Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sensei a worthless quality?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Draco18s
QUOTE (Cardul @ Jul 9 2009, 06:02 PM) *
See...if I were GMing, I would have fun with a player who did that. Remember: Every quality you take is a potential plot point. You have a Talismonger who is a Sensei?
You should be anticipating that you will have to deal with that Talismonger's "Old Rivals." After all, they could not steal the secrets of their Sensei's school..so they will
go for you, or maybe they will be trying to kidnap your Sensei or your sensei's family...


Kay. How about Sensai is a negative quality then?
The Jake
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 9 2009, 03:37 PM) *
Definedly, considering that getting the same think with out the quality would cost 1m nuyen.gif (equilevant of 200BP).

That is a very unique albeit horribly skewed way of determining the relative value of a quality.
5 BP allows you to purchase items you normally couldn't or become a technomancer.
10 BP grants photographic memory or 10% reduction on cyberware or bioware essence costs or an extra 50kto your starting funds.
15 BP allows you to play a full magician or SURGEd-III meta.
20 BP allows you to exceed your racial attribute maximums, including Edge.
30 BP grants you über hot nanites or effective access to delta grade bioware.

So I feel compelled to ask: in relative terms to the items above which on is Trust Fund closer to? Hint: much lower than 20 unless you're playing Gutterpunk2070.

- J.
Mäx
QUOTE (The Jake @ Jul 10 2009, 02:13 AM) *
That is a very unique albeit horribly skewed way of determining the relative value of a quality.

The quality gives you somethink thats worth one million nuyen and an effective 11 000 nuyen extra in spending money every month.(unles your palying the mentioned gutterpunk2070, then it might just be a few thousand extra, but in that case you could just take the cheaper version.)
I definedly think that that is worth 20BP
The Jake
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 10 2009, 12:15 AM) *
The quality gives you somethink thats worth one million nuyen and an effective 11 000 nuyen extra in spending money every month.(unles your palying the mentioned gutterpunk2070, then it might just be a few thousand extra, but in that case you could just take the cheaper version.)
I definedly think that that is worth 20BP


What happens if your runners are scoring 30k per month in runs? Suddenly that 20BP seems very weak when you compare to what else you could have spent that (limited) amount of BP on.

Relatively speaking, nuyen is the easiest thing to acquire once game play commences (and unless your GM is ruthlessly tight on maintaining that balance), thus it stands to reason that unless you are playing a nuyen heavy build (e.g. rigger, sammy) then it shouldn't be heavily needed. Even so, why on gods green earth would you spend 20BP just to get a lifestyle?? For that I can get an extra 10BP in starting cash and two instances of Restricted Gear. Which do you think is more useful?

Lifestyle costs aren't that much of a burden to players in most campaigns unless you are playing very low level (hence what I meant by Gutterpunk2070). For 20BP, I can get all of those things which I listed above, which would be far, far more desirable to a starting character than a freebie High lifestyle. If it was a free Luxury lifestyle, then I would say yes that would be worth 20BP (given how unlikely it is a starting character could afford or would choose to purchase a month of luxury living out of chargen). But its not - its only a free High lifestyle.

If after all that, you still think 20BP is far for Trust Fund, then I am left with the impression you do not understand how character creation works or you play low powered games (which is fine, in which case I would agree with you that if nuyen is relative it would be worth 20BP). From an optimisation standpoint however, 20BP is far too costly.

- J.
Stingray
QUOTE (The Jake @ Jul 10 2009, 02:13 AM) *
That is a very unique albeit horribly skewed way of determining the relative value of a quality.
5 BP allows you to purchase items you normally couldn't or become a technomancer.
10 BP grants photographic memory or 10% reduction on cyberware or bioware essence costs or an extra 50kto your starting funds.
15 BP allows you to play a full magician or SURGEd-III meta.
20 BP allows you to exceed your racial attribute maximums, including Edge.
30 BP grants you über hot nanites or effective access to delta grade bioware.

So I feel compelled to ask: in relative terms to the items above which on is Trust Fund closer to? Hint: much lower than 20 unless you're playing Gutterpunk2070.

- J.

