Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wait, What? Lifestyle Limitations?!
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Ol' Scratch
I'm seriously confused. A friend of mine recently pointed out that the character creation rules for SR4 states that you can only ever have one Lifestyle. Period. End of story.

Yet in the same breath (meaning the same paragraph), the rules tell you that if you want a safehouse, garage, private storage, workshop, or whatever else, you have to buy it separately.

That left me thoroughly confused by the first limitation mentioned.

With all that in mind, I decide to flip through the gear chapter and have a look. The only two things I could find in relation to the "you have to buy it separately" clause was the price for a safehouse -- at a ridiculous 500-nuyen a day -- and a workshop in the form of a facility which is just the tools, not the housing.

So... what the hell? You want to maintain a scuzzy little hidey-hole in the Ork Underground in case the drek hits the fan, and instead of paying for a Low or Squatter Lifestyle to reflect that maintanence, you instead have to pay 15,000-nuyen a month for it?! That's more than a High Lifestyle. And what are you supposed to do if you want any of the other things the limitation mentioned? A separate workshop? Private storage? Garage?

Seriously. What's with the "only one Lifestyle" limit? It makes no sense whatsoever.
imperialus
It doesn't make much sence to me either but the "safehouse" lifestyle is intended to be like hospitalized. Basically it's there when you need it but you only pay while you're using it.

Of course this assumes that there is enouogh of a demand to support an entire safehouse industry which strikes me as a little strange. Sure some organizations are going to maintain safehouses for their members but I can hardly see them maintaining what literally amounts to a very expensive hotel that wanted criminals hide out in. If such an organization did maintain a safehouse then why on gods green earth would they want to rent it out to any Joe who wants to lay low for a while. Half the point of a safehouse is that it's secret... something that is quickly going to change if you have people in and out all the time. Not only that but once the secret is out what is going to keep the cops from periodically kicking the door in just to take a look around and see who they catch.

Personally I run it like in SR3. You have your "primary" lifestyle then as many secondary lifestyles as you can afford. Secondary lifestyles get a 25% discount since lifestyle cost accounts for food, toilet paper and other consumables that you just don't need.
Unarmed
We just houseruled it so that you can have more than one lifestyle, because that was a pretty good mechanic in SR3 and I don't see any reason why it doesn't work in SR4.

There was a thread about this a while ago and people came to the conclusion that the 500/day was going to be a safehouse that you needed in a hurry that you didn't have before, not a pre-existing safehouse you had fully set up.
Bira
This makes plenty of sense if you consider that "Lifestyle" is an abstraction for your generic monthly expenses, rather than just your rent for a single place. Finding creative ways to abstract safehouses and other minor stuff shouldn't be a problem - it's hardly the end of the world.

Maybe your character lives a Medium Lifestyle, but pays for High because he mantains multiple secure bolt-holes all through the city (country, world, etc.). Or maybe he lives just an inconsequent smidge below "standard" Medium and mantains a flea-ridden pad in the Barrens. Whatever.

I imagine 500nY per day is for a short-term secure place, the kind you have to rent from some other professional criminal because you need to hide now, and don't have time to set something up yourself.
Ol' Scratch
Yeah, I realize that's the intent of the Safehouse Service. I only pointed to it because it's the only rule I could find about buying things like that separately from a Lifestyle.

I mean, I could understand if the rule said "you only get starting nuyen from your highest level Lifestyle if you own multiple Liifestyles." That's a reasonable limit to place down, even though I find it equally silly having to use such a mechanic instead of just keeping leftover Resources. But "only one Lifestyle ever ever ever?" Insanity, especially with them telling you that you need more than one if you want the alternatives...
imperialus
only getting money from your highest lifestyle makes sense to me.

I think the intention behind the "don't keep your starting cash rule" is to prevent people from saving 200K during character creation then spending the money on some wiz peice of availability 18 gear right after the game starts. *shrugs* doesn't make much sense to me but I could see someone doing it.
Whipstitch
Keeping the cash would be ridiculously awesome for some archetypes, honestly. Hitting the streets and immediately buying a Pain Editor could be just what the doctor ordered for a Mage or troll tank with heaps of armor, and that's only 8 bp worth of gear. That said, my group happily ignores the safehouse costs unless we're doing something crazy like asking the Yaks to let us hide out in one of their places of business when the heat is real heavy. Otherwise we just throw in together on an extra low lifestyle apartment with some tools, an autodoc and a few survival kits and some bottled water.
WeaverMount
I know that fake SINs wearing out is all GM discretion, but I'd think that if the a character actively maintained a lifestyle for it had a an agent+virtual person surf 24/7, order food that you collected etc, that that would stretch out the viability a lot
coolgrafix
As someone mentioned, this has been discussed before. An official reply came from Rob on page three of this thread.

