedness on your part, in my opinion...

But no worries though... My game table is imminently enjoyable...

[Kruger]

Obviously the joke went a little over your head.

Still, the intent remains the same. You argue vehemently for the house rule you've set up because it's the one you're playing your character with. Whether or not your GM chose to stick you with it, or you stuck yourself, it's an obvious bias and very telling.

[nemafow]

You guys have been having forward and backward throes for a while, not just in this thread. How about we let it go?

[Kruger]

You guys have been having forward and backward throes for a while, not just in this thread. How about we let it go?

If there is some disagreement in another thread, which I don't believe there is, or if there is and I cannot remember it, it is unrelated to this one. I don't pay much attention to user names, only to ideas.

However, this thread solely revolves around a single concept now it seems. The fact that the rules say one thing, and some people are unwilling to admit that their alterations are house rules.

[naga-nuyen]

All qualities are good, period! Let a PC take it, make sure he has a contact that is linked to the quality. Then give that contact viable commlink stats that contain records of the loan. Every month take a hacker NPC and roll a check to see if he hacks into it, if he succeeds then the PC's loan is now available for the hacker to use to draw money off, even if the PC is making payments after awhile it keeps going up. Now you have a run that is just for the PC to get his loan under control....hell if the party is not tight then they may charge the PC if he needs there help! One of many examples to make this or any quality viable through role-playing.

This is not punishment for the PC, it is just one of many events that happen to those in the world, just a crappy event that gives the PC motivation to remove the trait in anyone of the talked about manners above that fit the GM's game.

Day job is another great one. Let them take it, but work with them about the job. One job I would use for my PC's is Aegis Cognito, if they are a Physical type PC, then they provide skills like protection at the local handler meets a client to conduct their business, or if they are a hacker then they could use their skills to gather further data steals for the company, Magicians can provide magic security for these meets. Regardless have the PC take a equivalent skill set that is in line for the type of job (as long as it provides some benefit for the PC) so you take 10 BP day job for Aegis Cognito, then the PC will take 10 points in either stealth, perception, espionage type skill sets.

Once again bottom line for me is developing the game for what my PC's want, I have not been able to gather a group for shadowrun because I am just returning to the Seattle area but I would only game with players I could enjoy to game with....that cuts out allot of silly abuse, after that anything would go in my games if the PC's had a good idea for the PC in question and it was with in RAW.

[Mäx]

The fact that the rules say one thing, and some people are unwilling to admit that their alterations are house rules.

More like your unable to admit that the rules don't say what you say they do, you just can't admit that your adding in almost as much to the quality as anyone else.

[KarmaInferno]

Guy, I'm not a mod, but...

Attack the subject, not each other, neh?





-karma

[Kruger]

More like your unable to admit that the rules don't say what you say they do, you just can't admit that your adding in almost as much to the quality as anyone else.

It's an interesting theory, but I have quoted the rules and the quality, verbatim. Nothing more. No attempts to interpret. If I've added something somewhere, please let me know. The rules say X. And some people say they say Y. Except I can quote you "X" right out of the books. And the counter argument can only present "Y" as what the writers... didn't write. Anyone who has taken even a freshman semester of college Critical Thinking courses knows that requiring something to be proved to not exist (argument from ignorance (that's a term, not an insult)) is a logical fallacy.

The evidence proves what I say. The language of the book proves it. The precedent set by other qualities prove it. Common sense based on real world knowledge of how loan repayments proves it in part. Conversely, there's nothing in the books that proves the argument that it works the way some of you have chosen to reword and house rule it, other than an absence of language that explicitly says that interpretation is wrong. It's like saying that picking your nose is illegal because there isn't a law that says you're allowed to do it. The book would be ten thousand pages long if it was required to tell you every single thing that wasn't true in the rule set. The choice to be obstinate about this is one certain people have chosen to make. They are free to do it. But it isn't like it changes the reality that interpreting In Debt any other way than how the book and precedent describes it is a house rule. Which, there is still nothing wrong with. House ruling is just as valid and encouraged as it ever was.

And it's "you're". I possess no unables and no addings.

[Mäx]

It's an interesting theory, but I have quoted the rules and the quality, verbatim. Nothing more. No attempts to interpret. The rules say X. And you guys say they say Y. Except I can quote you "X" right out of the books. And the counter argument can only present "Y" as what the writers... didn't write.

Actually i and few others are not adding anythink to it, my point was that even you're interpretation is adding stuff to it.
We where going with just whats actually written in the quality description. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neurosis]

Guy, I'm not a mod, but...

Attack the subject, not each other, neh?





-karma

You're right!

THIS TOPIC IS GAY!

...wait...

(Max, it is not important but you have now used the wrong 'your/you're' both ways it is possible to do that.)

[Mäx]

(Max, it is not important but you have now used the wrong 'your/you're' both ways it is possible to do that.)

I know, this one's on purpose.

[Kruger]

Actually i and few others are not adding anythink to it, my point was that even you're interpretation is adding stuff to it.
We where going with just whats actually written in the quality description. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Um, you're confused.

Either about what is in the book, or about what I have posted. Please let me know which.

Because if you were going with solely what was in the book, we would have the exact same opinion. How do I know this? Because not a single person who has disagreed with me has been able to show me, using direct examples from the book (page 271 SR4a, and the descriptions of the qualities), that there is an alternate case that could be correct. This using examples is the key. The language of the book is very specific, and the precedents are very clear. Something not being in the book is not evidence of anything other than that something not being provable.

[Mäx]

Something not being in the book is not evidence of anything other than that something not being provable.

Which in this case would be the ability to even pay back the dept, the book only has rules for paying interest.