Well, if all characters have to buy the same lifestyle, doesn't that still disadvantage the tech characters over the magicians?

No, because the amount of money I give out is totally under my control.

So, if you give out more money to the characters so they can afford their required lifestyles, why bother having lifestyle costs at all?

Because when you're negotiating with the Johnson, if you're playing a jetset game where the players do a job every 3 months you can get really big numbers - the Johnson can talk to you about 250k Nuyen runs without breaking the game.

And when you're playing a street game you can have small numbers every week - that 2500 Nuyen job is kinda important. Edit: You have to be careful on the low end, you need to give sammies enough money to buy hardware. If you're playing super street level, you need to do whatever you are doing with money to karma. I don't like street games as a direct result.

Adds to window dressing.

unless you mean to imply you give more money to the cyber characters than the mages the answer to the question is 'yes'. (I'm guessing you mean to imply that though, it's certainly easy enough to do.)

also yea, regardless of what lifestyle the player *starts* with, he may not get to keep it in the right game.

and eventually gutterpunk bond will figure out he can afford to buy suits and champagne and start doing so.

No, I just make sure that everyone agrees to pay out high lifestyles, then issue money on a roughly 2000-2500:1 basis with karma. Approximately.

Incidently, gutterpunk bond is a moron if he agrees to upgrade his lifestyle when he could instead fit something useful like muscle toner.

I'm curious. Do you live in a house? Do you eat good food on a regular basis? Do you bathe occasionally? Get on the internet from time to time? Maybe watch some TV, drive places, go on an occasional vacation? Get new clothing from time to time?

Why would you do that when you could be living in a cardboard box, eating scraps out of a trashcan, and cleaning yourself with fresh sewer water? I mean, it isn't like there are any sort of statistical disadvantages to doing that, right? And it isn't like you would desire a warm house, a soft bed, fresh food, clean water, or any of those other things. You're obviously a moron because you could go buy yourself a really kick-ass gun and a whole ton of ammo from all the money you would save on taxes and house payments and insurance and grocery bills.

Oh sarcasm, what would I do without you?

money seems to be worth about 7500:1 on karma once you hit the first tier of diminishing returns (which is usually right out of the gate unless your group is more picky than typical about high essence; which wouldn't be a bad thing.)*

the first tier of diminishing returns on cyber characters is when their essence would be at 0.5 or less with full basic.


generally at this turn over (where a typical run nets ~5 karma and about 37500¥ - ~187k for a group of 5.) gutterpunk bond will rapidly find 10k/month for the high lifestyle to be worth it. it's true that the magic users will be pulling down luxury at this point, but that's probably 'ok'.

it also means that the first initiation costs about the same as that first piece of big betaware to make enough of a hole to fit that next level of toner.


*pre-supposes the high society circle game that would have a gutterpunk bond as a natural inhabitant. in a street game 2500:1 is probably perfectly fine since it's unlikely that most characters will be at the basic-ware wall and opposition is likely to be much less extreme as well.

Sure, but now you're nerfing the sammie by making him pay real money that he could spend on muscle toner for roleplaying bennies that are just never, ever, ever going to be as good for a sammie as +2 agility

Which is what I stated I was trying to avoid. I thought we were all clear on the fact that I think it's unacceptable to make sammies spend their character advancement resources on roleplaying whereas a mage doesn't have to do that. Why do you think that is a good idea?

incidently to answer your question if I was actually a harden professional criminal that was hired because he was adaptable and a good shot, I'd live in a tiny flat and get the muscle toner because it would significantly reduce my risk of being dead - and then having a REALLY small flat



fair cop, in high society games I have GM'ed it's been vital to be able to catch a plane without being arrested, which makes cybernetics with an F next to them a no go area and an R next to them risky, favouring bio ware heavily and reducing the diminishing returns thing.