Enjoy. =)
DireRadiant
Link to coolgrafix's post
Jaid
maybe arsenal or the highly theoretical shadowrunner companion (or whatever it is) will have some specific numbers to suggest...
Demerzel
Are you saying that someone may find a safehouse in your Arse?
Whipstitch
Only if they ask politely.
Demerzel
I can tell already that my biggest regret when SR5 comes out (no matter how bad it is) is that it will probably put an end to the Arse jokes...
Ol' Scratch
Bah. That response is basically saying "we dumbed down the rules but made them more complicated than they had to be by telling you to just make shit up for all the stuff we listed right after that rule; good luck figuring out what to do, suckers."

As opposed to, say, exactly what they did in 3rd Edition where you could buy a lifestyle for whatever purpose you described. Those rules were then essentially replaced by the ones in the Sprawl Survival Guide which allowed you to tailor one for whatever purpose you need.

What I find even more amusing is that they got rid of the basic rule because it apparently cost too much in their opinion. Yet the only option they give you is one that costs an absolutely absurd amount! /boggle

Oh well. Easy enough to house rule. Just terribly disappointing. Thanks for the link nonethless; much appreciated.
Demerzel
Rather it costs a supremely realistic amount... It's just not listed in the book. $500 per day is for a day by day rental, you grab a hotel room, pay someone to put up a quickie ward, and rent some electronic surveillance to put around.

You want a price list for what it costs to set up a safe house without all the attendant costs, go look in the apartments for rent section in your local classifieds.
Aristotle
In SR3 I put together a system based on something I saw either on a website or ShadowRN (I couldn't relocate the original so I just stole the concept). I thought someone mentioned that system was going to go into a book, but I don't remember which book. I obviously don't have it. smile.gif

I devided lifestyles out into like 5 categories IIRC (physical space, entertainment, clothing/decor, food, safety) with 5 levels to each. Then people could set the levels they wanted for each item where they liked, for each of their lifestlyes.

So if you want to live on the street, you take a 1 in everything and you pay about what the squatter lifestyle comes out to. If you want to live in the lap of luxury you take a 5 in everything and you pay a little more than canon luxury lifestyle. If you just want a secure parking space for your sports car you take a 3 in Space and Security, and you got your monthly fee. It's a rough idea, but it worked out well for extra lifestyles. It also worked out for implants that required the owner to eat more. Just up your food rating to account for more food.

I can't find my original copy. Maybe I'll see if I can work it up again. I love the idea of rolling augmentation maintenance (and maybe hacker SOTA maintenance) fees into as well.
Ol' Scratch
The point is both rules could have existed just fine. The "extra" costs could have just as easily reflected all the maintenance that needed to be done; having someone keep an eye on the property while you're not there, paying a hacker to make it look like it's being lived in in case someone checks up on that fake SIN you have, keeping the utilities running, etc.

Want a garage to park your spare vehicles or drones as a rigger? You're screwed; make up your own rules rather than just buy a lifestyle to reflect it. Want a place to put that Facility you just bought? Tough! Make something up rather than just buy a lifestyle to reflect it. Want a few places around town to hide some emergency kits like a spare gun, ammo, and change of clothes? Sorry, chump, you're on you own. Time to make up prices rather than just reflect it with a few squatter lifestyles.

What exactly was this completely unnecessary rule supposed to do? What possible benefit does it give players? All it does is make things far more complicated than they have to be. For players and GMs.

It's ridiculous that they put a rule like that in the game for the alleged sake of making it easier when it does nothing of the sort. Doubly so while simultaneously leaving out much needed limitations in other areas of the game.
Fortune
QUOTE (Aristotle)
In SR3 I put together a system based on something I saw ...

That's extremely similar to the rules in the Sprawl Survival Guide.
Aristotle
I figured. I think the original author posted them to ShadowRN earlier and then maybe revised and submitted them for that book. I was definately using the system before that book came out (it's on my list of books to buy). All credit goes to the original author of course. I just took what I saw and rebuilt it from memory.
Demerzel
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Want a garage to park your spare vehicles or drones as a rigger? You're screwed; make up your own rules rather than just buy a lifestyle to reflect it. Want a place to put that Facility you just bought? Tough! Make something up rather than just buy a lifestyle to reflect it. Want a few places around town to hide some emergency kits like a spare gun, ammo, and change of clothes? Sorry, chump, you're on you own. Time to make up prices rather than just reflect it with a few squatter lifestyles.


Not make up your own rules, make up your own price. A lifestyle is completely inappropriate for a place to park you stepvan. To simply say I’m buying another low lifestyle and just using it’s parking capacity is wasteful, and then you have to say what percentage of a lifestyle is for parking. So you want High Lifestyle level of security what percentage of a high lifestyle is spent on the garage? Is it the same percentage as for a Middle Lifestyle, or a Low Lifestyle, compared to a High Lifestyle? What you’re asking for with multiple lifestyles leaves more questions than answers.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
What exactly was this completely unnecessary rule supposed to do? What possible benefit does it give players? All it does is make things far more complicated than they have to be.

