[X] My Assistant

[_Pax._]

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with saying "Gee, 'unusual hair' just doesn't seem dramatic enough, what with Glamour and all. I'd rather see you take either Mood Hair, or maybe Bioluminescence (and we can apply it to yoru hair specifically)". IOW, the GM should still feel free to make suggestions.

[Draco18s]

The Unnatural Hair Color Quality is purely fluff, but it is still a negative.

Oh good, the two of you are on the same page.

I believe that, right there, is his complaint.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Oh good, the two of you are on the same page.

I believe that, right there, is his complaint.

Never said I was not on his page as far as the fluf goes. I also have no problem enforcing Fluff negatives. They usually flow from the narrative, so it is no skin off my back. *shrug*

[Umidori]

I think it is easily inferred that each distinctive trait from SURGE gives you a level of distinctive style. It is not explicitly spelled out, but it is still an easy stretch of logic to make, to the extent that I would call it a rules interpretation, rather than a house rule.

So you're saying that a level 1 Changeling is going to have 2 to 3 levels of DS, even if all they have are a Bicardiac and an Impaired Attribute? So other characters get +6 dice to their legwork tracking down a dude with a second heart and poor Willpower? Because those are just such noticeable attributes in a person, right?

Distinctive Style is just badly implemented. End of story, full stop. It needs a complete rewrite. (Or at least the rules regarding which "advanced character options" do and no not impose DS, or modify it, need a rewrite, because technically it works fine as an ordinary negative quality.)

~Umi

[Draco18s]

Never said I was not on his page as far as the fluf goes. I also have no problem enforcing Fluff negatives. They usually flow from the narrative, so it is no skin off my back. *shrug*

His point is that he's getting a non-fluff-benefit for having a fluff-detriment.

[Glyph]

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with saying "Gee, 'unusual hair' just doesn't seem dramatic enough, what with Glamour and all. I'd rather see you take either Mood Hair, or maybe Bioluminescence (and we can apply it to yoru hair specifically)". IOW, the GM should still feel free to make suggestions.

Suggestions are fine. Just like a GM might say something if a sniper lacks an infiltration or perception skill. But making a character a "greased up ant-eater with bug eyes" purely out of petty vindictiveness is unacceptable behavior from a GM.

[Umidori]

His point is that he's getting a non-fluff-benefit for having a fluff-detriment.

Suggestions are fine. Just like a GM might say something if a sniper lacks an infiltration or perception skill. But making a character a "greased up ant-eater with bug eyes" purely out of petty vindictiveness is unacceptable behavior from a GM.

+9999 for both of you.

~Umi

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

His point is that he's getting a non-fluff-benefit for having a fluff-detriment.

Which is dumb. Why should you get a Non-Fluff Benefit from a NEGATIVE quality? Does not really make any sense when you read, it does it?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

+9999

~Umi

Again... Why should you benefit from a Negative? It is a DETRIMENT, not a BENEFIT.
The BP you get are insignificant in comparison.

[Mäx]

These all have mechanical disadvantages. I asked you to find negative qualities that do not have mechanical disadvantages. Please try again.


I... these... these are... positive... qualities. Of course they aren't going to have mechanical disadvantages. Are you drunk, or something? Or just being absurdly pedantic? Because even if it's the latter, they do actually have mechanical disadvantages - their BP costs.

God you really cant read can you?
I didn't claim qualities not having mechanical disadvantage, that was you missreading.

That list is exactly what i said in my post it to be.

[All4BigGuns]

I don't always agree with All4BigGuns, but he is correct that the GM has no business picking out a character's negative qualities. The justification of cutting down "min-maxing" doesn't wash - if a concept doesn't pass muster, then reject it, and let the player know why. If you get a sheet with SURGE II, with celerity and glamour for the positive qualities, and astral hazing for the negative quality, and you don't like it, then tell the player something like "Sorry, but I want to see something visually obvious for class 2 SURGE, like unusual skin and hair coloration at least. Plus, I don't allow the astral hazing flaw, because I think it should be solely the province of things like cyberzombies." That's a million times better than going "I'm changing his negative quality to cephalopoidal skull, ha, ha, ha!" That's just douchebaggery.

Pretty much what I'm getting at, though, I do think that instead of a knee-jerk rejection, they should at least give it a chance, just with a disclaimer laid out right then that if it turns out not to work out well for the game, he may ask for a change of character later.

[Lionhearted]

Suggestions are fine. Just like a GM might say something if a sniper lacks an infiltration or perception skill. But making a character a "greased up ant-eater with bug eyes" purely out of petty vindictiveness is unacceptable behavior from a GM.

Except when it's exactly that kind of behaviour that your group thrives on *shrug* We like having a laugh and bug eyed greased up ant-eater is more fun then saying no

[Glyph]

So you're saying that a level 1 Changeling is going to have 2 to 3 levels of DS, even if all they have are a Bicardiac and an Impaired Attribute? So other characters get +6 dice to their legwork tracking down a dude with a second heart and poor Willpower? Because those are just such noticeable attributes in a person, right?

