Karma - Dumpshock Forums

Karma, initial impression

6thDragon View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 02:17 PM Post #1
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 16-April 02 From: DC Member No.: 2,605	Looking at the karma costs for raising skills, attributes, and magic stuff it looks like everything costs more. Spells are 5, attributes are x3, I don't remember what skills are, but I think they are higher too. Initiation is a lot more expensive. I guess this could be because of the new caps on the skills. Is the guidelines for giving out karma about the same for SR4? edit: spelling correction

hahnsoo View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 02:18 PM Post #2
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014	In a word, yes. The standard Karma award is still about 5-10 Karma per run.

ankh-le-fixer View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 02:37 PM Post #3
Target Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Paris, France Member No.: 6,074	I think the karma cost for improving attributes (3x) is FAR too cheap : attributes in the SR4 system are really important, much more than skill (because you can use an attribute with several skills) but cost only slightly upper (2x for skills) improving agility from 3 to 4 only cost 12 points and you throw 1 additional dice in all combat pool :eek: (that's only one or two scenarii karma gain) it s specially weird when comparing with a skill group that cost 5x : how can they justify that???

Shadow_Prophet

Aug 25 2005, 02:39 PM

Post #4

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 445
Joined: 18-August 05
Member No.: 7,567

QUOTE (ankh-le-fixer)

I think the karma cost for improving attributes (3x) is FAR too cheap : attributes in the SR4 system are really important, much more than skill (because you can use an attribute with several skills) but cost only slightly upper (2x for skills)

improving agility from 3 to 4 only cost 12 points and you throw 1 additional dice in all combat pool :eek: (that's only one or two scenarii karma gain)

it s specially weird when comparing with a skill group that cost 5x : how can they justify that???

In response to that I'll copy what I posted elsewhere in the So Far... thread....

QUOTE

Wow, lots of discussion while i was sleeping and doing other things along those lines.

Anyways. About the "unballanced" nature of being able to raise attributes faster than skills. I would tend to agree. Looking at it from a purely statistical standpoint I'll probably end up houseruling it towards a karma expendature in line with the current whitwolf systems.

But about raising a attribute over skills and the benifits there in. Yes in one light, game mechanic wise, it does indeed seem like a better idea to max your attributes first because they add dice to multiple pools at a time. No one's going to debate that. However, it doesn't raise the person's actual skill. For example lets say I have a char, who wants to start deckin. I've got a logic of 4 currently, and a computer skill of 1 (note i'm not sure if its still computers or not but for the sake of the example lets assume it is ). Now I could raise my logic, because that would likely raise my pool in a few other skills that i need as well as raising my computer skill. So instead of 5 dice, i'd have 6, giving me a average pool of dice.

Looking at the mechanics straight up. I could probably do things like, program a IC with that, or hack into a decently secure network. Look at it from a realistic standpoint and, while he's got the natural aptitude (the high logic stat not the quality) for programing, he doesn't have the skill to do such things, as illustrated by the low skill. When you actualy think about it that way raising the skill is better. Gives you the same dice pool for that skill BUT it would allow you to do more.

I think thats the biggest hump people are having trouble getting over. In sr3 everythings prety much completely spelled out for you that way. Your stat governs your natural aptitude in the way of allowing you to get a skill up to a certain level without paying out tons of karma. It doesn't quite run the same way with sr4.

If you'd prefer another example to further illustrate my point. Lets take the guy we were just talking about. Lets say he has a logic of 5 and a computers of 1. And lets pair him up with a guy who's logic 3 computers 3. Same dice pool. Now both are in a system and they've both stumbled over this piece of code. For the example we'll say that its equivilent to someone with computers 2 programing it. Thats a bit below the skill level of hacker B, he'd probably easily recognize it as he's past that level of knowledge allready. He's been trained in programing and is a rather competent programer himself. But hacker A has never seen code like that before, much less touched it enough to be able to recognize it, so if I was feeling realy generouse I'd have him roll and there'd be a certain threshold for him to hit to generaly recognize what it might be. Even if he beat the threshold on that roll, he still wouldn't be able to tell you how it worked, or even exactly what it did. He might, might have a general idea about it if he beat the threshold, but his level of knowledge in programing isn't high enough to realy understand the code.

