The only reason why you don't see me telling people of Haiti to suck it up is most of them do not have a choice to live there or not. Oh, and what did you think the "rarity" reason was? Read between the lines, they are saying, "yeah, screw Oni, life's not fair", only more politely.

To me every character is simply done according to the rules or not. Each player has an equal opportunity and resources to choose the same pool of options as other players, that is balance.

My simple Question to you would be this... Why would you ever choose a Troll over an Ork... almost as strong, almost as good of body and yet the Troll is twice the cost... is that one point of reach and dermal armor that good? Not in my book, but you know what, I play trolls from time to time, even though they cost more... I play a Shapeshifter, from time to time, even though they do not work according to a lot of people... hell I typically choose Human over most other races... because I can... Why? because i tend to create a character based upon a concept and then see how far that I can take it... Shadowrun is not about trying to pile on every little thing to eke out the greatest dice pool in existence... it is a game for telling stories... Stories about individuals, whether they be an Oni or a Vampire, or whatever...

Creating a character is a choice... And guess what... the Oni only costs 5 more BP than an Ork... a single level of skill difference... wow, if a single level of skill makes a character unplayable, well then I would say that your expectations of the game may be somewhat unreasonable as well...

I mean Really... 5 BP is a make or break for a character? Really?

Just sayin'

Keep the Faith

So only the ones that chose to live there deserved to die? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. You should start backpedaling on that now.


No, they're saying "This is rare, so there should be fewer of them, and to enforce this, we're making it cost you points." The polite version is, "We felt that certain metatypes should be inferior to others, mechanically." I don't see them saying that.



You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hypothetically, if humans cost 100bp with no adjustment to the stats, you're saying that would be balanced because anyone can choose to not play humans? What if EVERY metatype, including humans, changelings, and infected, cost 0bp. Is that balanced? Say every gun except the predator did 1DV and the Predator did 50DV. Is that balanced? I mean, the rule applies equally to everyone playing the game, and you don't have to choose to play one of the ones that sucks, right?

You are aware that your argument is essentially "no matter what the book says, it's always balanced, regardless." You are aware that this renders the word entirely without meaning, right? Hey, what if the book said that any adult named Robert got 300 extra bp at character creation? I mean, you chose not to legally change your name, right? So that's perfectly fair and balanced still, right?

The point isn't the number of points, it's that you have to pay them at all... especially that you have to pay them for some types and you get a bonus for other types. Say it was 50bp? Would you say that would be ok? If not, then doesn't that just make it less wrong? If you're cool with less wrong, that's your choice, but some of us would rather things be, you know... right.

Those that chose to live there, chose to take their chances. I am not selling anything, I am telling you the way it is. No backpedalling needed.

You just choose not to see that. It is your choice.

Yes, it is balanced. If everyone has the option to choose whether they wanted to play humans or use the predator, then it is balanced. Actually my argument is that as long as you have an informed choice, then it is balanced. If the book does say that Robert gets extra 300 BP at char gen, then it is fair and balanced, you can always call yourself Robert. The book does not say that you must legally be known as Robert; by your wording, the character can easily be an adult called Robert and get 300 extra bps, and it would still be fair. Everyone has the choice to be Robert. So yes, right, perfectly fair and balanced.

Really? They deserved to die for choosing to live in Haiti? That's harsh.

Also, thank you for admitting that you are using some new form of the word "balance" that has pretty much nothing to do with the standard English definition, that makes it much easier to understand you.

Oh, and in what universe does the words "named" and "call yourself" mean the same thing? Even if they did, by your logic it doesn't matter, anyway. If the book said "If your legal name is Robert," you'd still be insisting it's balanced and fair because anyone can choose to change their name.

Quit trying to pretend your stance is anything other than "the book is right because that's what is says in the book and the book is always right." It's become blatantly obvious at this point. Just own it. Seriously, by your reasoning, can you even imagine a thing that is NOT balanced the book might say?

I am using the standard English definition of the world.

v. bal·anced, bal·anc·ing, bal·anc·es
v.tr.
3. To bring into or maintain in a state of equilibrium.
4. To act as an equalizing weight or force to; counterbalance.

Your choice is the ultimate balancing force.

