[X] My Assistant

[_Pax._]

The approach I use basically amounts to "be fair at the minimum, to the player, be generous elsewise." If the NQ is Debt, then once they pay it off, the NQ is gone. the money is repaid plus whatever interest there was, and that is that.
If the NQ is Enemy, then the enemy will use the Hand of God to keep coming back unless and until the player uses Karma to pay off the NQ, unless they run out of Edge.

As observed, that approach is not fair.

If I were ever a player at yur table, I would always opt for "In Debt", and never opt for Enemy. Even for the exact same BP value. Because In Debt will be easier to remove, than Enemy; I'll be able to remove In Debt for zero Karma ... whereas, Enemy? I guarantee you, it'll cost cash AND Karma to permanently deal with an Enemy.

[_Pax._]

Going after a runner's family is a major no-no. A shadow faux-pas as it were.

The vory don't care for namby-pamby "shadow codes". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If I had a GM make his NPC mobsters go after a character's family like that, I'd help exterminate those mobsters with extreme prejudice.

And die - because criminal syndicates have immensely more resources than any five PCs put together, and if they elect to hold a grudge, the PC they dislike is doomed.

Congratulations, roll up a new character. And if this isn't the first time this has happened, "In Debt" is no longer a choice you are allowed.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The vory don't care for namby-pamby "shadow codes". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And die - because criminal syndicates have immensely more resources than any five PCs put together, and if they elect to hold a grudge, the PC they dislike is doomed.

Ain't this the truth. Members of our group went to war with the Mob... Wow, what a mistake that was... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

I think some people get the idea that the mob (or Yaks, or whoever) hires shadowrunners because "they don'thave anyone that good".

I don't subscribe to that school of thought. I believe the syndicates have many people that good and better.

Freelancers get hired because the syndicate wants an extra "cutout" in the operation, to provide some additional "firewalls" of deniability. Or because those "as good or better" in-house assets are occupied .... even if that occupation is just "laying low for a few weeks after their last op".

Or just because the freelancer will do the job for less money than the in-house asset would require.

...

But that doesn't mean the syndicate can't muster forces that are a challenge, an overwhelming challenge, for the PCs. Provided the syndicate gets irritated at a high enough level to prompt allocating those kinds of assets, of course. Which any protracted war with them, is going to eventually produce.

Sure, the PCs may absolutely devastate the syndicate before they go down. but a long enough war, even a shadow war, will eventually catch up with the PC(s), who will wind up part of the bodycount.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

They don't even need someone as good as the shadowrunners. Just someone who knows where they live and a car with a trunk full of explosives.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I think some people get the idea that the mob (or Yaks, or whoever) hires shadowrunners because "they don'thave anyone that good".

I don't subscribe to that school of thought. I believe the syndicates have many people that good and better.

Freelancers get hired because the syndicate wants an extra "cutout" in the operation, to provide some additional "firewalls" of deniability. Or because those "as good or better" in-house assets are occupied .... even if that occupation is just "laying low for a few weeks after their last op".

Or just because the freelancer will do the job for less money than the in-house asset would require.

...

But that doesn't mean the syndicate can't muster forces that are a challenge, an overwhelming challenge, for the PCs. Provided the syndicate gets irritated at a high enough level to prompt allocating those kinds of assets, of course. Which any protracted war with them, is going to eventually produce.

Sure, the PCs may absolutely devastate the syndicate before they go down. but a long enough war, even a shadow war, will eventually catch up with the PC(s), who will wind up part of the bodycount.

Definitely... as the war progressed, my uninvolved Assassin was continually being dragged back into the situation, so one day, he just.... disappeared, and never returned. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Kyrel]

OK. My 2c on this matter.