Thats two people with the same dice pool, just different levels in the skill, and how skill realy should affect the game. People are focusing on the attributes right now because skills are caped at 7 max with a certain quality and 6 normaly. Alot of people think that skills are close to meaningless now when you can just raise the attribute to get the same effect across a large number of skills. I invite you to take a look at it from the prespective I'm looking at it from. I've played with this type of system since exalted came out in 2001 (or 2002 I can't remember which). And yes, it did take a bit of getting used to and it took a bit at looking at things to see these things (also might have helped out the cost for raising attributes was rather high which is one of the reasons i'm thinking about houserulling the karma costs to be like the white wolf xp charts) but I think if you give it a chance and try to look at what the stat itself really means character wise, and what the skill means character wise you'll begin to understand what they mean together. Ignore the dice benefits for a moment and just look at what they mean to the character.

Serbitar View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 02:50 PM Post #5
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	Prophet, your point may be valid, BUT, it is not reflected in the rules. The rules dont care where your dice come from. What you are suggesting is a house rule, not another viewpoint.

Shadow_Prophet

Aug 25 2005, 02:58 PM

Post #6

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 445
Joined: 18-August 05
Member No.: 7,567

QUOTE (Serbitar)

Prophet, your point may be valid, BUT, it is not reflected in the rules.

The rules dont care where your dice come from. What you are suggesting is a house rule, not another viewpoint.

That is actualy not true.

There are rules about skills and what their effective levels mean. It is not a house rule on what these things mean it is mearly looking at the information on the character sheet and whats in the rulebook and applying it.

I don't need to houserule what a skill at level one means. Its right there in the book.

The GM is the one who decides IF and WHEN you roll. Never forget that. If your GM chooses to ignore what the book states about skills and their relative levels, and doesn't seem to mind not actualy taking a look at how attributes and skills interact game mechanics wise, then yes the rules don't care about where your dice come from.

Hell if you think a guy who's very logical, and smart, but has only been trained in basic and maybe vb can jump right into assembly and machine code and code a operating system from the ground up just because he's smart than good for you. But you won't see me playing with you because thats more along the lines of roll playing instead of roleplaying and just rolling dice doesn't interest me at all, I can go play warhammer or 40k if i wanted that and get about the same results.

Darkness

Aug 25 2005, 02:59 PM

Post #7

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 248

QUOTE

Prophet, your point may be valid, BUT, it is not reflected in the rules.

The rules dont care where your dice come from. What you are suggesting is a house rule, not another viewpoint.

Not if you look at the definition of the skill levels. You simply have to read more into it than "it gives you one more die".

Serbitar View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 03:01 PM Post #8
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	Skill definitions are not rules, they give you an im pression what the AIM of the rules is to model. The rules themselves dont care where you get your hits from. Hm, I think I will just house-rule the whole thing: You cannot have more hits than your involved skill. Only 1 hit by defaulting. No restrictions on general things like the reaction test when beeing shot at or withstanding a spell.

prionic6 View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 03:17 PM Post #9
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 21-June 04 From: Cologne, Germany Member No.: 6,429	What about this Houserule: You can not have more attribute dice than skill dice in a dicepool. I would suspect this got playtested as it is almost the same rule as in sr 3 (e.g. no more combat pool than skill). What were the results?

hahnsoo

Aug 25 2005, 03:17 PM

Post #10

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014

I think Shadow_Prophet and Serbitar both have good points.

On p 106, it says:

QUOTE

For many of these situations, gamemasters must rely on their own judgment to decide which skills are needed, determine the situation modifiers, and interpret what it all means. The following guidelines and rules will help resolve some more common situations

This gives your average GM a lot of leeway in determining the effect of certain rolls and the impact that the numerical value of skills (versus the numerical value of attributes) can have within the game. At the same time, the rules lay down a framework by which your average GM can build their foundation of skill resolution. In the case of not having a skill, aside from the absolute cases of not being able to default, the GM is given the final say in deciding whether or not the character gets to roll at all. I think this sort of philosophy can reasonably extend beyond Rating 0 skills, although this will be something that varies from game to game.