10 BP Born Rich does not give you automatically money(if you want 50k more money, you
had to use 10 BP more to get it..)
Mäx
QUOTE (The Jake @ Jul 10 2009, 10:28 AM) *
What happens if your runners are scoring 30k per month in runs? Suddenly that 20BP seems very weak when you compare to what else you could have spent that (limited) amount of BP on.

Relatively speaking, nuyen is the easiest thing to acquire once game play commences (and unless your GM is ruthlessly tight on maintaining that balance), thus it stands to reason that unless you are playing a nuyen heavy build (e.g. rigger, sammy) then it shouldn't be heavily needed. Even so, why on gods green earth would you spend 20BP just to get a lifestyle?? For that I can get an extra 10BP in starting cash and two instances of Restricted Gear. Which do you think is more useful?

As a heavily wared invidual, would you rather get 20k nuyen.gif or 31k nuyen.gif a month toward ugrading you wares?
If the answer is 20k nuyen.gif then i quess that that quality isn't worth getting. cyber.gif
Bull
Frankly, it's bullshit arguments like this that made me dislike Edges and Flawns when they were originally introduced. Too much worrying about the points, to much worrying about "me me me" and what it gives "me", and not enough worrying about the character, and what FITS the character, what fits the campaign.

ALmost makes me want to run some Basic D&D again. Just some raw stats, no fucking skills to get in the way. Roleplay anything adn everything you want to do, and I'll determine how well you do based solely on that.

Anyways, regarding contacts... The trait to keep in mind here is called "CONNECTION", not "HOW SKILLED AND BADASS AM I?"

And to bring this home... There's a dude that runs a dojo not too far from here. For kids. By all accounts, he's a good teacher, but he's not very skilled. All he's really good for is teaching the basics, and teaching kids.

However, the dude is CONNECTED. He apparently knows most of the major Hollywood martial arts instructors, and is reportedly on a first name basis with Chuck Norris. You know, that guy they made that really annoying internet meme about a couple years ago? The movie was terrible, but they filmed the old Double Dragon movie from 1994 here in Cleveland, and this guy (I'm totally spacing on his name right now) was brought in to help with stunts and he provided some of his students to be background performers in a few scenes.

This isn't a guy that is going to be able to teach you. But he is a Martial Arts Instructor, and I'd say he's got a Connection Rating of 4 or 5, easy. And if you tried to make him your sensei, you ain't ever raising a skill up past 3. But, if you had the Sensei Quality, he could get you a trainer who was skilled enough to instruct you, free of charge.

As a note, as a GM, I create the NPCs, including the contacts. The players are free to designate what types of contacts they want, and now with the 4th ed Loyalty/Connection system, they even have some control over how decent that contact is. But all they get to say is "Ork Martial Arts Instructor", and if I'm feeling generous, they get to name him and fill in how they know this contact. But since I have to run the NPC, it's my prerogative to actually give that NPC personality, and decide what skills and such he has.

But, all that's a bit of a quibble anyways... I don't really bother with training and such all that much. I just have the players spend karma in their off hours and be done with it.
DuctShuiTengu
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 10 2009, 02:41 PM) *
Frankly, it's bullshit arguments like this that made me dislike Edges and Flawns when they were originally introduced. Too much worrying about the points, to much worrying about "me me me" and what it gives "me", and not enough worrying about the character, and what FITS the character, what fits the campaign.

ALmost makes me want to run some Basic D&D again. Just some raw stats, no fucking skills to get in the way. Roleplay anything adn everything you want to do, and I'll determine how well you do based solely on that.

Anyways, regarding contacts... The trait to keep in mind here is called "CONNECTION", not "HOW SKILLED AND BADASS AM I?"

And to bring this home... There's a dude that runs a dojo not too far from here. For kids. By all accounts, he's a good teacher, but he's not very skilled. All he's really good for is teaching the basics, and teaching kids.

However, the dude is CONNECTED. He apparently knows most of the major Hollywood martial arts instructors, and is reportedly on a first name basis with Chuck Norris. You know, that guy they made that really annoying internet meme about a couple years ago? The movie was terrible, but they filmed the old Double Dragon movie from 1994 here in Cleveland, and this guy (I'm totally spacing on his name right now) was brought in to help with stunts and he provided some of his students to be background performers in a few scenes.