1) RAW getting rid of a Negative Quality requires 2xBP cost, GM approval, and potentially additional in-game requirements.
2) As a GM I have the oppinion: Never let the rules get in the way of the story, the group's fun, or something really cool. And I prefer something making sense, over something being "balanced".
3) If you pick a given Quality or Negative Quality for any other reason than because it fits the character concept, "BLEEEP!"...try again. I'm allergic to that kind of optimization antics. On the other hand I'd have no problem letting people getting away with removing the Debt NQ simply by paying off the debt in-game. And if you kill the Enemy you came up with me before the game, then depending on the nature of Enemy, I might just let you get away with it, and considder it over and done with, BP expenditure or not. On the other hand, there are plenty of Negative Qualities I wouldn't let you get rid of, no matter how much Karma you might be willing to throw at it, to make it go away.

IMO the prime purpose of Negative Qualities are character flavour and plot/story hooks, and if you ask me, I'd have no problem removing the bonus BP you get for taking them in the first place. And yes. As a player I'd still take some of them, if I felt like it suited the character.

[Shortstraw]

They don't even need someone as good as the shadowrunners. Just someone who knows where they live and a car with a trunk full of explosives.

That works both ways.

[_Pax._]

That works both ways.

Thre are more people in the syndicate, than there are shadowrunners. Especially, more than there are player character shadowrunners.

Look, it's really simple: don't get into a war of attrition, with any organisation that has a million times your resources.

[Shortstraw]

Of course not you find out where they are fighting with the other syndicates and hit them there and as soon as they are at a disadvantage you move to another point of conflict.

[Achsin]

The one time that paying off In Debt came up in my group with only ¥ the GM ruled that the character (a technomancer) had to pay the regular amount plus the ¥ equivalent of the karma cost to remove it (¥25,000/level). It was agreed upon by the player and the GM before the game began. It was worked into the story as different things happened that required the character to pay ever increasing amounts. The most memorable of which was when the guy who had loaned the money charged the character so that he could make a pay-off so that evidence that he was money laundering would be destroyed and prevent him from being busted, then passed the costs to his "clients" who wanted to remain anonymous as an unforeseen expense of doing business with them.

Other than that we've used the replace a quality that's become a non-negative with another of equal value.

[Jaid]

OK. My 2c on this matter.

1) RAW getting rid of a Negative Quality requires 2xBP cost, GM approval, and potentially additional in-game requirements.
2) As a GM I have the oppinion: Never let the rules get in the way of the story, the group's fun, or something really cool. And I prefer something making sense, over something being "balanced".
3) If you pick a given Quality or Negative Quality for any other reason than because it fits the character concept, "BLEEEP!"...try again. I'm allergic to that kind of optimization antics. On the other hand I'd have no problem letting people getting away with removing the Debt NQ simply by paying off the debt in-game. And if you kill the Enemy you came up with me before the game, then depending on the nature of Enemy, I might just let you get away with it, and considder it over and done with, BP expenditure or not. On the other hand, there are plenty of Negative Qualities I wouldn't let you get rid of, no matter how much Karma you might be willing to throw at it, to make it go away.

IMO the prime purpose of Negative Qualities are character flavour and plot/story hooks, and if you ask me, I'd have no problem removing the bonus BP you get for taking them in the first place. And yes. As a player I'd still take some of them, if I felt like it suited the character.

ok, let's try this another way:

2 people are in the same group. they face the same challenges, and for the sake of discussion, roleplay equally well, and there characters are identical except one of them has... oh, for the sake of argument, rating 4 gremlins (20 BP), while the other has in debt for 20 BP.

after playing several sessions, having received equal rewards in every way, the player with in debt decides to pay off his debt. now then, the player who took in debt suddenly has removed his negative quality entirely. the other player, having played just as well, contributed just as much, and for the sake of discussion being in all ways equal, would also like to remove his negative quality (gremlins).

now, if you would just say "ok, sure, you'll need to spend a few thousand nuyen on some sort of procedure that will remove your negative quality", then ok, you're being fair to both players.

if, on the other hand, you tell that second player they can't remove their gremlins flaw at all, you're treating the second player differently from the first, in spite of the second player having done everything just as well as the first. this is very clearly not fair to the second player, who has done nothing to deserve a lesser reward than what the first player got.

if you tell the second player that they must first resolve the negative quality in-game and then pay double the BP in karma, you are also treating the second player unfairly.

they have, for the sake of discussion, behaved identically. if the first player get to have a reward and the second player does not, is that not the very definition of unfairness? to treat one person poorly and the other well, for essentially no good reason?

now let's add in that most likely, they haven't been equal at all; the guy with gremlins 4 is probably suffering FAR more from the negative quality than the guy with in debt, because having to pay 3k a month is an inconvenience but suffering from a drastically increased number of glitches is a serious disadvantage. the guy who has gremlins most likely has been affected far more often, and has likely incorporated such a noteworthy flaw into his character as a fairly significant element. the guy who took in debt, it's probably barely even a footnote in their life. it certainly won't be around their character for very long, or at least it doesn't have to be.

as has been said: in the interest of treating your players fairly, you should be consistent. otherwise, expect your players to suddenly imagine lots of characters that have debts (because frankly, i can't think of a single character concept that couldn't owe someone a lot of money very plausibly), and for your players to set aside their characters with other (far more character-defining) negative qualities to get put on a shelf for someone else's game, because you are punishing a certain behaviour (choosing significant flaws that are difficult to remove) and rewarding another (purchasing easily-removed flaws that are not a significant part of the character's identity). or, alternately, expect some player dissatisfaction, because if you arbitrarily decide that one person is going to get slapped in the face, and the other is going to get a $10 bill, and neither of them did anything significant to deserve it, being upset is bloody well a perfectly reasonable response to that kind of treatment.

[All4BigGuns]

ok, let's try this another way:

2 people are in the same group. they face the same challenges, and for the sake of discussion, roleplay equally well, and there characters are identical except one of them has... oh, for the sake of argument, rating 4 gremlins (20 BP), while the other has in debt for 20 BP.

after playing several sessions, having received equal rewards in every way, the player with in debt decides to pay off his debt. now then, the player who took in debt suddenly has removed his negative quality entirely. the other player, having played just as well, contributed just as much, and for the sake of discussion being in all ways equal, would also like to remove his negative quality (gremlins).

now, if you would just say "ok, sure, you'll need to spend a few thousand nuyen on some sort of procedure that will remove your negative quality", then ok, you're being fair to both players.

if, on the other hand, you tell that second player they can't remove their gremlins flaw at all, you're treating the second player differently from the first, in spite of the second player having done everything just as well as the first. this is very clearly not fair to the second player, who has done nothing to deserve a lesser reward than what the first player got.

if you tell the second player that they must first resolve the negative quality in-game and then pay double the BP in karma, you are also treating the second player unfairly.

they have, for the sake of discussion, behaved identically. if the first player get to have a reward and the second player does not, is that not the very definition of unfairness? to treat one person poorly and the other well, for essentially no good reason?

now let's add in that most likely, they haven't been equal at all; the guy with gremlins 4 is probably suffering FAR more from the negative quality than the guy with in debt, because having to pay 3k a month is an inconvenience but suffering from a drastically increased number of glitches is a serious disadvantage. the guy who has gremlins most likely has been affected far more often, and has likely incorporated such a noteworthy flaw into his character as a fairly significant element. the guy who took in debt, it's probably barely even a footnote in their life. it certainly won't be around their character for very long, or at least it doesn't have to be.

as has been said: in the interest of treating your players fairly, you should be consistent. otherwise, expect your players to suddenly imagine lots of characters that have debts (because frankly, i can't think of a single character concept that couldn't owe someone a lot of money very plausibly), and for your players to set aside their characters with other (far more character-defining) negative qualities to get put on a shelf for someone else's game, because you are punishing a certain behaviour (choosing significant flaws that are difficult to remove) and rewarding another (purchasing easily-removed flaws that are not a significant part of the character's identity). or, alternately, expect some player dissatisfaction, because if you arbitrarily decide that one person is going to get slapped in the face, and the other is going to get a $10 bill, and neither of them did anything significant to deserve it, being upset is bloody well a perfectly reasonable response to that kind of treatment.