I like the fact that the game can portray a talented neophyte (high attributes, low skills), or a grizzled experienced veteran (high skill, low attributes), or the best of the best (both are high). The concern is that there is a higher emphasis on attributes rather than skills. Given the hard caps on how many attributes you can purchase at character creation, I think this only becomes a key issue later in the game, when the characters have spent Karma to increase their attributes to the maximum levels. One can argue that all versions of SR was like this, though, with the addition of pool dice (which was the way earlier versions of Shadowrun added attributes in a skill roll).

I don't like the fact that the numerical value of skill, under the "GM fiat" method of skill resolution, does not mechanically equate directly to the actual utility of the skill, instead being solely governed by the GM. As a player, I do not want to be told that I can't even attempt a task governed by a skill simply because my skill rating is too low, especially when the rules governing the task are known to me, and mechanically I'd still have a chance at completing that task. It is a tricky issue that needs to be worked out in a consensus of the gaming group. I've never been fond of "Rule Zero", and I don't think the GM should resort to cop-outs in order for everyone to have a good gaming experience.

SL James

Aug 25 2005, 03:25 PM

Post #11

Shadowrun Setting Nerd

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,632
Joined: 28-June 05
From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower.
Member No.: 7,473

QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 25 2005, 08:18 AM)

In a word, yes. The standard Karma award is still about 5-10 Karma per run.

For the team?

Geez. I give out 1-3 karma per character. Any lower and they'd be going backwards.

tisoz

Aug 25 2005, 03:26 PM

Post #12

Free Spirit

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Bloomington, IN UCAS
Member No.: 1,920

QUOTE (prionic6)

What about this Houserule: You can not have more attribute dice than skill dice in a dicepool. I would suspect this got playtested as it is almost the same rule as in sr 3 (e.g. no more combat pool than skill). What were the results?

That makes converting characters even harder when SR3 has skills linked to Attributes and usually lower than attributes to keep costs down.

Maybe not making it harder to convert, but screwing the convert even more.

hahnsoo

Aug 25 2005, 03:27 PM

Post #13

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014

QUOTE (SL James)

QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 25 2005, 08:18 AM)

In a word, yes. The standard Karma award is still about 5-10 Karma per run.

For the team?

Jesus. I give out 1-3 karma per character. Any lower and they'd be going backwards.

Per person. Karma awards have never been distributed among the team like nuyen. You always have a team award and personal awards, and the team award is a minimum of 1 Karma each (if the runners survived and didn't complete any objectives at all). Assuming you make all of your objectives, and there were some personal awards, you can reasonably see 5-6 Karma per person.

SL James View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 03:30 PM Post #14
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473	wha... Survival doesn't guarantee karma with me. I had two players take out a room full of personal bodyguards and kill a Southeast Asian warlord and disappear with minimal injuries, and they got 2 karma each. They got 3 karma overall for some really good RP before and after the hit, but... Geez, 10? I mean, I also know a GM who gives out karma like candy (6-12+), but I also don't have any self-respect after playing in his games.

Shadow_Prophet

Aug 25 2005, 03:33 PM

Post #15

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 445
Joined: 18-August 05
Member No.: 7,567

QUOTE (hahnsoo)

I think Shadow_Prophet and Serbitar both have good points.

On p 106, it says:

QUOTE

For many of these situations, gamemasters must rely on their own judgment to decide which skills are needed, determine the situation modifiers, and interpret what it all means. The following guidelines and rules will help resolve some more common situations

This gives your average GM a lot of leeway in determining the effect of certain rolls and the impact that the numerical value of skills (versus the numerical value of attributes) can have within the game. At the same time, the rules lay down a framework by which your average GM can build their foundation of skill resolution. In the case of not having a skill, aside from the absolute cases of not being able to default, the GM is given the final say in deciding whether or not the character gets to roll at all. I think this sort of philosophy can reasonably extend beyond Rating 0 skills, although this will be something that varies from game to game.

I like the fact that the game can portray a talented neophyte (high attributes, low skills), or a grizzled experienced veteran (high skill, low attributes), or the best of the best (both are high). The concern is that there is a higher emphasis on attributes rather than skills. Given the hard caps on how many attributes you can purchase at character creation, I think this only becomes a key issue later in the game, when the characters have spent Karma to increase their attributes to the maximum levels. One can argue that all versions of SR was like this, though, with the addition of pool dice (which was the way earlier versions of Shadowrun added attributes in a skill roll).