This isn't a guy that is going to be able to teach you. But he is a Martial Arts Instructor, and I'd say he's got a Connection Rating of 4 or 5, easy. And if you tried to make him your sensei, you ain't ever raising a skill up past 3. But, if you had the Sensei Quality, he could get you a trainer who was skilled enough to instruct you, free of charge.

As a note, as a GM, I create the NPCs, including the contacts. The players are free to designate what types of contacts they want, and now with the 4th ed Loyalty/Connection system, they even have some control over how decent that contact is. But all they get to say is "Ork Martial Arts Instructor", and if I'm feeling generous, they get to name him and fill in how they know this contact. But since I have to run the NPC, it's my prerogative to actually give that NPC personality, and decide what skills and such he has.

But, all that's a bit of a quibble anyways... I don't really bother with training and such all that much. I just have the players spend karma in their off hours and be done with it.


For the most part, I agree with you on this. With that being said, if I, as one of the players in your game, am sinking points into a "Martial Arts instructor" contact to have someone to teach my character Capoeira, I should either be getting a contact who can teach my character capoeira (or at least get my character taught capoeira), get told I need more to get the level of instruction I want ("Yes the loyalty 1, connection 1 contact will give you a little help, but there's only so much they can do"), or get told up front that starting with that kind of contact isn't going to be allowed. For me to start with that as the intended contact and have you switch it over to your buddy who can't teach past Unarmed Combat 3 but knows people, however, is as a clear an example of a bait-and-switch as if you'd decided that my character's Street Doc contact was actually just a drug dealer. Sure, they're both potentially interesting contacts, but you shouldn't be trading the one I want, and the one I paid for for something else without talking to me about it.
Cheops
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 10 2009, 12:41 PM) *
Frankly, it's bullshit arguments like this that made me dislike Edges and Flawns when they were originally introduced. Too much worrying about the points, to much worrying about "me me me" and what it gives "me", and not enough worrying about the character, and what FITS the character, what fits the campaign.

ALmost makes me want to run some Basic D&D again. Just some raw stats, no fucking skills to get in the way. Roleplay anything adn everything you want to do, and I'll determine how well you do based solely on that.


I agree. I've never been a huge fan of edges and flaws, especially where they infringe on background and role-playing. D&D3.X was actually a major cause of this problem. Since it emphasized tournament play (through RPGA and the "Living" campaigns) it had to take the power away from the GM and place it into the player's hands. It took away interpretation and legislated it.

That sort of stuff looks really bad in an exception based rules system like SR or D&D4. D&D4 took the smart path of making sure that the rules largely dealt with combat and combat only. The rules for the "roll-playing" part of the game are quite clear where they are spelled out (it is exception based because they didn't try to simulate everything that could possibly happen). The role-playing is left completely to the group.

SR has taken sort of a middle path. It is exception based and so requires GM input for the non-legislated stuff. However, it also dabbles with legislating the role-playing aspects and that strikes a discordant note for some people (such as me).
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 10 2009, 07:41 AM) *
Frankly, it's bullshit arguments like this that made me dislike Edges and Flawns when they were originally introduced. Too much worrying about the points, to much worrying about "me me me" and what it gives "me", and not enough worrying about the character, and what FITS the character, what fits the campaign.


You're so grumpy. Exploiting flaws was the most humorous and fun part of character creation and tended to add a lot of humor to games. That was half the joy of character creation.
Bull
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jul 10 2009, 07:22 PM) *
You're so grumpy. Exploiting flaws was the most humorous and fun part of character creation and tended to add a lot of humor to games. That was half the joy of character creation.


EH, sorry. From a GM standpoint, I find it one of the least fun parts. Plus, the prevailing attitude earky in the threadm where everyone just came out bitching, contributed to the grump.

And DuctShuiTengu, I do agree with you. Like I said, I don't require instruction stuff for learning new skills or increasing skills, so an Instructor/Sensei would be pure fluff anyways, and unless you wanted them to be a contact for other reasons (i.e., have some other actual use), I'd simply tell you to write them in as part of your background.

Bull
Draco18s
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jul 10 2009, 07:22 PM) *
That was half the joy of character creation.


Like a Drake Adept with Unarmed Combat (claws). biggrin.gif

(Sadly that game stopped in favor of Alpha Omega and Traveller, so I never actually got to USE my dracoform)
HappyDaze
QUOTE
No guarantee? If I have a loyalty 2 instructor with connection 3, the GM would have to be a real jerk to have the Sensei turn down the player as a student. Its just silly... what is the contact good for except instructing you?