Now, you add in a statement at the beginning laying out what qualities can be removed with karma and an intervening action, which ones can be removed without karma by performing an appropriate intervening action and which ones can't be removed at all, and boom, it's fair again.

[Shortstraw]

Also since when was Shadowrun meant to be fair?

[Glyph]

Out of curiosity, how would those who say that a negative quality must be bought off with karma deal with a player who took the lost loved one NQ and then through dint of much effort found said lost loved one?

If they spent some extra effort on it, then they would get roleplaying Karma, and thus be able to buy off the negative quality. Same thing with someone dealing with a bad reputation, or easing themselves out of a day job to transition to being a runner full time. They are earning karma during this time, so they can spend it to remove the negative qualities.

Also since when was Shadowrun meant to be fair?

The game world may be dark and gritty, but the game itself has always been meant to be fair. Not in the sense of every choice being optimal, but as All4BigGuns says, players should all have the same choices available, and know what those choices are.

[Medicineman]

Now, you add in a statement at the beginning laying out what qualities can be removed with karma and an intervening action, which ones can be removed without karma by performing an appropriate intervening action and which ones can't be removed at all, and boom, it's fair again.

but then You should expect a lot of Players taking these ....easy-to-remove-NQ just for the sake of being easy BPs and not because it fits their Char, their Backgroundstory,expect everyone to have indebt NQ
Its kind of urging the Players to taking these Easy NQs,a kind of GMs Fiat.

he who rather dances fairly
Medicineman

[Medicineman]

Also since when was Shadowrun meant to be fair?

Not Shadowrun, not the World, but the Rules and how You treat the PLAYERS !

with a Fair Dance
Medicineman

[All4BigGuns]

but then You should expect a lot of Players taking these ....easy-to-remove-NQ just for the sake of being easy BPs and not because it fits their Char, their Backgroundstory,expect everyone to have indebt NQ
Its kind of urging the Players to taking these Easy NQs,a kind of GMs Fiat.

he who rather dances fairly
Medicineman

Oh well. Not like I personally give a rat's tush what qualities a player takes.

[Jaid]

Oh well. Not like I personally give a rat's tush what qualities a player takes.

you should care about treating your players fairly.

the characters are in the game world, and the game world is not fair. that's fine. the unfairness is part of the challenge, which is part of what makes the game fun for many people.

but the players are presumably people you care to spend time with. at the very least, they are (probably) human beings. they are not showing up to be treated unfairly. and if it happens consistently, i would expect them to eventually just leave.

it's fine to have unfair things happen to the characters (provided the game calls for it). it is not fine to choose to make unfair things happen to the players, because

[All4BigGuns]

you should care about treating your players fairly.

the characters are in the game world, and the game world is not fair. that's fine. the unfairness is part of the challenge, which is part of what makes the game fun for many people.

but the players are presumably people you care to spend time with. at the very least, they are (probably) human beings. they are not showing up to be treated unfairly. and if it happens consistently, i would expect them to eventually just leave.

it's fine to have unfair things happen to the characters (provided the game calls for it). it is not fine to choose to make unfair things happen to the players, because

If they know ahead of time what qualities require what to remove (or which ones can't be removed at all), then it is fair. With such information given at the outset, then they've made a choice to take the harder to remove ones, and as such it is on them--another good reason for full disclosure of everything before starting a game.

