Similar but different I'd say, a bum with a street lifestyle still has items which could be considered of value. Even if they only have rags, they have possesions. An animal won't have that.

My other reason for shifting the numbering up by one was that all other stats in the game start at 1, and it doesn't make sense to have one stat start at 0 when no others do.

B lerning that there ironish humour stuff 2 k? ;P

Ok, maybe you know humour since you can be funny. Maybe recognition is the issue?

EDIT: Here, to help out I'll put in the closest approximation of a mechanical smilie there is on this board. The doesn't really work because that's like a person with a little bit of chrome, so we'll have to go veggie-automated. Like Veggi Tales, but with less scripture.

The funny part about Street is that there isn't anything saying that spending nothing to get Street doesn't still pay for your ability to do the offshore banking, the cost of which is suppose to be included in Lifestyle. But that's really part of the larger issue of a current lack of resolution mechanics for Lifestyle to differentiate between them.

I suppose there is only so much you can cram into 350+ pages. Perhaps that is something that is planned for a supplement book.

My point exactly, but I think the mechanic they have right now will work fine also. I just like to see symmetry in stats.

@Plasmaphobic (there now filled in)
Honestly, I think any system will work for your group, it seems so tight knit that you could probably get away with out any rules for it.

I agree with that. If you are going to call it an Attribute you might as well largely treat it like an Attribute. At least no more deviation than with those other special Attributes, Magic and Resonance.

I get the impression that the group is likely so used to using a system like he described that they already are going to have a fairly close common understanding of the rules. Because there are always rules, even if you don't write them down.

I had the thought that maybe, to try tie in Fake SINs, that you'd establish a limit of 1 SIN, real or fake, per Lifestyle. Then allow them to split the Resource points you currently have among multiple Lifestyles. So someone with Resource 4 could have 1 Middle, or 1 Low with 1 Street, or 2 Squatters.

Another germ of a thought is some sort of limit on the quality of the Fake SIN based on Lifestyle, but I'm not sure about good numbers for that yet because by RAW anything below about Fake SIN 4 is a liability rather than an asset. The way I'd favour addressing that is changing the Fake SIN rating into a Threshold, but that really starts to sprawl the houserule out.

That's how I run it, anyway, as this is the only way it works.

I hear ya.

We don't know why you are so fascinated by anal intercourse, Brahm - and we certainly don't want to.

Curiously, the book describes all Shadowrunners as having a savings account.

There are thrill seekers that are simply hooked on being beyond the law, like Henry Hill of Goodfellas fame/infamy. Then there are people that have goals that can only be realistically achieved in the shadows, or they are force into the shadows because of situations. But what you say is definately true of runners that are in the shadows just as a different way to fatten up their bank account, which is what I'm saying. Money as a motivation sucks unless you are cool with a dungeon crawl for loot type of game. Not that I'm saying that people can't possibly like such a game, but you shouldn't be surprised when you end up there.

That's something I consciously tried to work in. If you roll bad trying to buy something you can effectively be broke until you can get paid again. Now technically you can just sit there and not worry about your Lifestyle. But the idea is is that the GM is providing somewhat more active encouragement through enemies and such.

Plus just surviving isn't living. If the player doesn't want to try make their character live then WTF are they doing at the gaming table?

I hear you about melding the two systems, Avail and purchasing. Like you read my mind. I dislike the 2-stage approach of unconnected systems. But I'm really kind of at a loss at this point on how to go about linking or combining the two. I don't want to have situations where Avail type problems with a particular item automatically lead to you being broke.

In some ways what I don't like about the Avail is the Extended Test nature of it. Or at least Extended Tests without roll limits, which is maybe what is really bugging me about it all. So there just needs to be a bit smoother link from Avail to getting the cash together?

Let him have his nuke... and the various megacorps, governments, pirates, and organized crime families that want it too.

Me too. That's why I flipped on the automated response to him. Just trying to keep him from killing the thread again. Only time will tell if it'll succeed.

There are always rules. You just made one up. Problem is it only covers Middle Lifestyle, and it doesn't address other items.