Loyalty 2 is an established regualr customer. So sure he'll teach you - during his regular class hours (many of which may work out poorly for someone with a 'night job') for money or private lessons that fit his schedule for even more money. At Loyalty 2, you're a respected customer, but he might have a lot of those.
The Jake
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 10 2009, 12:41 PM) *
Frankly, it's bullshit arguments like this that made me dislike Edges and Flawns when they were originally introduced. Too much worrying about the points, to much worrying about "me me me" and what it gives "me", and not enough worrying about the character, and what FITS the character, what fits the campaign.


I only care when the points cost of the Quality far exceeds the true value. It's nothing to do with min-maxing but making it fair and balanced.

I guess you could take it to mean based on your campaign that the value is relative, but overall, I really don't think there can be much dispute that Trust Fund is horrendously expensive.

- J.
toturi
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 11 2009, 08:39 AM) *
EH, sorry. From a GM standpoint, I find it one of the least fun parts. Plus, the prevailing attitude earky in the threadm where everyone just came out bitching, contributed to the grump.

And DuctShuiTengu, I do agree with you. Like I said, I don't require instruction stuff for learning new skills or increasing skills, so an Instructor/Sensei would be pure fluff anyways, and unless you wanted them to be a contact for other reasons (i.e., have some other actual use), I'd simply tell you to write them in as part of your background.

Bull

You're just being grumpy, from a GM standpoint, and RAW besides, I find it one of the most fun parts. My players give me odd looks when their GM is trying to help them min-max their characters. But at the end of the day, I can handle it and they are having fun.

QUOTE
Frankly, it's bullshit arguments like this that made me dislike Edges and Flawns when they were originally introduced. Too much worrying about the points, to much worrying about "me me me" and what it gives "me", and not enough worrying about the character, and what FITS the character, what fits the campaign.
It really depends on how you create a character. I can pick a set of stats/abilities and wrap a character around them or write a character and then try to size those stats to fit the character. Often in a resource based character creation such as this, I do it the former way. It cuts down on the discrepancies of what I envisioned and what I have on hand, I do not need to ask my GM to "please please please give me give me give me" so that I have enough resources to build my character and I do not need to worry about my character having more stuff than my friend's character or vice versa.
Bull
One thing Caine Hazen pointed out to me last night... THe Sensai teaches you for free. A Contact probably won't, unless you have him at rating 4+, and even then, he's going to likely expect things of you. The Instructor costs aren't all that cheap, so in the long haul, a Sensai could be a very worthwhile investment. Especially if you can convince your GM that the Sensai has a wide range of skills to teach, beyond a single fighting skill. I'm thinking all those training montages where the character ends up doing acrobatics and climbing and basket weaving as well as learning their martial art.

Plus, an Instructor only adds his dice to your pool for training tests. A sensai I'd think guarantees that the GM has to give you 10-12 extra dice.

In this case, it's about taking control over one aspect of your character in a way that the GM can't actively mess with too badly.

<shrug>
Draco18s
First off, I doubt its free, but I'll yield on interpretation of "hunt down and hire" possibly meaning two things.

Two, the Sensai quality grants the contact ONE skill or skillgroup (see the description posted here).

Three, Instructors roll their Instruction + Charisma dice pool, every 2 HITS the student gets ONE DIE to their learning test. So at Instruction 6, Charisma 6, you're looking at +2 dice. Additionally, the teacher's skill in the student's skill to be raised must be greater than the student's and at rating 3 or better. SR4 page 123.

Additionally, I am unable to find the rule in the book that states that a test must be made in order to learn a new skill or raise an existing skill. The character improvement section merely indicates spending Karma and have sufficient downtime.
Caine Hazen
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jul 11 2009, 02:49 PM) *
Additionally, I am unable to find the rule in the book that states that a test must be made in order to learn a new skill or raise an existing skill. The character improvement section merely indicates spending Karma and have sufficient downtime.


bbzzzzz... need to do more reading p270 of the SR4A printing:
QUOTE
To learn or improve a skill or skill group, the character must succeed
in an Extended Intuition + skill Test, with a threshold equal
to the new skill rating x 2 and an interval of 1 week (1 month for
skill groups). A teacher can add bonus dice to this test (see Using
Instruction, p. 134).