My stance is that "the book simply is". There are some things in the book I think was unbalanced. For one, in SR4, there was no choice as to the character creation system to use until Runner's Companion.

"Pay BP" for "rare" is not an "equalized weight."

"Rare" has no effect on the game (unless you count it being a Distinctive Style, in which case... +5BP = -5BP?) therefore has no weight.

I play drakes because, well, dragons are fucking badass. My last drake, I commented once "this character would have been better at being what he was built as a troll" and I had three good reasons:

1) Troll was 20 BP cheaper.
2) Trolls had stat benefits above what I had in drake form only.
3) None of that messy business shifting from one form to another.

But I still decided to play a drake again. Why? Find the niche that takes advantage of all of a drake's benefits. I actually gain armor when I shift this time. Hell, I even took some of the disadvantages and found a way to benefit from them (that whole "being naked" thing--grabbed Dynamic Chameleon Skin and voila: +2 or +4 to Infiltrate when naked).

But it is your choice that acts as the equilizing weight. Pay BP for race is an equalised weight if you choose the option. Rare does have an effect on the game, there should be less player characters of that race, so the GM should have lesser chances of having to deal with such a PC.

No. Wrong. Choice is what I do after I decide which of two options I like better.

Yes. Right. Choice is not which is the better option, your choice is up to you, it is the balancing force.

I think no option can be balanced, except against itself. What is balanced is that within the character generation process you get to make your choices.

No. Wrong.

Consider:

Would you like $50 now, or $100 next week?

$100 next week of course. You can wait: cost vs. benefit.

How about this:

$100 now or $50 next week?

$100 now because why would I ever want the other option? It is not balanced.

Oni vs. Orc is the second example, not the first.

Cost: BP, Benefit: Choice is incorrect. Benefit is getting more for a cost of getting it later and that is the CHOICE I make between my OPTIONS.

So... you looked it up in the dictionary, and you still can't figure out what the word "balance" means? You think the only thing that can be unbalanced is not having a choice? Really? The only thing you could think of that was unbalanced is "everyone uses the exact method to build their characters?" By that logic, the metavariants are unbalanced because you don't have the choice to play an Oni for a different bp cost.

Me personal favorite is the idea that no option can be balanced except against itself, in flgrant disregard for the entire concept of balance, which you just looked up yourself.

Actually, I'd say there's a difference between balanced and fair. It's "fair" to the players to give everyone the same set of options, but it's not particularly balanced to have only one of those options be worth a damn, nor is it generally considered good game design to give players dead end choices, particularly in games that are competitive as opposed to table top rpgs. Now, I won't go so far as to say that this is what actually happens with SR4, but I do think that this conversation is simply a case of people talking past each other. Giving players an even playing field is not necessarily the same thing as providing them with interesting choices.

Oni are balanced for cost.

Base cost: 20
Striking Skin Pigmentation: -5
Get to wangst over playing an "oppressed minority": +5
Get to preen smugly about being a "real roleplayer" for playing a numerically disadvantaged metatype: +5
_______________
Net cost: 25

Personally, I think it was very broad-minded of the developers to give powergamers like me new metatypes such as the wakyambis, gnomes, satyrs, and fomori, while giving the roleplayers new metatypes such as the nartaki, night ones, xapiri thepe, and oni.

Yes. Right.

Pay $100 for a white or black car. Pay $200 for a car of the same make and model in any other color. There is no additional performance benefit to having a colored car.

This is the correct example. Hence most cars are black or white, some people choose to have their cars in other colors. Cost: BP, Benefit: Choice is correct.

I'm sorry, I don't see those two positive qualities listed in my book. Page reference?

Sorry... I've never even heard of a person, real or imagined, that didn't have the option of whining about being an oppressed minority, and most of them do.

+1 humor point, though. I got an honest chuckle out of it.

You left out the part where the colored cars perform suboptimally.

Also, you left out the part where in no way, shape, or form represents the concept of "balance." It doesn't even pretend to.

I looked it up and I know what it means. You do not seem to understand that your entire concept of balance is in flagrant disregard for what is stated. The scales are weighted on one side, it is your choice balances the scales. The options are not going to be balanced of themselves unless they are identical to each other.

No.

Cost: BP.
Benefit: Ego Stroking.