I don't like the fact that the numerical value of skill, under the "GM fiat" method of skill resolution, does not mechanically equate directly to the actual utility of the skill, instead being solely governed by the GM. As a player, I do not want to be told that I can't even attempt a task governed by a skill simply because my skill rating is too low, especially when the rules governing the task are known to me, and mechanically I'd still have a chance at completing that task. It is a tricky issue that needs to be worked out in a consensus of the gaming group. I've never been fond of "Rule Zero", and I don't think the GM should resort to cop-outs in order for everyone to have a good gaming experience.

Your last point makes alot of sense. Thats kinda why I put in there the idea of the threshold roll in the second example where i compared two people with the same dice pool. He'd be able to gain some insight, but just doesn't quite have enough knowledge in the area to get the same effect as the other guy who's more highly trained. But your point is well noted sir.

tisoz View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 03:37 PM Post #16
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920	Like it was stated earlier, karma awards look the same as they did in SR3. But for you dense guys ;), Character survived the adventure - 1 Character fulfilled most (2/3) objectives - 1 adventure was extra challenging - 1 Character was particularly brave or smart - 1 or 2 Good roleplaying - 1 or 2 Character pushed the storyline forward - 1 Character had the right skills at the right place and time - 1 Player impressed group with humor or drama - 1 or 2

hahnsoo

Aug 25 2005, 03:41 PM

Post #17

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014

QUOTE (SL James)

wha...

Survival doesn't guarantee karma with me. I had two players take out a room full of personal bodyguards and kill a Southeast Asian warlord and disappear with minimal injuries, and they got 2 karma each. They got 3 karma overall for some really good RP before and after the hit, but... Geez, 10?

I mean, I also know a GM who gives out karma like candy (6-12+), but I also don't have any self-respect after playing in his games.

According to the rules, Survival gives 1 Karma. That's the way it's always has been. Completing objectives gives 1 Karma (or more, in SR2/3). 10 is highly unusual (it would mean getting every single award on the table), and SR4 says that no GM should probably give out more Karma than that. If a run goes well, all the objectives are achieved, folks were in the right place, right time, RP awards given, then 5 points is not unreasonable, 7 may be pushing it, and 10 only after the best run a particular player has ever done.

The average Karma award for our games is 4, and that's if we do well. We've had 1 Karma for survival before.

SFEley

Aug 25 2005, 03:47 PM

Post #18

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 17-August 05
From: Atlanta, GA
Member No.: 7,565

QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet)

QUOTE

Looking at the mechanics straight up. I could probably do things like, program a IC with that, or hack into a decently secure network. Look at it from a realistic standpoint and, while he's got the natural aptitude (the high logic stat not the quality) for programing, he doesn't have the skill to do such things, as illustrated by the low skill. When you actualy think about it that way raising the skill is better. Gives you the same dice pool for that skill BUT it would allow you to do more.

So what you're saying is, the only good reason to raise Skills instead of Attributes is because the GM might decide to give you better options in storytelling.

Now I'm a storytelling kind of guy, but that strikes me as broken. The majority of tests aren't going to be attempting new or challenging things; they're going to involve shooting someone, or casting the same manabolt they've cast a thousand times before. In a test like that where there really isn't much depth beyond the dice roll, it will always make sense to favor the attribute, unless the GM's going to decide something arbitrary and stupid like, "I'm sorry, your Pistols 1 training never covered targets who were running. I'm not going to let you shoot him."

Even in the example you use, players have way too much leverage to appeal. "But look how Logical I am! I may not have the experience, but shouldn't I have a chance to hack the system just by breaking it down piece-by-piece into steps I already know and interpolating the new data? No? Oh, okay. ...Why not?"