Draco18s
QUOTE (Caine Hazen @ Jul 11 2009, 04:10 PM) *
bbzzzzz... need to do more reading p270 of the SR4A printing:


I don't have SR4A (hint hint: some people haven't gotten it yet, assuming they are going to), and even going back several pages from 270 (page 263 of SR4), I find NO TEXT even remotely matching that.

QUOTE
A character can learn a new Active Skill or skill group she doesn't currently possess. The cost is 4 Karma for a skill and 10 Karma for a skill group, which gives the character the new skill (or skill group) at Rating 1. The cost to learn new Knowledge/Language skills is half that of Active skills: 2 Karma.


Like wise Karma costs for raising skills, limitation on how many ranks, splitting skill groups, and buying specializations. Above that is a paragraph about learning time:

QUOTE
Learning time: It is recommended tjat a character only be allowed to learn one new skill (or specialization, spell, or complex form) between adventures; the character cannot simultaneous improve any existing skills, attributes, etc. during this time. A character can be allowed to improve as many skills, attributes, ext. between adventures as she has Karma, assuming the gamemaser feels the improvement is warranted (a character who hasn't touched a gun in months should be made to practice a bit before improving Pistol skill)--but each can only be improved once. If the time frame between adventures is longer than one month, gamemasters may increase these allowances as appropriate.
Mäx
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jul 12 2009, 12:47 AM) *
I don't have SR4A (hint hint: some people haven't gotten it yet, assuming they are going to), and even going back several pages from 270 (page 263 of SR4), I find NO TEXT even remotely matching that.

Get latest errata read page 4 sixth entry in the left colum.
Zaranthan
SR4 does not actually contain the details of the learning test, though the "Using Instruction" segment on page 123 is already there, and the errata contains the mentioned correction. The content you're looking for was on page 264 in SR4, it pushed up to 270 in SR4A due to the added content.
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE
One of the character’s contacts has the skill set and levels
to act as her Instructor in a particular skill group (see Using
Instruction, p. 123, SR4). The Sensei and the skill group are
determined when the quality is chosen. The character need not
chase down and hire an appropriate teacher to gain the benefits of
instruction but may be subject to the contact’s availability at the
gamemaster’s discretion.

QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 11 2009, 04:44 AM) *
One thing Caine Hazen pointed out to me last night... THe Sensai teaches you for free. A Contact probably won't, unless you have him at rating 4+, and even then, he's going to likely expect things of you. The Instructor costs aren't all that cheap, so in the long haul, a Sensai could be a very worthwhile investment.

You are not required to 'hire' an instructor if you have Sensei. This does not mean it is 'free', or favors will not be expected. Yet again, you must still pay the Connection / Loyalty cost for your Sensei, in addition to the quality cost.
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 11 2009, 04:44 AM) *
Especially if you can convince your GM that the Sensai has a wide range of skills to teach, beyond a single fighting skill. I'm thinking all those training montages where the character ends up doing acrobatics and climbing and basket weaving as well as learning their martial art.

Does not work. As already pointed out, Sensei functions for a single Skill Group.
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 11 2009, 04:44 AM) *
Plus, an Instructor only adds his dice to your pool for training tests. A sensai I'd think guarantees that the GM has to give you 10-12 extra dice.

A Sensei works identically to any other instructor.
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 11 2009, 04:44 AM) *
In this case, it's about taking control over one aspect of your character in a way that the GM can't actively mess with too badly.

Not really. The quality does not guarantee your sensei to be any good any more than taking an appropriate contact would, which you have to do anyways to take the quality. The only advantage the quality grants is you do not have to 'hire' them as an instructor, which is extremely vague.
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (Zaranthan @ Jul 11 2009, 06:21 PM) *
SR4 does not actually contain the details of the learning test,

Yes, it does.
QUOTE
and the errata contains the mentioned correction.

All pre-SR4A errata has been released in pre-SR4A printings.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jul 11 2009, 08:29 PM) *
Yes, it does.

All pre-SR4A errata has been released in pre-SR4A printings.


All that means is that the errata is post-MY COPY.
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