[Jaid]

If they know ahead of time what qualities require what to remove (or which ones can't be removed at all), then it is fair. With such information given at the outset, then they've made a choice to take the harder to remove ones, and as such it is on them--another good reason for full disclosure of everything before starting a game.

no, i wouldn't really say that's fair at all.

it's a game. within reason, i should be able to play what i want, without being punished for it. if i want to play a character with gremlins or infirm, i shouldn't be dramatically worse off than a player with in debt or mysterious cyberware (allowing for difference in quality values, etc).

or rather, i shouldn't be punished for thinking "hey, it would be cool if i played a character with <insert negative quality here>". your system is set up such that someone who wants to play certain negative qualities is stuck with them, while others are essentially getting a free ride.

in short, you are making a system where rather than playing what they think will be fun and interesting, they've got a strong incentive to play only what will be effective. and there isn't even a good reason behind it.

i'm fine with "i don't want to charge players karma for role-playing the removal of their negative qualities". the problem is when only some negative qualities are treated that way, while others are not.

for example, suppose i was to set up a system whereby people who profess to believe in my religion are treated one way (which religion it is isn't important for the purposes of this discussion) and those who do not profess to believe in my religion are treated another way, which is less desirable.

if i announce ahead of time that people who do not profess to believe my religion will be punished in some way (regardless of how major or minor the punishment is), did my announcement ahead of time, and allowing them to then choose what they want to claim as their religion, make this any more fair? is it fair that if they want to avoid punishment, those who don't believe in my religion must lie?

personally, i would look at that system and say no, that isn't fair. it is, in fact, distinctly unfair.

so what makes you think that when you have functionally the same scenario, except with negative qualities instead of religions, you get a fair system? shouldn't people be free to choose their negative qualities to fit their characters without being unduly punished? obviously, this isn't as important an issue as religious freedom, but if treating your players fairly is a goal (and it should be), then why would you not be fair by applying the same rule equally to all negative qualities instead of only some?

[Glyph]

Qualities are far from equal already - I don't know if I would want to add more inequity to the mix by making some easier to get rid of. I mean, yeah, there are going to be some options that are flat out better than the others in a wide-open point build system like Shadowrun's - heck, look at the controversy over the cost of playing an oni metatype. But this is taking things that should be the same and giving them different underlying mechanics, for what seems to be arbitrary reasons. Of course, the GM is free to fiddle with things like that if encouraging or discouraging certain qualities is the goal (I still think just tweaking the point values would be better, even for that), but it is essentially cutting down on meaningful player choices.

[toturi]

Qualities are far from equal already - I don't know if I would want to add more inequity to the mix by making some easier to get rid of. I mean, yeah, there are going to be some options that are flat out better than the others in a wide-open point build system like Shadowrun's - heck, look at the controversy over the cost of playing an oni metatype. But this is taking things that should be the same and giving them different underlying mechanics, for what seems to be arbitrary reasons. Of course, the GM is free to fiddle with things like that if encouraging or discouraging certain qualities is the goal (I still think just tweaking the point values would be better, even for that), but it is essentially cutting down on meaningful player choices.

I think that it is not so much giving them different underlying mechanics but instead confirming and making clear that the underlying mechanics are different and the GM is aware of such differences.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Of course not you find out where they are fighting with the other syndicates and hit them there and as soon as they are at a disadvantage you move to another point of conflict.

Sometimes that works, and sometimes it does not. The last mob war we were involved in (at our table) included multiple factions, becuase some of the PC's figured that it was good to piss in EVERYBODY's wheaties. Once the commonalities were identified, well, lets just say that the Syndicate (Multiple Families; 3 if I remember correctly), Triad and Yakuza dedicated themselves to eradicating the PC's instead of going after each other. It was quite brutal.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Now, you add in a statement at the beginning laying out what qualities can be removed with karma and an intervening action, which ones can be removed without karma by performing an appropriate intervening action and which ones can't be removed at all, and boom, it's fair again.

Or, you go with the actual book, and all NQ's must be resolved in game, and then removed with Karma. *shrug*