GMs need to have latitude, but that latitude always ought to be grounded in the mechanics of the game. If the game mechanics say "GMs should use their latitude" in something so fundamental, that bodes poorly for game consistency and player satisfaction.

hahnsoo

Aug 25 2005, 03:50 PM

Post #19

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014

QUOTE (tisoz)

Character survived the adventure - 1
Character fulfilled most (2/3) objectives - 1
adventure was extra challenging - 1
Character was particularly brave or smart - 1 or 2
Good roleplaying - 1 or 2
Character pushed the storyline forward - 1
Character had the right skills at the right place and time - 1
Player impressed group with humor or drama - 1 or 2

For comparison, SR3 Karma Awards (p243-244):
Team Awards:
* Survival: 1 point
* Completing Objectives: 1-2 points
* Threat: 1-2 points
Individual Awards:
* Good roleplaying: Award 1 Karma Point to players who mostly stayed in character. Excellent roleplaying is worth 2 Karma Points. The standards for good roleplaying will depend on how a gamemaster and his or her group like to play. Be flexible, however. Shadowrun is supposed to be fun, not a course in method acting.
* Guts: Brave and/or effective fighters should get a point of Karma, two if they are particularly heroic. (Stupidly brave fighters don’t earn this award. Survival is its own reward, should they be so lucky.) Actions that might merit this award include gutsy magical battles in astral space and hard-fought combat in the Matrix as well as shoot-’em-ups in the physical world.
* Smarts: Players whose characters come up with a clever strategy, solve a puzzling clue or pull off a good scam should get at least 1 point of Karma. This award also goes to characters smart enough to know when to surrender or run.
* Motivation: Players whose characters really drive the storyline forward, or who are continously motivated to resolve problems and find solutions may be deserving of 1 Karma point. Characters who start plotlines on their own accord, instead of awaiting the gamemaster to drop something in their lap, are particularly deserving.
* Right place/right time: Characters who are in the right place, with the right skill to do some necessary job, should get 1 point of Karma. However, don’t award Karma just for making good dice rolls. The award should go to a character who has a vital skill and knows when to use it. The character should not have known in advance that she would need the skill. If the players knew that they would need to pick a lock and so had a character slot the Lockpicking Skill beforehand, a Karma award is unmerited. If the team got trapped in a dead-end alley with the bad guys closing in, and one of them just happened to spot an old doorway and picked the lock under fire so the team could escape—well, that’s different story.
* Surprise: A surprising and effective strategy is worth a Karma Point to the player who comes up with it. Ideas or actions that foil a gamemaster’s well-laid plans should be rewarded.
* Humor and drama: A player who paralyzes the entire gaming group with laughter while acting in character should get 1 Karma Point. We are in this for fun, after all. Likewise, if a player acting in character impresses the group with a particular piece of high drama (or melodrama), he or she should earn a point of Karma.

Shadow_Prophet

Aug 25 2005, 04:02 PM

Post #20

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 445
Joined: 18-August 05
Member No.: 7,567

QUOTE (SFEley)

QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet)

QUOTE

Looking at the mechanics straight up. I could probably do things like, program a IC with that, or hack into a decently secure network. Look at it from a realistic standpoint and, while he's got the natural aptitude (the high logic stat not the quality) for programing, he doesn't have the skill to do such things, as illustrated by the low skill. When you actualy think about it that way raising the skill is better. Gives you the same dice pool for that skill BUT it would allow you to do more.

So what you're saying is, the only good reason to raise Skills instead of Attributes is because the GM might decide to give you better options in storytelling.

Now I'm a storytelling kind of guy, but that strikes me as broken. The majority of tests aren't going to be attempting new or challenging things; they're going to involve shooting someone, or casting the same manabolt they've cast a thousand times before. In a test like that where there really isn't much depth beyond the dice roll, it will always make sense to favor the attribute, unless the GM's going to decide something arbitrary and stupid like, "I'm sorry, your Pistols 1 training never covered targets who were running. I'm not going to let you shoot him."

Even in the example you use, players have way too much leverage to appeal. "But look how Logical I am! I may not have the experience, but shouldn't I have a chance to hack the system just by breaking it down piece-by-piece into steps I already know and interpolating the new data? No? Oh, okay. ...Why not?"

GMs need to have latitude, but that latitude always ought to be grounded in the mechanics of the game. If the game mechanics say "GMs should use their latitude" in something so fundamental, that bodes poorly for game consistency and player satisfaction.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But this brings things back to roll playing.