I just don't think I'd enjoy this very much. It may work perfectly well for you, and I'm not saying it doesn't! I'm just saying that, as a player, I'd dislike not having the freedom to select my own lifestyle; it seems arbitrary and unrealistic. For my own purposes, there are better ways of dealing with the problem you're trying to solve. [I don't consider it a problem, so I don't solve it, see? ]

the more I look at the numbers the more I think my original stance is untenable. the opportunity cost of a high lifestyle is about 1 KPE* a month. in a typical one run a month game; this would be about a 20% advancement tax if you had a karma award average of 5 (cash average of 37500¥)

you'd need to have a karma/cash average of at least 15 KPE a month before I'd guess that high lifestyles would be the norm. this works out to some pretty absurd numbers.

the other option of course is to allow cash for karma at about 5000:1 and reduce the KPE to 5000:1 in run awards; but that stinks just a little bit to me. (and makes non-sammie cash limited characters go absurd really fast.)

I had alot of fun numbers in here about how I came up with 7500:1 just as a side effect of rethinking it, but I won't post them here. (they're basically just an analysis of abstracted cyberware costs vs magic point increases including initiation.)

*KPE being karma point equivalency, or 7500¥ in this case.

I dunno, I think it's unrealistic for james bond to have a squatter lifestyle, but obviously YMMV.

More seriously, there are any number of ways to deal with the karma vs money power source issue. I just prefer to address it upfront rather than sneaking in measures to stealth ninja buff/nerf people in game.

I think once you remove lifestyle from the realm of player choice, it's no longer a roleplaying concern.

Edit: I see I've been scooped by 3278.

I'd guess the equivalency is drastically different if you're heavy bioware. most of this is cribbed from work I did in SR3 anyway when I ran into a similar problem (it's exacerbated there because cyberware is more expensive in general and magic points are cheap... )

It depends on the type of campaign, too. For instance, if you're a legitimate "runner" (such as being a member of a black ops team working for a specific corporation or organization), including a lifestyle as part of their monthly salary is perfectly acceptable and proper. It even works in more traditional games assuming the players trust their employer enough to put their paranoia in check. Just because you have that cushy High Lifestyle at Aztechnology's expense doesn't mean you have to use it, and you can always abandon it if things are going down the shitter, too. Safehouses are safehouses for a reason.

In no way does it take away any options from the players. It's just another option and incentive for accepting a job. No different than offering a vehicle, an implant, or a focus.

Obviously you've never roomed with someone before.

The cost of the physical space does not increase, the electric bill, water bill, and gas bill increase to some degree (electricity is mostly your appliances, so the increase will be an extra light or two, a second computer, and a titch extra for opening the fridge more often, water will probably go up by double depending on how often you both shower / wash dishes, gas will increase by 50 to 100% depending on how much you both cook and shower, but all three have a base "even if you didn't use any, we charge you" fee), internet won't change (either you have it, or you don't).

The ratio between rent and utilities is roughly 6:2 for one person.* Adding a second makes it 6:3.

*Based on my experience living in the city. My apartment was ~$550/mo. and utilities were about $30 each, except electric, which was $80. My second apartment I shared with 2 other people (they shared with me). I don't know the cost of the space itself, but split 50-50 (it was a guy and his girlfriend, so it was fair that the two of them shared equally with me) I paid about $500 - $600/mo. depending on how much we had the AC or the heat on.

Meh, I just ask players to negoitate what they want out a the game upfront and reach a concesus decision. You cannot make a game that is functional when half the players design characters from "Thunderball" and the other half design characters from "The Wire"

It just doesn't work. The laws of physics are different in those two shows!

Given that, the players (including the GM!) need to decide what they want to play. Then I just say (as GM) stick to the agreement.

I have no idea what solution you have for this problem, but I presume you have one.



Yes, if you are playing a game where you say, play members of the EVO team on mars that is currently under attack by alien forces in the base, making a character with a squatter lifestyle that has a background of drug dealing in the brox is just ... not going to work?