It's ridiculous that they put a rule like that in the game for the alleged sake of making it easier when it does nothing of the sort. Doubly so while simultaneously leaving out much needed limitations in other areas of the game.


This reminds me a lot of the arguments held here about how it was a mistake to fail to include the mass of every object for sale in the game. It’s a waste of space. I’ve got a concept from my life’s experience what it costs to rent a garage, why do I need to have it spelled out for me? The book gives a sidebar for a variety of services’ costs and that basically gives you an idea of the value of a nuyen, and you just extrapolate what you know. This is probably even simpler than masses of objects. I have a very good idea of what many things costs that I have no clue what their mass is.

In a game I’d much rather hand wave a hazy description of a doss to flop in when I’m on the run, and come up with an agreeable price with than bust out AutoCAD and draft out my garage, with detailed descriptions of the mass and ratings of every security device and the barrier ratings of all the walls, and negotiate my security with the local gang/Lonestar. Life has enough paperwork.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Demerzel @ Aug 7 2007, 06:20 PM)
This reminds me a lot of the arguments held here about how it was a mistake to fail to include the mass of every object for sale in the game.  It’s a waste of space.

A waste of space... how? They added the rule. That took up text. They didn't even have to say anything on the subject or spend exactly the same amount of text to go the other round. "For players wishing to have a personal safehouse, garage, workshop, or other similar alternate facility, simply purhcase an additional lifestyle at the appropriate level and describe it as such."

QUOTE
I’ve got a concept from my life’s experience what it costs to rent a garage, why do I need to have it spelled out for me?

I could look in a gun magazine and find the price of a pistol. Why do I need it spelled out for me? I bought a new outfit last night and know how much a set of clothes cost; why do I need it spelled out for me? I've seen people buy hookers in the movie (honest -- it was just in the movies). Why do I need their prices spelled out to me? etc.

That's probably one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in my life on these forums.

QUOTE
The book gives a sidebar for a variety of services’ costs and that basically gives you an idea of the value of a nuyen, and you just extrapolate what you know.  This is probably even simpler than masses of objects.  I have a very good idea of what many things costs that I have no clue what their mass is.

Yes, so if I want that aforementioned shitty apartment in the Ork Underground as a safehouse, I now know that I have to spend 15,000+ nuyen a month for it, even though I envisioned it as a Low Lifestyle at absolute best. Since, you know, that's the only guideline on the subject we have beyond the actual lifestyle rules -- which fit perfectly. But we can't use them cause of the arbitrary limit of only one ever ever ever.

QUOTE
In a game I’d much rather hand wave a hazy description of a doss to flop in when I’m on the run, and come up with an agreeable price with than bust out AutoCAD and draft out my garage, with detailed descriptions of the mass and ratings of every security device and the barrier ratings of all the walls, and negotiate my security with the local gang/Lonestar.  Life has enough paperwork.

Unfortunately for your entire argument here, the rules already exist. All it takes is the removal of a single useless -- completely and UTTERLY useless -- limitation to fix everything.

Those lifestyle rules are about as simple as things get in this game. They're abstract, open to interpretation, and can easily be described as a multitude of things. Yet the one thing they're most useful for has been eradicated from the game for... no apparent reason whatsoever. Well, beyond the weak "we thought it cost a little too much, but still want to say 'fuck you' in regards to giving you guidelines or rules to the contrary" argument.
WeaverMount
Hey doc, you are absolutely right. The humans who wrote this game made a dumb mistake. They added a line that made the RAW less usable for absolutely no benifit. buuuutt WHO CARES. Are you, or have you ever played with GM who wouldn't let you rent another place because of this line? Even if you are playing with the strictest RAW Natzi who wouldn't let you maintain multiple life styles as a book keeping convenience, does that line also take away from their ability to make up unpublished goods and services? Do you really think that you can't get a storage locker in another city because its part of some mystical lifestyle package? Any GM who would shoot themselves in the foot over such fundamentalist reading of the RAW deserves to have to think up individual unit costs of all the stuff the plays CAN buy/maintain even if it isn't explicitly listed.
Does anyone have a page number a rule saying more or less "GMs get to add stuff in to the setting as needed because we didn't write down every single everything"?
hyzmarca
QUOTE (imperialus)
It doesn't make much sence to me either but the "safehouse" lifestyle is intended to be like hospitalized. Basically it's there when you need it but you only pay while you're using it.

Of course this assumes that there is enouogh of a demand to support an entire safehouse industry which strikes me as a little strange. Sure some organizations are going to maintain safehouses for their members but I can hardly see them maintaining what literally amounts to a very expensive hotel that wanted criminals hide out in. If such an organization did maintain a safehouse then why on gods green earth would they want to rent it out to any Joe who wants to lay low for a while. Half the point of a safehouse is that it's secret... something that is quickly going to change if you have people in and out all the time. Not only that but once the secret is out what is going to keep the cops from periodically kicking the door in just to take a look around and see who they catch.