Anyways, your example about combat. Let me come up with a example of when i might say, no you're not skilled enough to take the shot, or possibly make it a threshold roll to allow for minimal success/pure luck. His target is at long range and has cover and its poor lighting so the pc knows where he is, but can just barely see him. My response to the pc would be, you don't realy have the experiance to make that shot. If he insists on making the roll, i give him the apropriate modifiers and give him a threshold depending on what his dicepool looks like after the modifiers.

The hacking example, my response to that is simply you're very logical yes. You've broken it down into multiple steps. However some of this code and security you've never seen before, heck you don't even know where to start. If you realy want to try to screw around with it you could try, but logic is telling you this is way out of your league.

As for the GM's lattitude haveing to be grounded in the mechanics, I would say that thats not correct. The GM's lattitude is grounded in the game and in making the game enjoyable to ALL parties. Thats where it has always been grounded. Its the first rule ushualy for GM's. "These rules are only a guide, if a rule will bog down the game or make things ufair/fun, you can choose to ignore or change it if it will benifit your game." Or something along those lines.

mintcar View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 04:06 PM Post #21
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505	If attempting a task that you do not have the knowledge to preform, you should have the threshold raised. The increase could be countered by having the information handy as a manual or in headware. A difficulty is determined by the task itself AND by the condition of the person attempting it. If the GM decides the character has never attempted it before because of a low skill value, the GM should raise the difficulty. If this is enforced frequently the use of having high skill values becomes very obvious when attempting complicated things. <<edit>> a bit to late there maybe

SL James

Aug 25 2005, 04:09 PM

Post #22

Shadowrun Setting Nerd

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,632
Joined: 28-June 05
From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower.
Member No.: 7,473

QUOTE (hahnsoo)

QUOTE (SL James @ Aug 25 2005, 10:30 AM)

wha...

Survival doesn't guarantee karma with me. I had two players take out a room full of personal bodyguards and kill a Southeast Asian warlord and disappear with minimal injuries, and they got 2 karma each. They got 3 karma overall for some really good RP before and after the hit, but... Geez, 10?

I mean, I also know a GM who gives out karma like candy (6-12+), but I also don't have any self-respect after playing in his games.

According to the rules, Survival gives 1 Karma. That's the way it's always has been. Completing objectives gives 1 Karma (or more, in SR2/3). 10 is highly unusual (it would mean getting every single award on the table), and SR4 says that no GM should probably give out more Karma than that. If a run goes well, all the objectives are achieved, folks were in the right place, right time, RP awards given, then 5 points is not unreasonable, 7 may be pushing it, and 10 only after the best run a particular player has ever done.

The average Karma award for our games is 4, and that's if we do well. We've had 1 Karma for survival before.

I guess we're just different that way. I don't see survival as any more impressive than keeping in-character.

mmu1

Aug 25 2005, 04:10 PM

Post #23

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058

QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet @ Aug 25 2005, 12:02 PM)

Anyways, your example about combat. Let me come up with a example of when i might say, no you're not skilled enough to take the shot, or possibly make it a threshold roll to allow for minimal success/pure luck. His target is at long range and has cover and its poor lighting so the pc knows where he is, but can just barely see him. My response to the pc would be, you don't realy have the experiance to make that shot. If he insists on making the roll, i give him the apropriate modifiers and give him a threshold depending on what his dicepool looks like after the modifiers.

Is that ever going to work both ways?

Because I can see plenty of situations in which you'd be justified in saying to a player "Nah, I'm not going to let you roll - true, you've got a lot of experience and your technique is great, but you're too slow, old and fat to be able to apply it well in a combat as chaotic as this anymore."

hahnsoo

Aug 25 2005, 04:11 PM

Post #24

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014

QUOTE (SL James)

I guess we're just different that way. I don't see survival as any more impressive than keeping in-character.

It's okay to have House Rules, as long as you recognize them as such when it pertains to discussions with the community as a whole. Everyone has their own House Rules, but we all by necessity have to use the Base Rules as a common ground for discussion.

SL James View Member Profile	Aug 25 2005, 04:13 PM Post #25
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473	Of course. This just comes from an expectation that karma awards would be reduced in this edition compared to Third, which I assumed would actually make my awards more "normal". I also maintain pretty high standards for everything not survival or completion. In all my years of GMing Shadowrun, I've given out the humor karma award once. I don't think I've ever given out the guts or right place, right time awards.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »