I already have all those. I bought a ton when they where discounted after going out of production.

Damn you trying to start this thread before it's time. Someone hand me a rolled up newspaper.

to steal a concept from the wizards.com boards, that's the oberoni fallacy right there.

(to paraphrase the fallacy, it goes something like this: if something isn't a problem because the DM/GM can fix it, then it must clearly be a problem in the first place because otherwise it wouldn't need to be fixed. therefore you can't argue "that's not a problem, because the GM can fix it", because you are arguing in favor of fixing the bloody problem that you insist isn't there in the first place. it is invalid to argue otherwise)

yes, the system cannot cover everything. no one is arguing that it should try to cover every single detail. the thing is, there are some kind of important, rather basic to the system concepts which are not covered. we're not talking about some improbable situation, we're not talking about how NPCs react to things, we're talking about "how do i hack into a system?".

and yes, while no system is going to be perfectly balanced, or error free, and while it is true that any system can be broken/unbalanced if you have someone trying hard enough, the simple fact of the matter is that this does not change the fact that it should be designed such that no one is punished for making perfectly reasonable, legitimate choices. there is no reason someone should pay as much for a skill group as they would for an attribute. there is even less reason why someone should pay more for a skill group than they would for an attribute.

the current system essentially means that unless everyone is intentionally doing things the same way (that is, everyone is maxing out attributes as much as possible) and using the same kind of character, there is going to be an imbalance. there is no one *trying* to break the system here, it's just the way it is. if you have to intentionally make an effort to *not* imbalance things, then you are bloody well looking at a situation where you have a problem.

therefore, since there is a problem which is clearly visible as soon as anyone does even the least amount of analysis, and that problem requires nothing more complex than simple addition and subtraction to notice, it stands to reason that it is a problem that ideally should have been spotted and corrected when the game was first designed. since it was not, we are stuck with either:

1) having an obviously flawed system that can't handle balancing things between players who aren't even intentionally trying to break it, and pretending this is not a problem

2) as 1), but acknowledge it is a problem and wait until it gets fixed... which may be when they create a new edition for all we know (it would be nice to have something in the SR companion type book, but we can't really know what's in it until we are told).

3) as 1), except we acknowledge it is a problem and intentionally all build similar characters using similar BP expenditures to start

4) making house rules, to fill in the gaps and flaws in the system as currently exists.

personally, i prefer option 4. if you prefer options 1-3, then that's fine. but understand that you are simply sticking your head in the sand and declaring that since you can't see any problems, there are none.

Well, if this is the result of it, then I can't really see it's a problem. The example that produced this 142 karma passing point was one in which a ridiculously min-maxed character (1s in both attributes) is used. Such a character would not survive in most games and if you average 5-6 karma per session that's 25 sessions till pay off which is quite a while to me.

Furthermore, to produce this example (which I presume was intended to make a worst case in order to best illustrate Frank's argument) is comparing attributes to skill groups. Yes, it may be nice to raise the entire Close Combat group, but many characters will be happy (in the example given) just to get Unarmed Combat up there, say an adept with killing hands. So there is a popular option to avoid this scenario when comparing attributes to skills. It smells a little strawmannish to me.

And finally, it seems to me that the "skill man" problem of catching up to "attribute man" vanishes once he has. Frank's argument seems to be that if you take a certain length of play (i.e. a twenty-five (ish) development plan) then you gain an advantage over the attribute purchasing player. But it seems arbitrary in that case to stop here. Why can we not say that take a longer term view still, and the problem soon vanishes again as the characters are developing at an equivalent rate after this and the remaining karma edge that the "skill man" has gained becomes an ever decreasing proportion of the total karma earned.

I guess these are some of the invisible balances that Blakkie was talking about. Another one would be lack of flexibility. Maybe some players don't care, but it would be a big issue to me. The player that creates a viable character from the outset has choice where to spend all incoming karma. If the game grows in a certain direction or the player wishes to develop the character in a new way, he is free to do so. But the long-term min-maxer has effectively borrowed from his future karma earnings. He is committed to a certain development path for the next twenty-plus games. That would be quite a negative in terms of enjoyment and freedom, wouldn't you say?