A safehouse doesn't have to be secret so long as it is well-protected. The great thing about being extraterritorial is that the biggest enemy of most criminals, the police, can be kept at bay without effort, simply by marking your building as being extraterritorial. This is, after all, a world with private ambulance services will shoot police officers in order to extract wounded criminal clients, extract the police officers who they do shoot, and then charge the officers full price for their hospitalizations.

It is also a world which a crime mall operates openly and notoriously in Seattle. An entire shopping mall dedicated to the selling of illegal goods which everyone knows about and no one makes any attempt to shut down.
Aristotle
QUOTE (WeaverMount)
Does anyone have a page number a rule saying more or less "GMs get to add stuff in to the setting as needed because we didn't write down every single everything"?

Of course GM's can add stuff, but here is an instance where adding really shouldn't need to be necessary. I have to agree with Doc. This rule seems like a (very small) step back rather than forward for the game (to me). They could have left it alone, or (page count permitting) made the optional rules from Sprawl Survival Guide the new default. I think a lot of players like the idea of caches of weapons, safe houses, and such... and would like, simple, standard rules to govern the concept. I don't personally think it's necessary in a standard fantasy game, but given the subject matter of Shadowrun I would have to think these extra spaces would be pretty common in the underworld.
Particle_Beam
However, only megacorp belongings are extra-territorial. And you can bet that the police will know if your building is extraterritorial or not, and that they won't be fooled by anybody.
WeaverMount
I totally coincide that this is bad rule that never should have been written down. My question is has it EVERY effected a real game in anyway? Anyone lost time a game table rules lawyering this? Or do you have another objective in talking about the rules besides coming up with interpretations that maximize playability and model the setting?
Ol' Scratch
Actually, my original post had two main purposes. 1) To verify if this was a legitimate rule and not simply an errata'ed mistake or changed elsewhere in the rules. 2) To try and figure out why the rule was there if it was, in fact, a legitimate rule.

As in most threads, the discussion diverged a bit. No shock there. And yes, I'm well aware that I have the amazing power to house rule things. But believe it or not -- I don't like to have to house rule things. Especially silly, nonsensical things like this rule.
Demerzel
QUOTE (WeaverMount)

Does anyone have a page number a rule saying more or less "GMs get to add stuff in to the setting as needed because we didn't write down every single everything"?


Since you asked see p.54
QUOTE (SR4 p.54)
If something in these rules doesn’t quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better—go for it!


That whole section entitled, “The Abstract Nature of Rules? beginning on p.52 is recommended reading for anyone interested in playing any game, even if only as a reminder. They tucked it in with the newbie rules, so most of us veteran gamers skip right over it.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
A waste of space... how? They added the rule. That took up text. They didn't even have to say anything on the subject or spend exactly the same amount of text to go the other round. "For players wishing to have a personal safehouse, garage, workshop, or other similar alternate facility, simply purhcase an additional lifestyle at the appropriate level and describe it as such."


Because then someone with an equal claim to legitimacy than you seem to think you have will come here and say, “Why is this stupid rule here? Why do I have to pay as much to house just my car to the security of a middle class life when a standard middle class life includes that along with shelter, food, and entertainment among other things!?

Then someone with a much more legitimate claim to absurdity is here saying that the developers were idiotic and foolish by asking that you pay all that without including a thousand word section on how to split up the costs of a lifestyle to reflect that your car doesn’t require entertainment and food. Only with some luck that person would be able to make their argument without punctuating it with vulgarities as if it proved something.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
I could look in a gun magazine and find the price of a pistol. Why do I need it spelled out for me?


Well, it’s pretty well known that the firearms in Shadowrun don’t well reflect firearms in real life. So in order to adequately link prices to game stats it’s pretty important actually. If you’re question is why don’t the firearms in Shadowrun reflect real life well, I’d encourage you to go back to the afore mentioned section entitled, “The Abstract Nature of Rules.?

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
I bought a new outfit last night and know how much a set of clothes cost; why do I need it spelled out for me?


I guess you didn’t realize that in fact how much a set of clothes cost is not really spelled out at all… They have listed as price 20-100,000¥. All the rest of the equipment in the clothing and armor section includes game statistics, and well, see avobe.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
I've seen people buy hookers in the movie (honest -- it was just in the movies). Why do I need their prices spelled out to me?


Some people just don’t really know.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
etc.


etc. right back at ya.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
That's probably one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in my life on these forums.


Boy, did you read what you just posted?

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Yes, so if I want that aforementioned shitty apartment in the Ork Underground as a safehouse, I now know that I have to spend 15,000+ ¥ a month for it, even though I envisioned it as a Low Lifestyle at absolute best.


Did you read past the first paragraph of Rob Boyle’s email response quoted in the above linked thread? Because while you seemed to see the part where they mentioned costs, you seem to have failed to notice this next part:

QUOTE (Rob Boyle)
As to the safehouse per day cost -- that's meant to be more for renting a safehouse from a fixer as a service. Safehouses need to be clean and secret and maintained, even when no one is using them, and the fixer still needs to make a profit. Safehouses are, of course, going to vary drastically in quality -- from squats with no electricity to quiet suburban bungalows with a decent security system. So a GM should, of course, vary the price to fit the situation.


While you seemed locked into the concept that there is only one price listed there at 500¥ a day and therefore a hole in the wall Ork Underground squat is 15,000¥ per month. I’d say that you should consider briefly the Abstract Nature of Rules.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Since, you know, that's the only guideline on the subject we have beyond the actual lifestyle rules -- which fit perfectly. But we can't use them cause of the arbitrary limit of only one ever ever ever.


They actually fit quite poorly, again I’ll point out that a Medium Lifestyle Includes a Medium Lifestyle Garage, then if you want to have a Garage unaffiliated with your usual doss then you certainly shouldn’t have to pall all the attendant expenses of an entire lifestyle, and the fact that you want it probably comes more out of a longing for the comfort of prior edition rules that you know so well rather than realizing that someone who didn’t come from previous editions would in all likelihood wonder why in the hell would they require a whole lifestyle for a place to set up my lathe and milling machine, they certainly aren’t consuming food and watching cable...

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Unfortunately for your entire argument here, the rules already exist. All it takes is the removal of a single useless -- completely and UTTERLY useless -- limitation to fix everything.


Actually no. There is no information as to what percentage of a lifestyle is represented by parking, what percentage is represented by food, what percentage is represented by the nights out clubbing. It is really much less useless than you think. Someone who is less attached to the past rules would find it a very useful clarification that there is so much more to a lifestyle than a place to hang your hat.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Those lifestyle rules are about as simple as things get in this game. They're abstract, open to interpretation, and can easily be described as a multitude of things. Yet the one thing they're most useful for has been eradicated from the game for... no apparent reason whatsoever. Well, beyond the weak "we thought it cost a little too much, but still want to say [ . . . ]


For someone who is new to Shadowrun and who doesn’t have the precedent from previous editions to make them think that you should have more than one lifestyle it probably poses no problem. If you haven’t played a ream of other characters who have all had a host of lifestyles in previous editions would you really be here complaining, or would you just think, well Derrel’s mini Storage charges about $300 for a 20’x30’ storage unit, so if that’s all I need I’ll just pay 300¥ a month, maybe a bit more for some local gang security, and never even have the concept of lifestyle enter into your mind...

Somehow I’m disinclined to assume that you’d think objectively about this however, and nothing I could write here would convince you. But then again I don’t really have to convince you after all, “If something in these rules doesn’t quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it.? However mulling about and grumbling that it’s idiotic and unplayable is just really unimaginative and lazy.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Demerzel)
That whole section entitled, “The Abstract Nature of Rules? beginning on p.52 is recommended reading for anyone interested in playing any game, even if only as a reminder. They tucked it in with the newbie rules, so most of us veteran gamers skip right over it.

Oh, you mean the "rules" that state that everything in the game is abstract? Like, oh say, the Lifestyle rules? And that the Lifestyle rules would have been perfect for reflecting extra safehouses, garages, or workshops? The very same extra safehouses, garages, and workshops the Lifestyle limitation mentions but then tells you you can't have in the same breath? That one?

Yeah, nothing absurd or retarded there.

Pretty much stopped reading your post at this point as nothing you're saying makes even a modicrum of sense.
Demerzel
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Aug 8 2007, 09:35 AM)
Pretty much stopped reading your post at this point

Yea pretty much figured you wouldn't have the attention span to finish...
fistandantilus4.0
OK, enough from both of you. Stay away from the personal attacks.
WeaverMount
Speaking someone who has only played SR4, on my first ever character I did by an extra life style for my laying-low sin.
QUOTE

1) To verify if this was a legitimate rule and not simply an errata'ed mistake or changed elsewhere in the rules. 2) To try and figure out why the rule was there if it was, in fact, a legitimate rule.


Taking Doc in good faith, yes it is a legit rule, so can anyone think of why it might be a good rule? or can we justly label it a mistake and house rule it in exactly the same ways we always have?
Demerzel
QUOTE (WeaverMount)
so can anyone think of why it might be a good rule?


Because it would be silly to require anyone to pay for more than they are getting when they rent a (Parking space/Storage Unit/Flop House).
hyzmarca
It encourages roleplaying. With the old rules, you could just plop down the correct amount of money and bam, you have a second home. With the new rules, you have to really work with the GM, since everything is GM fiat, and the GM has to work with you. This encourages roleplaying. The GM designs a few homes (or you do and give the specs to the GM, or someone else does) and your character goes house hunting. You can't just give the GM 500 Monopoly Dollars and claim the place, no. Your character must tour the homes and check everything out. He must negotiate with the with owners on a price. And he will probably have no choice but to do this multiple times before the PC can find something that he likes at a price that he can reasonably afford. Then he'll have to deal with the utilities and getting everything moved in that needs to do moved in. You can seriously dedicate entire campaigns to house-hunting. No combat, no missions, just house-hunting. And that, friends, makes great roleplaying.
Demerzel
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
You can seriously dedicate entire campaigns to house-hunting. No combat, no missions, just house-hunting. And that, friends, makes great roleplaying.

No combat in house hunting? Well, depends on the neighborhood...
WeaverMount
QUOTE

Because it would be silly to require anyone to pay for more than they are getting when they rent a (Parking space/Storage Unit/Flop House).


*sigh* Doc forgets that this rule doesn't force people to rent a safe house, and you forget that it preclude people from still house ruling every little detail if the group finds that entertaining. You just called the Doc position silly so I'm sure he'll be back in a sec to bit your/my head off. I'm done here I think the rule is totally work about and a reference of where to look up me detailed rules if I ever need them
Cain
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
It encourages roleplaying. With the old rules, you could just plop down the correct amount of money and bam, you have a second home. With the new rules, you have to really work with the GM, since everything is GM fiat, and the GM has to work with you. This encourages roleplaying. The GM designs a few homes (or you do and give the specs to the GM, or someone else does) and your character goes house hunting. You can't just give the GM 500 Monopoly Dollars and claim the place, no. Your character must tour the homes and check everything out. He must negotiate with the with owners on a price. And he will probably have no choice but to do this multiple times before the PC can find something that he likes at a price that he can reasonably afford. Then he'll have to deal with the utilities and getting everything moved in that needs to do moved in. You can seriously dedicate entire campaigns to house-hunting. No combat, no missions, just house-hunting. And that, friends, makes great roleplaying.

Actually, it doesn't encourage roleplaying. If everything ig GM fiat, it encourages bitching, whining, and complaining between player and GM, especially if the GM is using the 15000 nuyen a month rule as a basis.

I've always encouraged-- if not outright required-- that players come up with a RP reason that they developed their new lifestyle, and I always did it for my characters. My personal favorite was "Buying permanent interest in a coffin hotel", but a sizeable bribe to the local gang you just made friends with worked as well. You couldn't just "plop down the money" and expect to get away with it.

In short, you can do everything that you state is "great roleplaying" and still have fixed, easy to use costs that make sense, allow for smoother GM/player interatcion, are by-the-book, allow players to work these things into their character background, and so on and so forth.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Aug 8 2007, 06:32 PM)
*sigh* Doc forgets that this rule doesn't force people to rent a safe house, and you forget that it preclude people from still house ruling every little detail if the group finds that entertaining. You just called the Doc position silly so I'm sure he'll be back in a sec to bit your/my head off. I'm done here I think the rule is totally work about and a reference of where to look up me detailed rules if I ever need them

No, I didn't forget that. I've always used the reference to the 500-nuyen/day Safehouse service as the "only alternative the rules give you" in reference to the rule in question, not that it should be the only option available. Just the only one the rules give you, despite telling you that you need to refer to other rules if you want a garage or safehouse.

Regarding D.: I've already come to the conclusion that he may have had something to do with the rule in question (based upon FrankTrollman mentioning he was a writer in another thread), and is likely just upset because people find the unnecessary, superflurous limitation every bit as silly and completely useless as it is. It happens.

And, finally, regarding the "extra" costs of alternate lifestyles: They reflect the bribes and fees the runner has to pay to keep that lifestyle protected from gangs or whoever else, making it look like its used and lived in, and otherwise not an abandoned smorgasborg for theft and robbery by whomever wanders by. Every bit as abstract as the normal lifestyle rules. Imagine that.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 8 2007, 04:53 PM)
It encourages roleplaying. With the old rules, you could just plop down the correct amount of money and bam, you have a second home.  With the new rules, you have to  really work with the GM, since everything is GM fiat, and the GM has to work with you. This encourages roleplaying. The GM designs a few homes (or you do and give the specs to the GM, or someone else does) and your character goes house hunting. You can't just give the GM 500 Monopoly Dollars and claim the place, no. Your character must tour the homes and check everything out. He must negotiate with the with owners on a price. And he will probably have no choice but to do this multiple times before the PC can find something that he likes at a price that he can reasonably afford.  Then he'll have to deal with the utilities and getting everything moved in that needs to do moved in.  You can seriously dedicate entire campaigns to house-hunting.  No combat, no missions, just house-hunting. And that, friends, makes great roleplaying.

Actually, it doesn't encourage roleplaying. If everything ig GM fiat, it encourages bitching, whining, and complaining between player and GM, especially if the GM is using the 15000 nuyen a month rule as a basis.

I've always encouraged-- if not outright required-- that players come up with a RP reason that they developed their new lifestyle, and I always did it for my characters. My personal favorite was "Buying permanent interest in a coffin hotel", but a sizeable bribe to the local gang you just made friends with worked as well. You couldn't just "plop down the money" and expect to get away with it.

In short, you can do everything that you state is "great roleplaying" and still have fixed, easy to use costs that make sense, allow for smoother GM/player interatcion, are by-the-book, allow players to work these things into their character background, and so on and so forth.

But you have no reason to do that without GM fiat. The GM has no reason to open up Autocad and design three-dozen houses for your PC to look at. The player and GM have no reason to spend weeks negotiating the prices fully in-character. When everything is handed to you, it is easier to forget about the details and handwave stuff. The entire point of lifestyle costs as an abstract that it allows you to quickly handwave stuff rather than spending weeks of real time agonizing over every little detail. And handwaving isn't conducive to roleplaying. You can roleplay within the pace provided by the handwave, but never as effectively as if you have a real emotional investment and weeks upon weeks of real hard work tied up into the transaction.
Aristotle
I... couldn't agree less. The current rules for your primary lifestyle are a handwave, but handwaving this other side of lifestyles would be bad because it would hold you back from role playing? I'm not saying you are wrong. Just that I don't necessarily know if the two of us are looking for the same game experience.

I did draw up floorplans for a house my players' characters purchased in a game. It was an old fire house they all pitched in and purchased as a base of operations using 3rd edition core lifestyle rules. I liked the idea, so I spent the extra time on it. They wanted to set it up with a lot of cool features. Shooting range in the basement, hermetic library room in the attic, and all sorts of surveilance and safety measures. All of that was rolled into their lifestyle, or purchased separately from item lists in books.

I don't buy the role playing argument, personally. This is not a role vs roll discussion. Regardless of how comprehensive the rules are or are not, my experience tells me that I get out what I put in.
hyzmarca
Well, that is the point. You do get out what you put in. And the complete lack of applicable rules forces you to put more into it if you want it to work at all.

Of course, this line of thought brings us to the conclusion that the perfect RPG rulebook is a 20-volume set, each with 400 totally blank pages, absolutely no text or art whatsoever, so that the game will have ultimate flexibility and customizablity while requiring that players and GMs put a great deal of effort into the game. nyahnyah.gif

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing. I'm saying that it has some good aspects.
Fortune
I'm pretty sure that optional Lifestyle rules and the like will be addressed in the proposed Runner's Companion book.
Wasabi
If you could get multiple lifestyles you could get 250k nuyen worth of High lifestyles backed with nuyen to max the starting money and start the game with more than 250k in cash. Then you could bypass the avail rules by just taking your first few months getting the perfect cultured bioware and missile launchers, etc.

Taken from that perspective getting only 1 lifestyle and the rest as safehouses seems to fit the spirit of things juuuuuust fine.
toturi
QUOTE (WeaverMount)
Hey doc, you are absolutely right. The humans who wrote this game made a dumb mistake. They added a line that made the RAW less usable for absolutely no benifit. buuuutt WHO CARES. Are you, or have you ever played with GM who wouldn't let you rent another place because of this line? Even if you are playing with the strictest RAW Natzi who wouldn't let you maintain multiple life styles as a book keeping convenience, does that line also take away from their ability to make up unpublished goods and services? Do you really think that you can't get a storage locker in another city because its part of some mystical lifestyle package? Any GM who would shoot themselves in the foot over such fundamentalist reading of the RAW deserves to have to think up individual unit costs of all the stuff the plays CAN buy/maintain even if it isn't explicitly listed.
Does anyone have a page number a rule saying more or less "GMs get to add stuff in to the setting as needed because we didn't write down every single everything"?

You called?
Ol' Scratch
That's a completely separate issue. You're also assuming that if the restriction were never implemented, there wouldn't be a limit stating something along the lines of "you only receive starting nuyen based upon the single highest Lifestyle you own in the case of beginning play with more than one."

I still, personally, think the Availability limit at character creation is silly. Same goes for having a maximum starting attribute and skill rating system. Limits more along the lines of "each point above your normal racial maximum costs 35 BP per point for Attributes and 8/20 points per Skill or Skill Group. Availability over (3 + Charisma + Etiquette) cost double or triple, reflecting the extra resources you had to pour into your contacts to make up for your lack of social yumminess." The limits on Build Points more than covers any abuses, and if it doesn't, the numbers simply need a bit more fine tuning. This also gets rid of the silliness of a randomly generated amount of starting nuyen for characters (why on Earth is this the only part of character creation that's random anyway?!?).