Distinctive Style is just badly implemented. End of story, full stop. It needs a complete rewrite. (Or at least the rules regarding which "advanced character options" do and no not impose DS, or modify it, need a rewrite, because technically it works fine as an ordinary negative quality.)

~Umi

Nope, that's why I specified distinctive traits. Things like unusual hair, or scales, or what have you. I think that one line, about "advanced character options", was very vague and poorly-worded. I would use a bit of common sense with it. Obviously, an allergy to silver is not going to make someone easier to find. But the rules are going to have those little glitches. Look at the thorns negative quality, which gives you "+1 to all Physical Tests" due to discomfort. Obviously, the GM is going to have to figure out how to implement that as an actual penalty (increase thresholds, change it to -1 instead of +1, etc.).

[Draco18s]

Which is dumb. Why should you get a Non-Fluff Benefit from a NEGATIVE quality? Does not really make any sense when you read, it does it?

Like those 5 build points, maybe?

I don't know what you're table looks like, but at mine "getting 5 more BP to work with" is a benefit. And a non-fluff one, to boot.

[All4BigGuns]

I guess it's not enough that unusual hair or mood hair makes it more of a PITA to disguise yourself to infiltrate some place?

[Draco18s]

I guess it's not enough that unusual hair or mood hair makes it more of a PITA to disguise yourself to infiltrate some place?

Shave n' go! The new product just for you!

[All4BigGuns]

Then again, there is a way to turn that negative into something of a benefit if you're good enough at Disguise to manage pulling it off in the first place. You infiltrate a place disguised as someone with blonde hair and blue eyes, and once you're out, you ditch the wig and contacts becoming someone with purple hair and yellow eyes. I don't think they're gonna find you and what you took that easy, and heck if a player is smart enough to figure that one out, I'm by god gonna let 'em pull it off.

[_Pax._]

So you're saying that a level 1 Changeling is going to have 2 to 3 levels of DS, even if all they have are a Bicardiac and an Impaired Attribute? So other characters get +6 dice to their legwork tracking down a dude with a second heart and poor Willpower? Because those are just such noticeable attributes in a person, right?

I never said it was a GOOD rule; remember, I agree it's all poorly written.

However, it's more than there being no rule at all.

Distinctive Style is just badly implemented. End of story, full stop. It needs a complete rewrite.

I agree. It should possibly be 1 die per level, plus 1 die base.

And I'd like to see various of the Metagenic qualities, as well as the Metatypes and playable Sapients have a "distinctiveness index" assigned to them, with their costs adjusted accordingly (the more distinctive something is, the more mechanical effect it has before it's own description comes into it..

It'd be grand, too, if things like "distinctive hair" and other such things, explicitly stated that things as simple as hair dye either didn't work at all, or, required expensive materials to work. (For an example of that, look at BiPolar. Essentially, it's BP for a monthly expense of 500¥.)

[_Pax._]

Then again, there is a way to turn that negative into something of a benefit if you're good enough at Disguise to manage pulling it off in the first place. You infiltrate a place disguised as someone with blonde hair and blue eyes, and once you're out, you ditch the wig and contacts becoming someone with purple hair and yellow eyes. I don't think they're gonna find you and what you took that easy, and heck if a player is smart enough to figure that one out, I'm by god gonna let 'em pull it off.

And as a GM, I would happily reward that with "not screwing it up", because it's creative roleplay.

Also, because I've actually pondered a Face who is a master of disguise ... so much so, that noone has seen their REAL appearance in a decade, or more. Not even their lovers.

[Umidori]

Nope, that's why I specified distinctive traits. Things like unusual hair, or scales, or what have you.

I agree with this general notion. But I would want every "distinctive trait" to actually be specified as such.

Any quality which adds to your distinctiveness should come out and say so. The rules as they stand are badly written.

Edit: And as odd as it is to say this, I agree entirely with Pax regarding a distinctiveness index and all that.

~Umi

[_Pax._]

[...] petty vindictiveness is unacceptable behavior from a GM.

That's really all that needs to be said, anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[All4BigGuns]

I agree with this general notion. But I would want every "distinctive trait" to actually be specified as such.

Any quality which adds to your distinctiveness should come out and say so. The rules as they stand are badly written.

Edit: And as odd as it is to say this, I agree entirely with Pax regarding a distinctiveness index and all that.

~Umi

Or maybe they're just expecting people to ::gasp:: use some Common Sense rather than have their hand held.

[Umidori]

Wow, insulting and logically fallacious in one fell swoop. Congrats.

There is nothing wrong with wanting rules that leave no room for misinterpretation or variation from table to table. Your personal tastes do not equal Common Sense.

~Umi

[_Pax._]

Siding with Umidori on that point.

I's all well and good that we CAN use our own brains to interpolate and nterpret.

It would be best, however, if we didn't NEED to do so - and could instead apply the brainpower saved, towards creative ends. Like, entirely NEW rules. Or storylines. And so forth.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Also, because I've actually pondered a Face who is a master of disguise ... so much so, that noone has seen their REAL appearance in a decade, or more. Not even their lovers.

Yeah, got a Ninja build like that... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)