Or to put it in extremely simplistic terms:

"If you say that there is not a problem with a system because you can change the system to fix the problem, you are wrong."

-Frank

Well, yes. The min-maxing of both is done to exagerate the point about difference in karma costs to reach the same point. If either or both were less min-maxed then the difference in karma costs would be correspondingly less dramatic. The less contrived the example, the less the "problem" shows up.

As to the other point, if by grandfathered PCs, you mean that a GM would say "Create advanced characters - you're allowed 400BP and 200 karma" then yes, this then becomes a bit more of a problem. But the far far simpler solution would be to follow the normal character build suggestion for adjusting power level and vary the starting BP instead. Voilá - the issue has gone.

Quite the opposite my friend. While the example was in fact completely contrived, it was produced to maximize the catch-up effect of the comparative advantage held in making bad life choices in character generation.

In a less contrived example, the character who spends more points on attributes is not only better at the start of play, but continues to be better for longer. In short, the example was a best case example for balance, not a best case example for imbalance.

The problems with Karma and Build Points are obvious and well documented - starting with a 6 in one skill is objectively superior to starting play with two fives - when you're both looking at double sixes you're going to be able to specialize both skills with the points you saved. The examples of skill man and attribute man were intended to demonstrate that the claim that characters who avoid attributes at character generation will somehow be rewarded is specious - within the lifetime of the campaign it isn't going to happen even under ridiculously ideal circumstances.

So no, the fact that the Skill Man doesn't pull ahead in that example within the lifetime of the average game is not something to console you - that's a fucking alarm. That's the mathematical best case, and it aint happening.

-Frank

No, what I meant by grandfathered PCs was refering to the "conversion" of SR3 SRM PCs into SR4 SRM ones. Voila! Problem created.

Heh you rock, that was damn funny. Though I do wonder if you work for the California utilities.

You, sir, get a cookie.

To the contrary: The real world is balanced to the extreme. Everything that exists has a reason why it exists exactly that way.

Note that we are not talking about "power" balance her, but about rules consistency balance.

Thats why we humans are the dominant animal on the planet, and are consuming the resources at an ungodly rate with nothing keeping us in check except for ourselves and the occasional disease. Gotcha.

So the world's unfair, so the rules should be too?

By defending the bad rules we are making the people who think up fixes to really dig into their fixes. This reduces half assed fixes that might unbalance another part of the game and also makes sure their stance that the rules should be changed is a strong one.

If we all just agreed with the first thing that came out, we would eventually have some truly wacky shit as houserules.

Plus, I just like to debate, even though I might not be good at it.

Fair enough. I love to debate too, so I totally understand (even though I think you are evil for playing the devil's advocate here - sad pun intended).

Totally off-topic: are you from South Korea or are you there for work? I'm teaching English in Busan at the moment and I'm really enjoying it.

Tis work that brings me to where I am at the moment. My freedom will be at hand in the summer.

nonsense. you don't protect the system from bad houserules by defending the core rules to the exclusion of all else. you protect the system from bad houserules by 'attacking' bad houserules (that is, by pointing out flaws in them), or better yet by proposing corrections to bad houserules (thereby not just tearing down something, but instead helping to build something not very good into something better).

defending the rules as defined in the book doesn't protect anyone from bad rules, instead it perpetuates the use of whatever substandard rules are found in the book, rather than encouraging better solutions.

that being said, i can certainly understand enjoying discussion.

Defend your stance or attack another's, either way the dance goes on.

Hell yes.

With only he subtle distinction of one making you productive (contributing feedback to another POV), and one making you an asshole (ideologically refusing to accept that the points of others have merit).

A subtle, but perhaps important distinction.

-Frank

OK....just checking.