But lifestyle isn't just rent or rent+utilities. It's rent+utilities+everything.

If you were paying for your roommates groceries, cab fare, movie tickets, wardrobe, bar tabs and basically everything else, that's more like paying the lifestyle cost. (I think we've all had roommates like this, and it seems to come to more than 10%.)

Edit: Lotsa scooping today. My solution, CD, is to treat it like a feature and not a bug. Characters will have different lifestyles, but that's the disparity of wealth in the 6th world.

I think there has been a subtle bias in general in this thread that characters that choose lower lifestyles are failing by some metric of roleplaying. I think there can be valid, in character reasons why a character might choose a lower lifestyle. To me, it doesn't matter which lifestyle a character has, what matters is why they're choosing it.

by the time those things are included in your actual lifestyle costs the roommate is more likely to be a +1 on your own tab than anything else.

[edit] although it is weird that his clothes cost 10% of yours.[/edit]

Space is only 1/5th of a Lifestyle's cost if you're using the optional rules and is covered by Necessities, which also covers food and utilities. Which you are if you're using the rules for roommates. Neighborhood is another one that could be ignored, and Security is questionable (more people = more chances to not set the alarms properly and more chances for the security drones/guards to make a mistake). Entertainment (which is way more than just "Internet" access) should be included completely, and Comforts should be as well if you assume what few Comforts you don't need to increase (shared living areas) is covered by the few increased Necessities (food and etc.). Thus the increase should be about +40% per person despite what the rules say, and +50% makes a whole lot of sense to me since the parts of Necessities you do need outweigh the amount of Comforts you don't.

Assuming you want to pay attention at all to the Lifestyle rules.

Of course, the same rules allow for crazy shit, too. For some reason, if you don't need to eat you also don't have to pay for utilities or shelter (since it says you take a -10% reduction in your lifestyle OR ignore the Necessities part).

Real money as opposed to fake money? Sorry, just joking around

But there are benefits, pros and cons. Like I said above, social interactions are likely to be strongly affected by your lifestyle. Lots of free stuff can come out of a lifestyle (Transportation very notable among them). A sammy looking at street v high is looking at a free car, he is looking at easier access to clubs and meets. He is looking at being better fed, which is important for doing a job. He is looking at security at night so he doesn't suffer from sleep deprivation. He is looking at security for stuff that he can't carry on him constantly.

There are many benefits, they just aren't "You kill people extra dead."

And I'm curious, if you're interested in helping out sammies, why would you want lifestyles to provide a tangible benefit? That just lines up -another- expense that sammies have to put out for, and another benefit that mages can reel in for no real cost.

Here is another thing you're missing. You're playing a role playing game, not "Crunch These Numbers!". If a character is nothing more to you than an attack DP, and the character acts appropriately, then you are missing the intent of the game. Remember that a small flat is going to be a low lifestyle, which is a far cry from street. You notice that you didn't say you'd live in a box in the streets. You notice that you didn't say you would forego food. This is because no actual person is such a 'professional' that they will completely sacrifice their comforts for a small ability to be better at their job.

Sure you have work-a-holics, and you have people that go to great lengths, and I respect that there are perhaps a few people out there who would live in a box and eat scraps if it meant they would be better at what they do, but those people are beyond rare. And you have to remember, most shadowrunners aren't shadowrunners for the sake of being shadowrunners. Most of them are hoping to make money off of running, not have it be an infinite drain on their resources. Most people hope to retire from running, not continue in it until they die. Once again, I know there are exceptions, but I can't imagine playing all my characters as beings who existed solely for the purpose of being the most effective, hardest to kill, deadliest runner out there and had no desires in life other than making themselves a little bit better at shooting people in the face. Might play one at some point, but it sounds like a horridly depressing sort of character.

I suppose this is where we agree to disagree. Personally I find the roleplay aspect of burning some money on a decent lifestyle to be a greater enjoyment than getting to roll 1 extra die when I shoot someone in the face. Just like when playing video game RPGs, I sometimes enjoy playing the righteous person who gives up ill-gotten gains for the sake of it being the right thing to do. I'm not rewarded with a pistol of kill stuff for doing so, but that isn't the point for me. I enjoy playing a role more than I enjoy playing a block of statistics.

Like I said, agree to disagree. You obviously prefer to play Crunch These Numbers^tm and I prefer to play a RolePlaying Game. As long as you and your group have fun, it doesn't really matter to me how you play.

Good job at completely missing my point.

Or are you going to say that a guy who's been living a Squatter lifestyle can't accept that shiny new Eurocar Westwind his employer is offering him as an incentive for a job? Because it's exactly the same thing as being offered a lifestyle or anything else. It's an alternative payment. Your personal sob stories don't mean shit about what you get offered.

I think I've read other threads where the main complaint was that sammies were swimming in karma while the mages couldn't afford anything other than improving their magical ability.

I wonder if a market solution is possible: let the mages buy karma from the sammies for nuyen. Invent some in-game explanation; the mage uses Ritual Spellcasting to drain some "personal magnetism" or "lifeforce" or "essential pure emotional energy" or whatever you cant to call it. Or have a free spirit do some banking.

If the mage honestly has more money than he needs, and too little karma - and the sammie just the reverse. Well then, it's time for trade.


(But don't EVER let them trade with NPCs)

I love the "People who think about game balance are not Real Roleplayers"

The attitude sickens me. Don't you think it's important to have the characters in your game roughly on a power level? Don't you want everyone to have an equal oppotunity to shine? Don't you want to tell a collective story, not a story dominated by one or two characters that happen to be significantly more powerful than the rest of the party because the rules hugely favour concept A over concept B?

Let's put it in abstract terms for a moment. Both of these characters are viable concepts you might want to play right:

A) A hulking scotsman who can flick his claymore around like it was a toothpick, and has spent long years on the highlands fighting a constant war against the english aggressors and as a result is now one of the most feared warriors in all of England

B) A lightning fast swordsman who trained in the arts of fencing in the Salons at Versailles & Barcelona, as well as having worked as a soldier of fortune in the warring principalities of Italy and Germany and as a result is now one of the most feared warriors in all of France.

Would you say the rules are total bollocks if Character A is like 5 times as good as character B because it just so happens that two handed weapons synergise much better than dagger + rapier fighting, and this impacting on your role-playing because the suave frenchman is just totally overshadowed at fighting by the big scotsman? Wouldn't you MIND if you where the frenchman and you may as well go play Super Smash Bros in the fight scenes because the scotsman is just that much more of a contributor than you? You're supposed to be a fighter, a contributor, but you totally suck. Isn;t that a problem?



Look, if you want to play a game of Robin Hood, or Stone Age farmers or whatever, I'm not going to piss in your beer. I'm just saying it's totally vital that all the players at the table are also playing Robin Hood - and that the GM keeps an eye on if this is effecting the power balance between the characters.

I don't know about you, but in my experince players Do Not Find it Fun when their contributions to the story are grossly overshadowed by someone else. Maybe you do. Maybe you don't care, but imho people do.

Otherwise why are their a million threads complaining about bulletproof possession mages?

Hell YOU hate bulletproof possession mages. If it doesn't matter, why not let some guy play a super invicible mage that dominates everything?



Sorry, I agree with you - but also was pointing out that offering a choice of lifestyles to players can just be non functional. If you're payed by His Majesties Government as an employee of MI-6, you cannot also live a off the grid squatter lifestyle.

Well, you have to figure that a large part of the rent is going to be Food + Rent + Utilities. I know from experince that it doesn't cost twice as much to feed two people as it does to feed 1. This usually has to do with buying in bulk and making preparing meals easier (I hate having to just cook for myself) As for things like wardrobe, I'm guessing that rooming with someone with the 10% cost increase assumes you're borrowing their clothing, borrowing their car, jacking your club pass, and otherwise for the most part find the two people sharing most things to reduce costs. Still, I imagine that it should go up by more than 10%. Unless food is really really cheap and rent is really really expensive.



I agree with you there, there are reasons that a person could have a crappy lifestyle of some kind, but to continue that crappy lifestyle once you have a good amount of money in hand seems odd to me. I have trouble imagining a person holding a wad of cash in his hand, and going "Do I want to be able to eat for the next month, or buy a 20th gun to add to the collection I bring with me when I rob people?" and answering "I really need to make it a round 20." Then again, I see plenty of people who live in poverty and have a cell-phone with unlimited texting and sport the brand new brand name shoes and clothing and such, so I guess it is just a mentality that I don't have and can't really get (Kind of like America with foreign countries)

Yes you can. Quite easily. A Lifestyle is not a SIN.

What's weird is that his everything costs 10% of your everything. If it was just rent or rent+utilities, I would agree with you. That's the reason people get roommates, because it's usually more economical.

What the 10% figure does though is make it a little ridiculous. Basically, if the mage in the group can afford a High Lifestyle, the sammie can move in at a high lifestyle for half the cost of a low-lifestyle on his own.

I take your point. I agree with you re: in kind payment. I feel that the game you as players decide to play is probably what will impact the other issues.

I suppose part of my problem is that I've never seen this massive power gap growth between mages and sammies that everyone is so afraid of. I've not seen the point where the sammy goes "Damn, I have every skill in the book maxed out, I really don't need karma at all any more, but I sure wish I could get my 30th piece of deltaware." and the mage replies "Well gee, I still only have a magic of 14 and 50 billion nuyen laying around."

Sammies have plenty of karma expenses: Weapon skills, dodge skills, running/jumping skills just to name a few.
Mages have plenty of nuyen expenses: High grade bio/cyberware to improve themselves without burning too much magic. Foci! Summoning materials.

I'm not going to say that mages aren't reliant on karma income and sammies aren't more reliant on cash income to improve, but I've just never seen the point where this creates an inability in the sammy to buy food if he wants to keep up with the mage.

To be honest, it rarely arises in games in practice because you have a GM. There are a million billion soft power measures you can take to keep things on an even keel. If the sammie is falling behind, you can just give him a super badass sniper rifle, or as Dr Fuck points our, just toss in a cyberware installation into the pay package. Or give him some APDS, or whatever. Same for the hacker and the rigger - and if it's a mage.. hand over some binding materials or a focus.

In other games you give the warrior an artifact sword. No problem!

However, the problem starts with adventure one. Say you had TWO sammies in the game. One buys a high lifestyle, costing him the entire 20k nuyen payout for the run.

The other sammie gets muscle toner 2 installed instead and lives in a slum and is now just 2 DP better than the other sammie. Bam, you've got a problem but it's not a big one yet.

In the mean time, you gave out a fair chunk of karma, so the mage has upgraded his magic from 5->6 giving him +1 dice on everything he does. The sammies both instead upgraded some skills for additional breadth, but cannot add to core DPs because they started with them close to max to begin with.

Bam! you've got a problem, but it's not a big one yet.

it doesn't really start to crop up until you're about 300karma/2.25m¥ into the game. at two sessions per run and one session a week, that's probably about 2 years of gameplay in if your runs don't award more than ~5karma or 37k per runner.

since most games don't go that long it's not really a problem. *this is presupposing that you keep cash and karma close - it's exacerbated in street games if you don't also adjust karma down.

got scooped by the magic sword answer though!

Right, and because the GM is there to step in and balance things out, I don't see the need to set up a computer perfect set of balancing advancement rules for sammies v mages. Also, since when have mages ever been balanced with other archetypes?

adepts used to be pretty balanced; the balance issue between sammies and mages is better stated as a balance issue between sammies and adepts anyway.

If you're saying the GM can just step in and fix things, why even have a resolution system? The GM can just make up the outcomes, scrap all that tedious dice rolling. You can just magical tea party things. It's even fun, I'm guessing you like me played Cops and Robbers as a kid.

Seriously, there is a term for this on the D&D forums:

Look, just because the GM CAN fix things, that is not an excuse for the system sucking.



I do not think this is a desirable attribute for a game. All characters that people might want to play should be balanced with each other.

Lifestyles are only a problem if you let them become one. In the campaign I'm running, my players have wildly differing lifestyles and it's a positive influence. The various lifestyle choices are integral to the character concepts. And yes, the characters with the more expensive lifestyles are feeling a bit more desperate, but that's a choice the player consciously made and none of my players are griping about one character having an advantage over another because of lifestyle choices.

That said, if a particular GM finds that having different lifestyles causes problems, he should do what he needs to do in order to fix things for his group.

They should be, but the fact that a mage with binoculars can snipe you with a F12 stunbolt from several miles away and you can only resist with your willpower isn't all that balanced.

Personally, after 300 karma and 2.5m nuyen (or whatever) I figure a character should be retiring, not worrying about the mage outshining him when they go to kill another dragon (or whatever people with that level of power do)

Edit: Wow this topic exploded in the last hour or so. Went from about half a page to almost a full page.

That's actually functionally identical to getting sniped by a Predator Drone with a rocket launcher by someone operating it from Australia - so I don't particularly care about that actually. Both are available to starting characters even.

That's actually functionally identical to getting sniped by a Predator Drone with a rocket launcher by someone operating it from Australia - so I don't particularly care about that actually. Both are available to starting characters even.

@Karoline: I know, this topic is on fire.


The problem is that "balance" can mean almost anything. It usually means "the ability to end lives", although sometimes players will use "unbalanced" to mean, "his character is way cooler than mine"-- though this too can often be traced to the ability to end lives.

Agreed. "Balanced" is a goal of dubious worth given how impossible it is to achieve.

In My Experience, Characters never start balanced and never stay balanced (assuming you can at some point get them to be)... different paths to competency, and different concepts lead to an inherent imbalance in the system between characters... this is a good thing... what is "balanced" for one player is gonna be "skewed" for another... as long as everyone is having fun, who really cares?

What one character (player) considers inportant is not going to be the same as another character (player)... why try to force them to be similar, it just causes problems... not everyone likes to roleplay (or whatever) the same way...

Keep the Faith

I'll accept equally valuable within a certain range of benchmark conversion to cash/karma/dicepools. (pick one)

in all seriousness, the balance being discussed concerning cash limited versus karma limited has mostly in this thread been about making sure brightline numbers (basic ware stuffed in versus magic attribute) advance at about the same pace; you should've seen how crazy it was when adepts got the magic point for free when initiating!


It's somewhat affected by how much 'ware and what magic attributes you start at though; it also kind of presupposes that you'd rather squeeze in more 'ware than extra skill points (you do, skills are horribly priced in the karma advancement lottery.) and that mages would rather boost their spell force limits than buy more 'ware (they do, because there's a big penalty for throwing in 'ware willy nilly.)

I absolutely agree that players and GM should negotiate up-front what to expect from a campaign, in style and tone, mechanics and house rules. Satisfaction at the table is the ultimate goal, and if your players are satisfied including lifestyle in with "style and tone," then I think everyone else should STFU.

My disagreement is with the idea that people with different lifestyles are necessarily different in style, or that persons of different lifestyles couldn't work as a criminal team. I have my own reasons for thinking this to be true, just as I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking that members of a criminal team would - or that we should arbitrarily determine that they will - all have proximate lifestyles.

The other factor, of course, is that I don't see what the "problem" which needs "solved" by this mechanic is.

And, see, that's why I don't have a mechanic for this and you do: I don't care about game balance one bit. Different strokes.

I'm not sure seeking a karma/cash equivalency could be considered a mechanic.

that's like saying a guideline for a GM to help determine payouts is a mechanic..

Unless you completely ignore any and all rules for character creation, right down to build points or karma, then obviously you do care about game balance.

On that note, I did once try running a game with that very notion. I gave very minimal guidelines (mostly along the lines of things you should add to your character rather than the use of limits) and then told the players to build the character the way they should be. Skill ratings, for instance, were dictated by their descriptions (Novice, Professional, World Class, etc.). Availability was ignored. All implants were available, etc.

You'd be surprised by how well balanced the characters turned out. Players tend to put more restrictions on themselves when there are no restrictions rather than trying to break the system by getting around those that do exist.

I'm not particular about the wording; if there's a better term available, by all means substitute it. I hope my intent was clear, nonetheless?


When it's up to me, we generally do just that. I'm perfectly satisfied playing someone with the point value of the Street Kid archetype in a group of prime runners; I've done just that. What matters more to me is internal consistency: literally playing a street kid in a group of government agents just wouldn't make sense! But it's harder for me to maintain suspension of disbelief in a situation in which every person is equally capable, once you average all their capabilities. My experiences suggest that while people tend to sort into groups of rough parity, that parity is highly unlikely to be precise. "50 point people" sometimes end up working with, or otherwise spending time with, "500 point people," but it's uncommon [unless you attend State Dinners, zing!]; it's at least as uncommon for five people to get together who are all exactly 500 points. Better, in my mind, to set style and tone through consensus with the group, come up with the idea you want for a character, and select the numbers that fit that concept. Not a popular point of view, but, yes, mine.

Anyway, some people don't have as much fun if everyone isn't equally "powerful," whatever that means to them. That's totally cool. It just isn't something that matters to me. That kind of parity has nothing to do with why I roleplay.



This is also my experience! [And something I'm sadly guilty of myself, sometimes.] Set a hard limit, and people beat themselves up trying to get as much as they can out of the hard limit. Set a soft limit, and people go out of their way not to abuse it. Also, I think placing the emphasis, at character generation, on concept, and not mechanical capability, makes for characters with better concepts, whatever their mechanical capabilities might be. Since I care a lot more about concept than mechanical capability, ta da! My preferred arrangement.

QFT...

I have seen this on more than one occasion... and when you implement limits (Usually with good intentions, for one reason or another) the min/maxers run with it and push it as far as they can...

In the end, I tend to self-limit, even though our GM has no real limits other than the basic guidelines for Character Generation... I continuously refer to the Skill Level Descriptions, as they are generally the best indicator of competency, not the end result dice pool obtained... You can have two characters with the exact same dice pools, and have their skills differ from one end of the spectrum to the other... and in the end, the character with the higher skill rating is considered more competent...

Keep the Faith

mostly, I just don't think it's meant to be a solution to a perceived problem as it is another tool to be aware of when setting payments. (I actually use it to the exclusion of pay for the job type guidelines personally - players don't really think of runs as ala carte menus to determine price, they hear a quoted figure and go 'that's great!' or 'that's not enough!' - for whatever reason, hearing 180~200k (the aforementioned 5-6 KPE payout) seems to sound about right to my table for typical missions, with particularly hard ones running into the 300-500k range. (ingame we take a run about once every other month, each player is pulling down about 500k/yr.)

while we're near the subject, does anyone have a requisition or wealth type house rule system? I think it'd be interesting to use for certain table themes (made men, rich and shadowy, etc.)




*my table prefers Jet-Set to skateboard punks - although I think bringing in about 100k as a team in a month is reasonable - much less than that and players may start to question why they're risking their necks if you're doing regular shadowruns and not say, knocking over cars in Snohomish. If you're doing non-corporate type games then payments can be all over the map.

Balanced is 'able to achieve an equal share of spotlight time. Where two characters contribute to the same 'thing' (i.e. combat) both characters should be able to make an equally significant contribution'