Oh... you're obviously using "stupid" in the same sense as you're using "balance." Got it.


Dude. You're really REALLY not getting this. Let me spell it out for you: I'm not talking in metaphor. Not. Metaphor. A literal, actual, physical scale. On my desk. Rocks from the garden. Move the fulcrum by choosing the heavier rock. Please. Tilt the scales by choosing the rock you want. I want to see this.

I know it's hard for you grasp, but I'm drawing an analogy, not talking in metaphors. Your desire cannot move a fulcrum. The choice does not make the lighter one heavier. There are different kinds of balance, yes, but none of them are obtained solely by your ability to choose the heavier side. Or the more valuable side. Can you balance the ledgers by choosing to use the more advantageous number when they sides don't match? That's also not a metaphor. It's an analogy. To an actual real physical ledger involving someone's actual, real money.

I don't how I can make this more clear. Frankly, I wish I was talking to someone who was claiming their choice would physically life 995lbs by the mere act of choosing. At least that person would be entertaining.

Okay, Now I remember...



I will give you that one... in the end I prefer lead to gold for bullets, but yeah, mostly for a cost reason... though I do think that lead is easier to work with than gold is (though having no real experience with melting gold for bullets, I cannot prove such a thing)... as for the Weight (and Troy Ounces vs. the Standard Weights and Measures), a standard pound is a Standard Pound... all things considered, the scales will balance whether it is gold, lead, or feathers... it does not really matter...



I point out the cost for Oni as it is the one that ususally gets pointed out as being way out of whack... And I would argue that rarity is not a flawed way to balance... it actually works out pretty well in our games, so something must be working okay there... of course table stats are in no way the average, and I do recogmnnize that, but it seems to me that a lot of people complain that things are "unfair" or "Unbalanced" and never actually play with those rules because of this, so there is no real basis for comparison... it is all opinion at that point...




No, I am not admitting it is wrong... it is the way it is, and therefore I do not waste energy complaining about it, I use the cost as is and move along... Not every one is capable of that though... No Loss for me...




Really... I have a perfectly accurate timepiece in my head... it is called an internal Comlink... I also have a perfectly useable orientation system that can tell me exactly where I am and what direction I am going, down to a scale that generally eliminates errors... SO my point is that characters that take those Qualities have just wasted 5 points, because I can get them with technology and it costs me far less than the 5bp (that the Qualities cost) to acquire them, so therefore the balance that you are so fond of touting has been destroyed... so, there you go... useless qualities, and very unbalanced by your definition.... In my book, I see it as a choice... the individuals who want the ability to do such things without technology must purchase the qualities, the ones who want can buy the tech well, they buy the tech... It is a choice, but is in no way balanced...



1. Made perfect sense to me...
2. Eliminates arguments and allows a game to contnue, and I have actually never had to resort to such statements in any game that I have run, so it is a useless argument (at least against me)
3. Things maybe errated from time to time. In some cases, it is not because there was an issue with the rule, it is because a vocal minority have engendered change over those who really did not care... and Other times, it is for clarification purposes... assuming that all errata is for FIXING MISTAKES in design is tripe... a lot of errata is actually for very obvious typos... I in no way see the costs of the metavariants as Typos... and have absolutely no problem with the argument that the costs reflect rarity...



And yet your houserules would not fly in a Missions Campaign would they (Which are RAW, If I Remember Correctly)? And saying that the Rules are WRONG because you say so is the height of arrogance... Your interpretation may make more sense, but that does not invalidate the rule unless and until the developers agree with you... in this case they do not... so why continue to campaign for said change?



What I am saying is that this issue has been raised many, many times and has not been FIXED or Errated, so therefore the developers believe that they are in the right... and you know what, they are, it is their work... There are many things in the rules that I have issues with, but you know what, I just move along, knowing that a game can never represent reality in its entirety... many rules are put in place for "balance" (there it is again) reasons, and so I just go with it and move along...

In this case, the developers balanced rarity by making it cost more... so be it... sometimes, the developers will evaluate a rule after it has been in place for a while and tweak it here or there... and that is okay... sometimes they go overboard and have to retract something after the fact... perfectly acceptable... but once they have explained their reasons for whatever decision they have made, complaining about it further is a waste of energy, and I choose to just move along rather than waste the energy...It is a Game, Not Reality...

You may not agree, but there it is...

Keep the Faith

I don't think it's wrong to have metatypes that don't start out on even footing with other metatypes, to be honest, and the stance isn't particularly counterintuitive or even outrageous. As I have said before, role playing games do not have a true win condition unless you take it upon yourself to introduce them, and handicapping your character slightly in the name of roleplaying is perfectly acceptable provided you do so with the consent of others at your table. Metatype costs honestly aren't that big of a deal. If I were to take aim at anything in the chargen process, it would be at the way costs change from BP to Karma, and even then I dislike it mostly just because it makes for some slightly messier book keeping.

Thank You Whipstitch for breaking it down to a succint and well-said point (I tend to ramble a bit, and sometimes lose track of what my point was going to be)... I would have to agree with you here...

Keep the Faith

You REALLY are not getting this either. Your choice is the position of the fulcrum.

Rock A is Oni. Rock B is Orc. Your choice is where the fulcrum is.

I don't want you designing games. Ever.
Because you fail at game design.

Well, to be fair... Effective Game Design is actually very difficult to perform if your intent is to create a coherent and dynamic world with little to no structural issues... which is why there is really no perfect system out there (except for maybe Feng Shui that is)... and why you tend to see a mass proliferation of somewhat "Good" systems, with fairly few Exceptional Systems, and a lot of just "okay" systems...

Anyways,

Keep the Faith

True, but arguing for something that is clearly less balanced towards something else is stupid, especially when the two things under comparison are exactly identical in every way except for some cosmetics, but one is more expensive.

Its harder to argue escaped clone versus perfect time, but orc and oni are exactly the same therefore need to have the exact same cost.

perhaps... Which is generally why I do not argue many things I disagree with in Shadowrun, from a realism perspective...

But for those gamemasters who either cannot (don't know how) or do not (don't care) adhere to the fluff of rarity, the increased cost insures that the choice is sub-optimal...

Keep the Faith

You never change the rules, you say. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. There is no rule I have ever changed without playing it as written and testing it with the change. In my experience, that's how it's usually done, and your idea of people changing rules without trying them is a strawman.


You haven't shrugged this off and ignored it, you've spent longer arguing about it than I have.


Implanted commlink costs essence. Non-implanted commlink can be taken away. The Perfect Time quality has neither of these limitations. The whole "Can never be taken away , no matter what" is a pretty profound bonus to add to something. Again, if it's useless in your games, then your GM sucks. If a player has a nifty ability, it is the GMs responsibility to give them an opportunity to show it off. It's like never giving the mage an opportunity to cast spells. Not as bad, but the difference is one of scale, not of kind.


Where did I say all errata were design errors? Typos are errors, are they not?
Oh, and you have no problem with the idea that cost reflects rarity even when the metatype that is more common costs more? If it was applied equally, it would make sense. It is not, and I call bullshit on the claim that such a thing actually has anything to do with the costs at all. It is justification after the fact, and nothing more.


Who cares if my house rules will affect someone else's game? What does this have to do with the discussion at all? I disagree with the NFL's on and off ban on spiking the football, by the way. Why should the official NFL rules have any bearing on how I play the game with my friends? In short - I don't gives a damn whether or not the developers agree with me. Their opinions are NOT more valid than mine. If you feel they are more valid than yours, that's your call to make. As for me, I have a bit more self-confidence than that. You can call it arrogance if you like, but you could just as easily say that you have such a low sense of self-worth that you feel incapable of being right without someone else writing a book to back you up.


Again: "The book is right because it's the book and the book is right" is not an argument. It's stubbornly refusing to make an argument. And again - going with it and moving along is going with it and moving. What you are doing is arguing for days about the rule with strangers over the internet. Pretty much the opposite of moving along, really. So tell me, what's your motivation here?


No they didn't. They claim that they have, but it just isn't so. The rarer metatypes do NOT cast more in every case. Comparing rarity with point costs does not give you the key to seeing why some cost so much and others are so cheap. The rules simply do not back up this assertion. And, once again... if saying something against it is such a waste of energy (I disagree entirely of course), how much more of a waste is it to chant "The rules are always right... the rules are always right" ad infinitum? Are you so fundamentally incapable of thinking for yourself that other people doing so is a threat to you or something?

Once again. NOT METAPHOR. The rock is the rock. The fulcrum is the fulcrum. The choice is the choice. NOT METAPHOR. Say it with me now NOT METAPHOR. An actual, real physical scale. Come on, this isn't so hard. There's no metaphor. There's a scale on my desk. Right now. A scale. A real, physical scale. Real, physical rocks. One is bigger than the other. Not a metaphor.

Not.
A.
Metaphor.

Oni aren't more rare in Japan. They're HUGELY more common in Japan. The game is much more global now, isn't it? Where's the rule tat makes orcs more expensive in Japan and Oni cheaper? And you again continue to ignore the supposedly rare metatypes which are actually cheaper than their more common cousins. How do you explain this if the cost is supposed to reflect rarity?

This is just so much Drivel... and is not always the case... there are some (even here on DUmpshock) who change the rules before trying them because they just do not like how it plays out... the suggestion is to always try them out, but there have been those who refuse such things, because it is not the style that they prefer... Happens all the time in fact... and No, I am unaware of any Houserules that are in play at our table... you CAN play Shadowrun without Houserules... as a matter of Fact, that is what Missions is generally all about...



I never said that the GM does not highlight special abilities... I am pointing out that your argument about balance is somewhat flawed... if special abilities do not effectively cost the same, in your opinion (I could probably link the post, but don't really care to) is that they are not balanced... I have just pointed out how at least 3 qualities are not balanced to the technological equivalent... ergo, they are not balanced according to your position.



Yes, Typo's are errors, and are generally easy to find, as such... and the majority of errata is exactly that... Typos... the costs of Metavariants and advanced Character Concepts do not fall into that particular category though...

Lets see... I am looking at the book now... there is NO METAVARIANT that costs LESS than its base... some are costed equally, but none are less... the ones that are costed Equally have either additional positive abilities, or aditional Negative abilities... over and above the rarity of said Metavariants... is it fair, maybe not, but is it the way the designers wanted them... and It makes perfect sens e to me... The opinion that "the claim that such a thing actually has anything to do with the costs at all." and that "It is justification after the fact, and nothing more." is just that, an opinion... just as my position is... opinions are neither right or wrong, they just are...



It is not about Self Confidence, which I have a great deal of... (Have you EVER designed a game from the ground up? Ever? I have)... The Problem is about playability... There are many things about the rules that I disagree with, but they were put in place for a reason... If you fix one thing you may disagree with, it very possibly throws something else out of whack, at which point you fix that, and break something else, which continues on until the game no more represents what it was intended to do... the rules are synergistic, and if you cannot see that then I am probably wasting my time here... Again, Self-Esteem has no bearing on how I play the game... I play the game to have fun, not get into arguments about House Rules every 20 minutes of play time...



Your claim that the devs are wrong is also inaccurate... and that is what I am trying to get you to see... Developers cannot be WRONG... it is their game world, not yours... If you ever design a game that markets, you will have the esteem of actually producing something that you can say, without a doubt, is your Vision of that particular "World", and my saying that your vision is wrong would be erroneous... I might disagree with a few things, and offer suggestions, but me telling you that your creation is wrong is the height of arrogance, as it is not MY CREATION, buts YOURS... that is all I am trying to say here...



And their claims should be enough for you; if they have taken into consideration the feedback provided, and then, as you say, claim to have fixed it... at that point... it is Fixed... Now, I will say that game designers should evaluate feedback from the ir audience, of course, and take any action that they deem appropriate... without doing so means that the y will not be designing games very long... Games must improve or they die (or they acquire a loyal following and continue on without support, which is the same as death in a lot of books)... I have said it before, and I will say it again, there is no such thing as a perfect game.... thoguh Chess comes close.

Obviously you do not agree though... Okay with me... I like debate, how about you?

Keep the Faith

Translation: I cannot even pretend to argue against what I said, you are 100% correct, but I refuse to openly admit it.


Actually, your attempt to point out the inferiority of the qualities failed. The qualities cannot be taken away and cost no essence. That's a pretty huge advantage over the tech equivalents, and so, I think they're reasonably balanced. However, let's pretend for the moment that I agree with you. This is no way supports your stance. "Look, here are more unbalanced rules" isn't a defense of unbalanced rules. It's pointing out that the game design is flawed in even more ways. This is less reason to use the RAW and less reason to accept something the designers say merely by weight of their say-so.


Adjust for the cost of extra abilities and limitations and then add them up again. Also remember to compare them against one another, not just the base. Also, remember that in Japan, the Oni is the standard, and the Orc is the variant. Ohm and once again "The designers said so" is NOT a valid argument in and of itself. We aren't arguing whether the designers put a certain rule or not, merely whether or not they were right to do so.


Yes, I have. But thank you for pointing out your bias towards supporting the designer in every choice they make. I think I understand you better now. If they are right, then you are also also right... so long as you can make others think that designers are always right, you'll never be wrong in what you did in the game you designed. Sounds so very confident to me.
Oh, and if your group can't make a house rule without arguing about it every 20 minutes, your problem is the players, not the rules. I've been implementing house rules into games for more than 20 years now, and it's never cascaded into making the game a completely different game, and it's never caused a huge stack of arguments. Let me repeat that: Never. Never to both of your catastrophic strawmen.


Your claim that devs are always right is wrong. Devs can be wrong. They are as human as anyone else. Once I plonk down my cash for the book, it becomes my game, not theirs. I am just as qualified to make decisions about the game as they. More so, in fact, since I'm on the ground, slogging through the mud, seeing how it works in my game up-close. Game developers are like directors in film. They can say whatever they like about their "vision," but it's always bullshit. If you can see their hands on the work, they did their job wrong.



Argument from Authority carries exactly zero weight with me. Their claims mean nothing without facts to back them up. If they refuse to take into consideration the feedback provided, and offer transparent rationalizations rather than actually looking at what they did and why, the game is not fixed, is it?


I find it endlessly entertaining.

You are right in that the qualities cannot be taken away, but neither can my technologial replacements, even if they do cost a minimal amount of essence... it is a tradeoff... but the fact remains that for less than 5bp I can get both, while you need 10bp to get the qualities... sounds pretty unbalanced to me...




The Oni is more prolific in Japan than in other areas, they are not, however, more prevalant than the actual Ork is... The designers have every right to implement rules, it is their world... whether they are right is immaterial to the point you are apparently trying to make (at least here), which is that the Dev/Designers DO NOT have that right? Or am I mistaking what your last sentence implies?



I actually do not have a Bias towards supporting the designers in their choices... in fact, you may have noticed that I did indeed say that I disagree with some of their decisions... as for whether or not I am wrong about the decisions I might make in game design, you would be mistaken... just like I would be mistaken in calling your design principles Wrong... However, much like you (apparently) I can take criticism about my design decisions and have in fact participated in several revisions over the years (before I eventually quit for lack of time) and I think that the game was both better and worse for the revisions... probably like every other designer out there... I have no lack of confidence, just a lack of time...

As for House Ruling, I have just not seen any reason to Houserule anything in Shadowrun... htere have definitely been games where it was a necessity, but not always... as for the arguments about rules changes, I never said my group was like that either, you just assumed, but from the evidence I have seen on this very discussion board, it seems to be pretty prevalant in a lot of places, and I just do not have the time or energy to argue such things anymore... maybe 20 years ago I would have said it differently, but not now... My gaming time is just to precious to waste it away in arguments that eventually mean nothing.

I would say that you are lucky in that you have exceptional players, not every one is so lucky though... and I do remember a few groups many years ago, that were terrible about this very thing... again, I just don't have the time or energy...



I never view a designer decision as Wrong... I may not agree with them, and I may wish to change the design from time to time... however, I have found that excessive changes tend to alter the game a bit (sometimes a lot), and it makes it harder to integrate someone from out side your nirmal group when you do so, especially if they are familiar with the basics of the game...

You are right that it is your game once purchased, no arguments, as I generally feel the same way about it, but we again come back to interlocking decisions (on the mechanics mostly, fluff never survives contact with a GM) that could fundamentally change the game...in some cases I am wiulling to go through all the work necessary to personalize the game for my group... in others, I just want a fast game, with little to no interruption, so no changes are made (or desired)... individual taste and flavor...



But apparently you are disagreeing with their "Facts" as well, which causes issues in the end... if they disregarded the feedback, it is probably because they:

1. Disagreed with the Feredback and see no actual issues or
2. Actually have a reason for doing what they did, and you just disagree with Them...

Either way, Neither of you are WRONG, there is just disagreement on how to proceed from that point...

It appears that at that point, your inclination is to just fix the rule yourself... mine is just to play what is there and enjoy it... it may strain my Suspension of Disbelief (like the weapons/combat rules do currently) but that is okay... it is a game, not real life... it is just too much work to constantly try and keep a game "Fixed" in this regard than it is to just play it and enjoy it for what it is...




As do I... I may not always be good at it (my mind is being corrupted by 4 year old TV, and I must keep purging the demons), but I do enjoy it...

Keep the Faith

Then in your example there is no choice. Choice is the position of the fulcrum. In your example, if the fulcrum cannot be moved, there is no choice. Simple as that.

If you take them as cyberware they cannot be taken away, but they cost essence. Not much, but essence is a pretty limited resource. It's a rare character that never has to worry about it. The BP will be recovered in Karma after a small handful of runs at the most. Yet again, though, let's pretend I agree with you: It's an argument that the devs screwed up and the game is poorly designed and needs correcting. That's a point for my side, not yours.


Actually, my understanding is that in Japan, the Oni is more common than the Orc. Let me check... Yup. RC page 51 calls them above 75% of the Japanese robustus population.


You disagree with their choices but refuse to propose alternate choices... Sounds like you support them despite their mistakes, regardless, because they are the devs and their word is law. You have literally said that game designers can do no wrong in their own game. How is that not bias again?


You disagree with the rules, but see no need to change them? I cannot imagine the mentality required to make such a stand. It literally boggles my mind. Oh, and there's no argument in the game about house rules. You say "This is the rule in my game. Don't like it? Don't play." Alternately, you have the house rules discussion before the game starts. It's exactly the same as deciding whetehr your'e playing gritty, street-level or world-class super-criminals.


Did they also decide to play a retired super-soldier in a street-level game? I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine that players would argue any less over a rule in the book they perceive as bullshit than they would about a rule the GM made up. A bad rule is a bad rule, regardless of who wrote it. The designers are not superhumans with abilities beyond that of other people, and most players will recognize this simple fact. If you play with other people who think the designers can do no wrong (like you) I can see how this might be so, but again, I cannot fathom the mindstate required to do such a thing.


Again, they can do no wrong. This is not bias in your mind? I think you fail to grasp what the word "bias" means. Oh, and it's easy to integrate new players into the game. You say "we play with these house rules." Done. No muss, no fuss. So long as you're honest and up-front, there's no problem. If they disagree with the choices you made, they don't have to play with the group. Same as the tone and style on that front, really. See, the last game I was a part of ran for four years with three rotating GMs and a constant stream of players cycling in and out of the game. There was discussion after sessions and on the forum we set up about house rules, but we never had a problem with someone showing up and not being able to handle house rules.


So you are suggesting that it would fundamentally change the game, requiring a massive rewrite or such that the game would be nigh unrecognizable to outsiders to rebalance the BP cost of the metatypes? Because the karmagen system says all metatypes cost the same: zero. After character creation, there is no difference between the two. Looks to me like the designers have already admitted that the relative costs for metatypes just aren't that important anyway.


I might agree with you here, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, except for one thing: They gave a reason for disregarding this feedback, and it's clearly not true. The numbers in the book do not line up as they would if the stated reason was the actual reason. There is no correlation between bp cost and relative rarity of metatypes.


No. Lies and post hoc rationalizations which do not fit the data are wrong. proceeding by pretending no one caught you in you bullshit is also wrong. If the answer had been "It's arbitrary, but that's what it is," I could at least respect them while disagreeing with their arbitrary line. Dishonesty, though... that's just wrong.


It's not easy for me to enjoy a broken game for being broken. I'd rather not punish my players for no good reason.

So... you also don't know what the word "choice" means? Why am I not surprised?

Hehehe.

Silly toturi, the choices are what sit on either side of the scale: those rocks and pounds of gold we've been talking about.

As an OT aside (I'm munching on the popcorn with interest in this flamewar drama), I wouldn't quote frickin' Sirlin for game design, especially for roleplaying game design. He states things in a very simple manner and quite eloquently, but he can't even balance the games in which he has direct control, like Super Street Fighter II HD Remix. A lot of horrible decisions were made in that game without actually balancing the characters because he used the rule "if it's unbalanced, beat me with it." He used his position of authority as a poor substitute for thought and good design. For example, Honda's jab headbutt now soaking fireballs has rocketed him up near the top tier characters, especially since they kept his idiosyncratic Ochio Slam charging (you don't have to execute the joystick motion at the same time as the button press). He didn't even thoroughly playtest his own damn game... on release, there was a bug where you could hold a charge using the analog stick while moving at the same time with the digital. It took a bit of thumb-twisting, but I was able to execute moves fairly easily with this hidden charge for some cheap wins. Hell, it's as bad as roll-canceling in the arcade version of CvS2.

Besides, roleplaying games aren't multiplayer competitive video games where you want people to compete in tournaments at the top end. They are co-operative in nature, and Sirlin's voice is lacking when it comes to co-op games.

I dunno... I thing most of the philosophy in that article is valid. If the author fails his own test... well, that's actually a pretty common human trait, isn't it?

Oh, I know his game design skills aren't up to the level of his philosophy, Kongai (a card game varient of mortal kombat on Kongregate) sucks ass.

Sirlin has good points to make, but I do think he's a poor example for a table top rpg. He balances games around the concept of competition. The goal in such a case is to have meaningful decisions that affect how you pursue a known win condition. Meanwhile, "winning" chargen is a pretty damned nebulous concept. Shadowrun chargen exists to give you a breadth of choices that lead to a highly personalized character that can also function as a shadowrunner in a shadowrun campaign. Internal point balance within the rest of the system is a tertiary goal, at best-- particularly since some people want to run a flawed character. I actively try to tone down my characters at times-- my run-fu is strong, so handicapping myself is often for the best. A lot of people's houserules would probably just inspire me to pick up a boat load of useless knowledge skills to blow some points on.

Still, the concept of balance is still there, you're just balancing for "PvE" rather than "PvP," which while different, does embody some of the same principles.

Right, except a lot of people don't view beating the environment as a win condition. It's not even really PvE for some people.

QFT.

Most of my friends are of the opinion "I don't care if I live or die, so long as it's cool."

Can't argue that the recovery of the points for the race is pretty easy to acquire, which was indeed my point as well... if they are so easy to recover, why actually worry about that minimal 5 BP? Sounds like a point for my point of view actually...



Awesome, I obviously missed that ... Thanks for pointing it out...



I discuss what individuals find problematic, yes... but I tend to cast it in a light that the fluff supports... as such, I see no real need to actually houserule the rules, even If I disagree with them... as such, it is not because they are the Devs and their word is law, but because I do not wish to houserule the rules... they are two different things...



So your mind is boggled... I just see no real reason to houserule... I just live with it (generally) and move on... and if you are as non-moving in your stance about your houserules, I am amazed that you can keep players for an extended time... you see, I do not HAVE to say love it or leave it... I just say, "the rules are in the book, if you need assistance deciphering them, let me know"... at that point, everyone is still on the same page... and if there is dissent, I work it out with them before the game (much like a lot of other people do), but since I keep to the rules, there is very rarely any dissent...



I tend to evaluate what the PLAYERS want in a game and design from there... if there is a disconnect where groups of players want different things, there is always a compromise somewhere... after that, tehn we generate characters and move along... in our current game (I am not the GM) we are playing Cold Professionals (and have been for about 300 karma and going on 3 years or so)... Pink Mohawk is discouraged, and tends to get you dead rather quickly... in other games we have played Pink Mohawk... varies by game really.

And again, it is not about what we think about the designers... we avoid that by using the RAW... at that point, what we think about the actual designers is actually moot...



I do know what a bias is... and you seem to be missing my point entirely... if I choose to use the RAW rather than Houseruling, then what I think of the actual rules does not even matter, and thus caries no bias... See Previous Paragraph above...



I never once intimated that it would take MASSIVE rewrites... but you do have to keep track of what you change, and make sure that everyone else remembers what you have changed... too much work, for too little reward... as for Metatypes and Karmagen... I have always though that the Karmagen system as introduced by RC was horribly broken, and we do not allow it in play... we use BP, and Racial Costs are as they are statted in the Books... and if the costs of Metatypes are ultimately irrelevant then why do you argue for a "Rebalancing" of the costs... if they are irrelevant, then that should not actually matter...



If you are relying upon some mystical system for costing, tehn that is where your problem actually is... I see it as teh metatypes cost what they cost, regardless of any underlying system... there does not have to be a correlation... there is no real correlation for the cost of an Elf, but people accept that for what it is...



Again, you are assuming that hey are lying and rationalizing... I am not... again, benefit of the doubt, no bias...



Which is probably why we are in disagreement here... I do not see it as punishing someone for playing the RAW...

Keep the Faith

The recovery of bp in the form of karma is pretty easy when compared to the cost of recovering essence lost by the technological equivalent abilities, which is notably more problematic. The recovery of bp is much more costly when compared to... well, no cost at all. So, in your point of view, docking someone's essence for no reason isn't worth worrying about? Hell probably.


You haven't exactly given reason that you do not except that you do not feel like doing the work and the designers can do no wrong. Laziness and slavish devotion is all I've seen so far. Feel free to point out if I've missed one in there.


My house rules are improvements. That makes it easy to retain players. I generally surround myself with people who are intelligent enough to see the problems and have enough of a sense of fair-play to want to fix them.


I tend to play with players who want game balance. In my last game (four years), we had a variety of playstyles, but were fairly united OOC in the idea of justice and fairness in the rules.


If you use the RAW exclusively, you proclaim that you think the designers are right. What I think of the designers beyond the rules has no bearing on what I think of the rules. If someone could point me something I'm missing which makes the rules balanced, I will use them. Otherwise, they're wrong, and I change them. What I think of the designers is pretty much moot. Only what I think of the rules. The only reason my opinion of said designers has come up at all is because of the claim that rarity affects bp cost, which the actual bp cost and relative rarity of metatypes does not in any way reflect.


Actually, it does. By using them, you endorse them. You seem to have decided to endorse them sight unseen, and parrot patently false claims by the designers which are easily disproven if you take a moment to look. If you see no bias in blindly following dogma, then I think there may be no hope for you.


I don't argue that they are irrelevant. The RAW does. That's your side of the argument, friend, not mine.



There's a very simple system: If the metatypes are identical except for a couple of qualities, and rarity, then after you adjust for the qualities (right there in the book), the rarer type should cost more. If you do this with another pair, then the rarity cost should correlate with the degree of rarity. This is, quite simply, not even close to correct. There are just a bunch of arbitrary ruling which say "This metatype is better than this one in ever numerical sense." That's kind of the opposite of balance, and is unfair to any player not gaining such an advantage.


I've presented the evidence of it. You ignore it out of hand. Sounds like you've got a bit of bias there to me.

It's not punishing them for playing the RAW. The RAW are punishing them for no good reason. YOU are punishing them, not for playing the RAW, but by playing the RAW.

Has nothing to do with laziness... Slavish Devotuion I would also argue... I have NO PROBLEMS with the RAW as applied in the game... what I do have is disagreements between the RAW and the Real World... these two should never meet anyways, so I choose to not bother modifying things to FIT the REAL WORLD... I don't care enough... Like I have said before... The weapon/combat rules are a joke... but to fix them to something that I could agree with would take way to much work, and would bog the system down in minutia, which I would NOT like... the system works for what it does... does it have some issues, sure (what game does not), but I really do not care to fix any of them, and honestly, no one else in our group cares either... so they are not being punished in the slightest... so your assumptions of punishment are baseless...



I am sure your houserules ARE improvements, otherwise you would not houserule them... but without knowing what you have houseruled, I cannot evaluate their use, so I am not fit to comment upon them... as for retaining players, we have never lost a player because of the RAW... EVER... the only players we have lost over the years was because of family issues (one had 3 kids in about 4 years or so, and the other was sporadic anyways becasue of family commitments)...



Assuming that we do not agree with the idea of fairness and fairplay, neh even balance, is erroneous... we just do not really see anything unfair (especially about the metavariants) when you take into account the relevant fluff provided... some things are edge situations (of course) that may strain suspension of disbelief, but we have all been playing roleplaying games for 15+ years each (some of us for over 20) we do not let these things actually bother us...



Actually we proclaim nothing... we use the RAW because it is there... we could houserule things... but we do not... My question for you would be ... Do you take the Fluff into account when you evaluate a rule? and when fluff and mechanic are at odds, how would you correct the situation? Just Curious myself...



I never endorse rules sight unseen, nor do I condemn them sight unseen either... much like you, I always play the game by the rules before trying to pick them apart... it is just that I prefer NOT to pick them apart... there are hundreds (if not thousands) of games out there to satisfy every whim of a genre... and if you do not like one game you go on to the next one... In this case, The issues that I have with Shadowrun do not outwiegh the fun I have playing it (even if I do use the RAW)... would I enjoy the game more with houserules? Maybe, but maybe not... I have seen a LOT of houserules proposed here on Dumpshock (and in other places) that I vehemently DO NOT agree with, as I think that they break the game even more than the rule they are meant to fix... Houserules are for those who want to customize the game to their particular tastes... RAW are for theose who just want to play the game...



Point taken, but then again, I DO NOT think that they are broken, and that after Character Creation, the costs of the Race ARE irrelevant... You have chosen that race with the costs in mind, so how can anyone claim that it is broken or unfair... if it was so, then why did you choose it... it wasn't broken or unfair when you chose the race in the first place... and for the record, I would play ANY of the metavariants in tehir place given a concept that I enjoyed (many of which I actually do have character concepts for already)



except that that is YOUR system... which is why it does not correlate to your standards... and it is not unfair, if the player so chooses to play that type of character... you could argue, by your definition, that playing a human is unfair, as they do not pay ANYTHING for the benefit of their +1 Edge Attribute... I would say that that interpretation is ridiculous, but using your formula, that is how it correlates... I have received something (+1 Edge) for absolutely nothing (0 BP Costs)...



Bias towards the writers is not the same as Preference for a ruleset... never has been, nor will it ever be. I can disagree with the writers, and still use their ruleset successfully...



I completely disagree with this... in essence, what you just stated is that anyone who plays in Missions games is being punished because they are forced to play by the RAW... I cannot disagree more... the rules are fair and balanced BECAUSE EVERYONE is forced to play under the same ruleset... at which point NO ONE has an advantage over anyone else... they are using a set of rules under enforced guidelines... You cannot claim imbalance or unfairness if every one is held to the exact same standards... which the RAW enforces... Just because you do not agree does not make it unfair and/or imbalanced...

Keep the Faith

The RAW doesn't punish anyone. The RAW doesn't punish, it simply is. It is the underlying physics of the game world. If you so choose an option that you think is disadvantageous when no one is forcing you to choose that particular option, then either you choose to punish yourself; or that you think it is balanced and acceptable to you.

The RAW states that there are 2 stores: store A or store B. Store A sell X at $Y. Store B sells X at $Z, where Z>Y. RAW gives you the choice to buy from either. The RAW doesn't force you to buy from Store B. If you buy from Store B, it is your choice.

Your house rules are simply that: house rules. If your players think that your house rules are improvements, then they are improvements for them. If your players think your house rules are fair and balanced, then it is fair and balanced to you and your players. It does not necessarily make it fair and balanced to everyone that plays this game.

I think the RAW is fair and balanced, because you have the choice to choose freely. You do not think so and I can accept that. I am not so prideful as to think that you must agree with my point of view. I, however, do insist that you have the courtesy to acknowledge that other people are fine with the RAW as it is. I think you are wrong but I do not insist that you admit it.

Well Said Toturi... Much better than I have been attempting to say...

Keep the Faith

I'll drop the accusation of laziness, since you are only too lazy to make the rules accurately mirror the real world, which, in truth, everyone is. It is not merely a Herculean task (which implies that a superhuman person could do it), but an impossible one. The only game which accurately reflects the real world is... well, we call it Real Life™, and sometimes, it's just not a lot of fun. (Sometimes it is, but that's really a completely different discussion altogether.) I'll stand by the slavish devotion with hopes that the reader understands that it's hyperbole... and not a very good one, since most slaves chafe under the rules, I would think.



And I have never lost a player to house rules. SR Missions, by the way, has lost this player, at least, to strict adherence to RAW. As have the Living FR in D&D, and a stack of other, similar campaigns I could name. I highly doubt that I am alone in this.

What relevant fluff? As I've said over and over - the fluff does not actually reflect these numbers. I've played too many systems for too many years to shrug off imbalance. What if the Oni cost 200bp? Would that bother you? How about if they were one in a million? Would that make sense?



Exactly, you could house rule, but you do not. You choose the RAW. That is tacit endorsement. I take fluff into account when I evaluate a rule if I am playing in the world presented with the system (which I usually do). If I didn't, there would be no magic in my Shadowrun games. It exists only because of fluff, you see. An extreme example, I admit, but I think the point is valid. When the fluff and rules are at odds, the conflict is resolved by altering one, the other, or both, on a case-by-case basis. This is decided by a combination of playability, balance, whether or not it actually affects the anyone at the table, how critical it is to the fluff (i.e. Magic existing is very important, orcs having pointed ears is trivial), how well the rule meshes with other rules and how well the fluff meshes with other fluff, and general awesomeness. This would be handled in a group discussion, usually on the forum we created for the purpose, but occasionally hanging out after a game or socially in a different context than the game. Very rarely, we might discuss it at the gaming table, but if it cannot be resolved quickly to everyone's satisfaction, the GM makes a temporary call, and we move on, revisiting it after the game.


If I like most of this game, it's easier to fix a few rules I disagree with than to throw fifty bucks at a different game that may or may not have the same (or worse) problems. The rules I disagree with out of the box with SR do outweigh the fun I have, and I more or less refuse to play without at least some tweaks to the system. The fun I have with the game after tweaks is worth the work I put to tweak it and more to me (obviously, or I wouldn't do it). Of course, it's in my nature to find flaws and pick things apart, so that may have something to do with it.


Yes, the old "It's your fault. You chose to play the gimped race" non-argument. Sorry, I dislike punishing my players for desiring to play a metatype the designers didn't like for some reason... or, more likely, because the designers didn't think much about the math, and just pulled a number out their asses. I simply don't think it's fair to charge a player 5bp for designer ass or for someone else's mathematical inability.


Show me the system that was used, and let's see if it's fair... If they used the system they have claimed (which would be fair if evenly applied), the numbers for several metatypes would look different. As for the humans, remember when I said that adjusting bp cost for rarity is a valid idea? Humans are more common. 68% of the human population. +1 Edge is the benefit for playing the most common metatype. I call it one of the instances that actually follows the formula the designers claim to have used. Compared to the Nartaki (the only human metavariant), I see Shiva Arms (15bp) and Striking Skin Pigmentation (-5 bp) and a cost for the metavariant of 25bp. This gives us 15bp worth of "rarity" value. How rare are the Nartaki? Total population estimated at below 5,000. That's pretty rare. I think it's steep, and if a player asked to lower the cost to 20bp, I'd very seriously consider it.


I didn't say bias towards these writers. Just bias towards writers in general. Hence, your insistence on the RAW.


Yes I can. Everyone is being held to the imbalanced and unfair standard. See how I just did what you said I can't? I'll probably do it again at some point. No one has an advantage over anyone else... except the people who care about point cost than following their character concept.

You also think that you can move a fulcrum with your mind by choosing the heavier side of the scale. Try not to take this the wrong way, but you have long blasted any chance you had of your opinion carrying any weight with me.

Oh and the bit about acknowledging that other people are fine with the RAW - When have I ever pretended otherwise? Kindly provide a quote of me saying "no one likes the RAW" or anything similar to it. I'll give you the thousand pounds of gold if you can. The closest I came was to say that I highly doubt that I am alone in finding the RAW so skewed that I refuse to play by them.

I do not require that my opinion have any weight with you. You have the choice to decide that.

I think that the position of the fulcrum is decided by me, that is my choice is where the fulcrum should be, you have demonstrated that you either cannot understand that or do not wish to acknowledge that. You want to limit my choice to either side, I understand that it is more beneficial to your argument if you do so, but I think it is choice in this case should be represented instead by the position of the fulcrum, not by the 2 sides themselves.

What is similar is your accusation that people who simply use the RAW is being unfair and your statement that the RAW is wrong. The implication, I take of your argument, is that people should not be fine with the RAW, that people that are fine with the RAW are wrong. I simply ask that you acknowledge that other people are not wrong in differing from you on whether the RAW is right or not.

The RAW isn't right or wrong, it's simply... the RAW. I admit a bit of a bias towards the RAW, mainly because it makes it a lot easier for everyone to be on the same page. Plus, while not all of it may be perfectly balanced, it has been tweaked and playtested. While I have liked a few house rules, a lot of them seem to go into the area of unintended consequences, and cause more problems than the (sometimes nonexistent) ones they are trying to fix.

Still, most people seem to use some house rules. Even I would, for example, nerf or disallow empathy software. On the oni thing, for example, it falls into the category of "meh, it's overpriced, but it isn't something I really care that much about". But if I were the GM, and a player wanted to play an oni, and complained about the price, I would probably drop it to 20 for them, if the other players were okay with that.

You cant just use the traight cost of positive and negative qualities when talking about metavariant prices.
You have to consider that your getting qualities that dont count against the very tight limit of 35BP of qualities at chargen, if i want a character with Shiva-arms i would cladly pay the 25bd for nartaki unless i really dont want to make a human, becouse that leaves me the full amount of 35points to spend on other qualities. Your essentially paying premium price for the ability to have more qualities then is normally possible.

That's because you still don't understand the phrase "not a metaphor." Until you demonsrtate understanding of this simple concept, In my mind, everything you post will be replaced "Durrrrrr.... I kin move de fulcrum wif my MIIIIIIND!"

You haven't look too closely at SURGE, have you? SURGE is basically raising the cap on how many bp worth of qualities you can take (with a limit on which qualities apply) as well as allowing you take a slew of qualities you can't otherwise get. Drop 15bp on SURGE, and you get 30Bp worth of positive and 15 of negative, right? Leaves you 20 more you can use on positive qualities, effectively allowing you to spend 50bp on positive qualities. Nartaki give you 15 (shiva arms) + 35 (normal) = 50. Huh... You would gladly pay to play the nartaki because you're bad at math, it seems. Just Surge, and you get the same effect, only you get to choose which qualities you get, and have access to the whole list of metagenic qualities for all of your quality points, where the Nartaki does not have that option for the 35 points.

Pffft. If he can move just a pencil with his mind I'll pay $20.

The Amazing Randi will give him $1,000,000.

Now you're just being rather rude. If you never intended it to be a metaphor of any sort, then what is the point? The direction you apparently wish to take this conversation is without merit. Toturi is merely saying that balance is subjective when you consider that some people value some things more than they value others. In this case, an oni may not have the same point "weight" as a regular ork, but the fact that it is rarity has value to a lot of people, so the regular ork has a handicap to overcome to be considered equivalent to the oni by some standards. Whether the oni or the ork are in balance depends on where you choose to put the fulcrum.

Which is the primary reason why "game balance" is a flaming crock of bantha poodoo.

Yeah, if this were at least an outright competitive tourney game where playing to win was the sole objective, I'd come down harder on the dev team here. I reallly do have sympathy for those people who say that it's somewhat offputing that the devs make some metavariants have better performance value for the bp than standard races while oni take an outright penalty. After all, even if you buy into the notion that rarity should cost you something it still doesn't explain why that standard appears to be applied somewhat inconsistently when looked at in a vacuum.

But with that said, I'm still kind of tired of people telling Toturi he's insane merely for taking a hands off approach to the RAW. The chargen rules in a table top RPG attempt to do two things: provide playable characters and to make those characters line up with setting fluff. So by that token it's not really all that crazy for there to be a disincentive for playing a character type that is rare and has the misfortune of being native to a land that is notoriously intolerant of metas and ork metavariants in particular. Being an oni ain't easy, and discouraging players from creating one helps keep them rare. Whether you think that trade off is healthy for the game or not is a matter of opinion.

What he was saying is that you can be a Nartaki, then get 50 more points of SURGE qualities on top of that. Or, alternately, maybe you really want to play someone with 4 arms, but you also want to be a mystic adept with a mentor spirit and two levels of focused concentration. So I see where he's coming from.

On the other hand, a character concept that requires being a Nartaki or a dryad, in order to work, is probably pretty rare in actual practice, and I would not see myself taking either option in most instances.

All because wielding four guns is worse than wielding two.

Analogy. Not metaphor. There's only so many times I can say that before I question a person's mental capacity for failing to understand. In this case, I count no less than nine instances of me explaining that I'm not talking in metaphor. You see, in a metaphor, you choice might be a fulcrum. I'm just talking about balance. In balance, the fulcrum is the fulcrum. The weight is the weight. Your choice is the choice. By his logic, a thousand pounds of gold is balanced perfectly with five pounds of gold because he could choose the heavier pile. I call bullshit on this. It's bullshit with gold. It's bullshit with rocks. It's bullshit with build points.

In your anal-ogy for balance, I see the fulcrum as anal-ogous to choice. But this is likely not going to matter really, because the person questioning my mental capacity is choosing(see? choice!) to be anal. I can certainly see his point but evidently he doesn't see mine. That's quite alright, I am insane and people like me see things other people usually can't. Does anyone else see the irony?

Yeah, the big difference between metaphor and analogy is that metaphors generally leave less room for differences, but I hardly see that li'l difference as being worth fussing over.

They're not telling Toturi he's insane. Toturi is the one that says "I'm crazy I seeeee things". You could even say it's a gimmick of his.

Actually even way back in '03, people were already calling me crazy for sticking to canon. I got so tired of people calling me insane, I decided to save them the trouble and put it in my sig and sometimes I take it out and wave it about.