You're making the assumption here that everyone agrees these are bad rules.

Many of the people posting disagree that the rules are bad, and have pointed out reasons why they feel the rules are fine as is, or why they think the proof that the rules are bad are invalid.

Obviously, you're in the bad category. I think if most of the other side agreed they were bad, they'd hush.

From the Srd:

"If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creat...GoldPieceValues




Now everything save Wonderous Items state the above. Creating Wonderous Items you do NOT pay XP cost. (seem odd to me), although you DO pay 5gp per XP required.

So XP cost wouldnt be that high, but gold cost would be pretty extreme.

Hmm maybe my english is poor, but that seems to tell me you dont....

Although I agree you SHOULD.

Not quite. I was assuming that I was right thinking that these rules are bad and that everyone thinking they are ok was wrong. Subtle difference - and I guess it just shows how not-so-humble my opinions can be sometimes -, but I hear you. The rules are not necessarily a problem in all games, and the GM can prevent abuses if need be. As such, they can be considered ok. I'll still argue that the rules could be better though. If you think their imperfection is not worth the trouble of changing them, I respect that though. (Sorry for not being able to wrap my mind around the idea that some people might think these rules are great. It seems I just can't. But overall, I really do like the SR4 mechanics, in case some of you were wondering.)

[EDIT: P.S. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just noticing that the way I say stuff shows that I think I am. I guess humility's not really a virtue of mine despite my best tries. More importantly, though, I believe in stating my opinions openly and submitting them to public scrutiny. If, after everyone has a stab at them, I'm still convinced that these opinions are right, then I've learned something valuable. I'm aware that I might still be dead wrong though. It's just my way of debating. I hope I don't come across the wrong way.]

Best fix? Gee that's hard, how about hmmm.... logical, consistent, and clear?
Yes I know, quite a bit to ask for.

Do not reduce the effectiveness of overcasting! It's fine as it is!

What? It was worth a try.

Whose logic? Clearness as determined by....?

If I say to you "take them out", I am being quite clear, at least to me.
What do you think I was saying? take them out to dinner and a movie, take them out of the house, knock them out, kill them, etc...

I would like to see a good sized (who's reference? ) amount of examples of how the rules work. Casting spells (direct, indirect), matrix activities, etc... That may help clear up any confusion about how certain rules are to be interpreted.

Bah don't pull that subjectiveness BS.
Google or wikipedia "Technical Writing" if you want to answer your own questions.

But that subjectiveness seems to be the major stumbling block for all the rule arguments/discussions. Otherwise, the game would have been perfected long ago, with a nice FAQ and Errata stickied.

Hmm, think Dumpshock would be a fair bit quieter, and probably more boring, if that were the case.

LMAO:

Bonus karma point for you Knasser (see who says I'm mean)...

As to overcasting.... been discussed to death.... I would run my games either way... with slight preference to limiting the 'extreme' of overcasting.... but if players preferred 'raw' that woudl be fine too.... NPC can overcast just as easy as players (heck easier since NPC are throw away

Ain't that the truth?

"Oh, yeah, that mage had spent all his karma quickening spells, and binding spirits. 6 Force 8 earth spirits are attacking you, and the mage has cast 4 force 8 manabolts with his increased reflexes. Oh, and the sam with a gyromount."

Look, any system can be run fair or balanced with a good GM. I've seen fair and balanced Rifts games under a good GM. The rules need to be judged assuming a new or incompetent GM. If the rules rely on GM interpretation too much, they cease being effective rules.

That GMs can make calls when the rules don't make sense is a given. With that as a given, every time the rules say to rely on Gamemaster Judgement is repetitive at best and a failure at worst.

The problems in a system cannot be solved with handwaving and saying "the GM just needs to GM better."

I and many others noticed that you could take those incompetencies by the RAW, and house ruled that you could not take incompetent in a skill you can't default on. It is one example of why the RAW needs work.

Something doesn't need to be abusive to be broken. It just needs to not work right.