But that's me. I know it's not a popular view of things. If someone wants to give up all their potential at character creation simply to get deltagrade Move-By-Wire 3, I'm not going to stop them. Especially if it leaves them so crippled that they get one-shot by a pissed-off girl scout weilding a hold-out pistol.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Demerzel)
QUOTE (WeaverMount)
so can anyone think of why it might be a good rule?


Because it would be silly to require anyone to pay for more than they are getting when they rent a (Parking space/Storage Unit/Flop House).

So. Then a better rule would be to say, every life style past your first gets a 20% discount on price for every lifestyle of equal or lesser value since it doesn't include X,Y, and Z. If you are buying a even more limited amount of space such as just a parking space reduce the cost as you see fit.

Saying you can only have one lifestyle is just a flat out bad rule. The hey make up your own rules argument with only one crappy guideline for a per day rental just makes it worse, since we all know we can house rule. The question is why make a rule that requires more house ruling than necessary when a rule that takes up the same space lets you get by with less.
Aristotle
20% seems fair to me.

On a semi-related note. Wasn't there a 3rd edition rule that covered multiple characters chipping in for one lifestyle? Was that in the main book, or the companion?


It's pretty clear that I'm not happy with the current lifestyles mechanic. Others seem to be in the same boat. Given that, and what we've seen in previous editions of the game, I have pretty high hopes that an alternate, more robust, lifestyle mechanic will be made available in a future release (the companion or arsenal would both work).
Cain
QUOTE
But you have no reason to do that without GM fiat. The GM has no reason to open up Autocad and design three-dozen houses for your PC to look at. The player and GM have no reason to spend weeks negotiating the prices fully in-character. When everything is handed to you, it is easier to forget about the details and handwave stuff. The entire point of lifestyle costs as an abstract that it allows you to quickly handwave stuff rather than spending weeks of real time agonizing over every little detail. And handwaving isn't conducive to roleplaying. You can roleplay within the pace provided by the handwave, but never as effectively as if you have a real emotional investment and weeks upon weeks of real hard work tied up into the transaction.

Right now, if you upgrade lifestyles, you end up plopping down the money and Voila! instant lifestyle. Your old lifestyle goes by the wayside, as money wasted. I see absolutely nothing in the rules encouraging GM's or players to autocad out floorplans.

Roleplay is what you bring into it. However, I don't want to waste my precious and rare game time talking to the utilities companies; I get enough of that in real life. You can have a home with as much, if not more, of an emotional investment if you gloss over the niggling details and focus on what the players want to accomplish. Heck, setting up the hermetic library in the new home was the basis of an entire adventure! It's just not as satisfying or "worth it" to go on a full-fledged run to hook up the cable. nyahnyah.gif
l33tpenguin
So... I've read most of this thread, but a lot of it is the same two sides of the argument over and over again. And as much fun as reading that is...
I just thought I would add my two cents to things with what happened in our group.

So, my team is on the run, things didn't go down so well during the run, our TM bought the farm and the corp we were hitting wanted us dead. Not to mention Mr. J. wasn't terribly happy that we failed our mission. He hadn't gotten to the "Not happy enough to want us not breathing" yet. but getting there. So we needed a place to hide out. So, since its 4th ed and we don't have addition life styles, we go by the book and start paying our 500 for a safe house. (meanwhile the Tm is drafting up a new character. When I say dead, I mean dead. Something involving escaping from an explosion and getting a critical glitch... twice).

When I was drafting up my character at first, I liked the whole idea. yea! No more buying multiple life styles! No more paying for all the junk I was keeping there 'just in case'

Then we came head to head with the whole rule and our GM. So, our safe house provided us with a place to hide out, for 500 a day. Fine with me. Till we started going about gearing back up. We had all taken a beating getting out and lost a lot of gear and burned a lot of ammo. rigger lost a few drones and had to rebuild himself some, I was short several firearms.

Before the 'no multiple lifestyles rule' it was common place to buy extra gear, firearms, workshops, spare parts, lots of extra ammo, body armor, etc. Just to put in your paid for safe house just in case you had to go all Sarah Conner Terminator 2 and stock back up. (I've KNOWN sammies with THAT much hardware sitting in the desert somewhere). So we look at he GM and he says the safe house we are in is no more than a 2 bedroom apartment, none of the things we NEED are available here, because we never purchased them before hand. If we need anything, we have to go out and acquire them. Our fixer will help us out, but his recourses are limited as well.

So, we are all stranded in an apartment, under greared and shot up and we have to go out with a corp on the lookout for us and do some shopping. Great!

After much deliberation, our GM has decided that next time we draft up characters, purchasing additional life styles will be allowed, as it is nice to have a permanent place to keep the additional things you purchase to place there.

As for the whole role playing purchasing lifestyles? I don't see the point. I'm not going to role play interaction between my character and several property agents till the GM supplies me with something I want at the price I want it. I'm going to say "I'm searching for this with this and this" and the GM says "You find that with that and that for this" then I make a note on my sheet and deduct the cost from my cash. Done.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012