It is just a matter of whether or not they are written down. If they aren't written down then everyone at the table needs a very close copy in their head or confusion during the game ensues and either the game starts to bog as the collective understanding of the rules get straightened out or the players sit and scratch their head because they can't effectively communicate or plan their character's actions because they don't know what the hell is going and are unable to reliably predict cause-effect in the game world.

Generally if they're looking for a nuke they'll be wanting to set it off. All they have to do is manage that before they get tracked down by the rest of them. Of course, then they get to contend with the people that don't like nukes being set off.

Nuke is just a crazy example, the availability rules make a ton of other things possible, and can ruin a game if they're used in a way inconsistent with the theme of the campaign. For example, street level gangers finding restricted military gear can totally rewrite a game's dynamic. While it's possible to interject roleplaying downsides to everything that doesn't fit the campaign's premise, it's easier and much more conducive to a flowing story if the things just aren't available.

Are you by any chance a cartoonist?

Sure you have gotten the point. Lots of people here have gotten the point. But it seems James needs lots of reps for him to assimilate things, even the simple ones apparently. Which is what the problem was to start with.

No problem. Here, I'll give you the brief rundown of where I'm looking so far. I really need to get this into a one-pager and posted up somewhere.

You have Resource attribute which does three things:
1) Determines the level of your Lifestyle(s).
2) Allows you to roll Resource + Logic to see if you have some item on you, or in one of your Lifestyle locations, that isn't explicitly on your inventory sheet. Threshold is determined by the item's cost and obscurity. A Knowledge skill appropriate to the item might come into play here as an alternative to Logic, or maybe even just extra dice.
3) Roll (Resource * 2) + Negotiations dice against a Threshold that corrosponds to where the item price matches up to a logarithmic progresion of nuyen values. Because the scale is log based you can use modifiers to the Threshold or dice pool to approximate percentage modifiers to the price like availability or legality.

When using Resource for #3 you build up penalties to future uses of #3. If you succeed at the roll a 1 die penalty. If you fail a die penalty the size of which you missed the Threshold by. When you do a run you remove some or all of that penalty. You can also recieve a one-time use bonus on a use of #3 as payment from the run. I'm not giving all the details here, but that is the core of it.

Rule of 4 dice could also be used for #3, although looking at it just using Resource as a number of automatic hits instead of rolling would work well. You still get the -1 die penalty though, and that penalty also counts directly againts the value of Resource if you are using Resource for the automatic hits to buy.

A few other things too, but that's the gist of it so far.

*an automated reminder for the slow kid (now urine-centric for Rotbart's reading pleasure!) *

While you are right that it is more simple to make something plainly unavailable, if you've got someone who is persistant, I say let them have it... but leave some strings attached to it. You saw the Jackal right? He orders a high powered automatic weapon (and I believe even so far as uranium depleted shells) but he had to contend with some pirates that had gotten wind of the shipment.

here you go little ganger, here's your *blank*... oh an a dozen or so mobsters with fully loaded automatic weapons coming your way. Next time get a more reliable contact.

*an automated reminder for the slow kid (now urine-centric for Rotbart's reading pleasure!) *

No. You're one of the ones to be wondered about, actually. The fact is, if you're going to acknowledge the fact that your writing is disjointed and scattered all over the place, you can't really (with any credibility) tell someone that they're a moron for not following right along perfectly. Also, it's a fair sign that a "discussion" is over and has no point in continuing when one party gives up and resorts to simply insulting the other. Communication is an exchange of ideas. If you can't properly communicate your system of ideas to another person (who, by all evidence, is quite capable of understaning it, as he has contributed his own system of ideas here and there), then you have failed to communicate. Simple stuff.

I'd love to see all of your thoughts and notes and mechanics for this. In one place and coherent, though. Same for anyone else that has one.

As to your comment on my "middle lifestyle rule", that's hardly a rule. I was offering an example of something that might come up in play that would be easily adjudicated based on the game at hand, without needing to spend time writing, perfecting, and resorting to rules. You can nitpick the semantics of it all day to make it appear that it is a rule, but you'd be wasting your time. (Nobody's stopping you though, so knock yourself out.)