HOWEVER, a stroked ego only is a benefit in a competitive game. When you're all sitting on the same side of the table its meaningless. In a competitive game it works because "Look, I can still beat you even though I spent more resources on this shiny button."

Choice is what I make between my options. Gameplay options should be balanced against each other.

Choice (meaning to choose) is a verb. Option is a noun. Do not confuse the two.

No, the colored cars perform as optimally as a black/white car less the cost and that is your choice. They may perform less than the black/white cars if you so choose to use the additional cost to boost its performance, balance is that the players all have the same amount of resources to choose the car they want.

That you do not understand the concept of balance is obvious.

..and yet you just keep using it wrong. Interesting, that.


Sorry, but you saying so does not make it so. If I lay a thousand pounds of gold one side of a scale and five pounds of gold on the other does the scale magically become balanced if you get to choose which side you want? Does your choice weigh nine hundred and ninety-five pounds? Something tells me that if we were to try this out, we would find that the scale stubbornly stays tilted toward the heavier side, no matter how strongly you choose.



Wow... project much?

Ah then, I disagree. Gameplay options need not be balanced against each other. Gameplay options, by necessity, are imbalanced against each other, unless they are identical which means that they are the same and not options.


Sorry, but you saying so does not make it so.

Actually it would. Choice to me is the fulcrum. Choosing is shifting the fulcrum.
Only as much as you. That is balance.

No... choice is picking which pile you want. Moving the fulcrum is moving the fulcrum. Both sides weighing the same is balance. Both sides having the same monetary value is another kind of balance. Moving the fulcrum is a third kind of balance. Picking the bigger pile has no relation to balance in any way. I fail to understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp... I have to wonder if maybe you have realized you are wrong and refuse to admit it and must resort to further depths of wrongness in a mad attempt to pretend you have been right the whole time.

Balance and Diversity are mutually exclusive, yes, but they exist on a continuum. That is, infinite shades of gray and not stark black and white. The goal is to find a middle area where you have perceived balance amongst a diversity of choices.

The point is:

"Is the ability to choose an option a deciding factor in choosing it?"

If you answer anything but "no" you do not understand what it means to have the ability to choose.

Choice is moving the fulcrum.

Whatever made you think I was sane?


Why should not the ability to choose an option be a deciding factor in choosing it? Sometimes I choose something or to do something simply because I can.

If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least bother to be correct.
Choice is an adjective or a noun. Option is a verb (uncommon) or a noun.

One would assume that by participating in a logical discussion that you would have to be. By declaring that you are not sane we can no longer reason with you and drop the argument in its entirety.



Ah. But that doesn't make it a good choice nor make it balanced against other choices not taken.

He isn't wrong, he's just approaching this from a different angle than you are. Games are built on the idea that not every choice gets to be optimal, and from this arises consequences. For example, chess is a rather fair game aside from White's small initial advantage, but a single poor choice can cost you the contest rather quickly. Yet rarely do you hear people complain that it is poorly balanced-- after all, without suboptimal choices available, it wouldn't be much of a game at all. In essence, you are saying that some metavariants are not optimal choices relative to others while Torturi is basically saying "Well, that's the point, isn't it?"

Now, I'll grant you that the purpose of playing a table top RPG isn't "winning," per se, but that observation cuts both ways. If you're not worried about meeting some win condition then the metatype costs should hardly bother you much, since they're certainly not steep enough to prevent a character from being playable.

There's nothing wrong with sub-optimal choices (after all that's what makes them different) but when you're presented with two clearly identical options, one of which costs more than the other, it's blatantly obvious which one is inferior. If you reduce the cost of the one (oni) just a small amount (5BP) it suddenly is exactly identical to the other option (orc), but comes with slight limitations (red skin and distinctive style), which is technically still making the choice sub-optimal, but the two options are perceived as balanced..

At which point, you have made MY point... there are optimal choices, and then there are Sub-OPtimal (lets call them roleplaying choices)... generally these do not match up (in most cases)... the fact that you chose to play a Drake over a Troll says a lot about the character, at least to me...

Keep the Faith

Except that htere are color choices in cars that will cost you more money, even thought the cars will otherwise work the same... this is a fact of life in the auto industry...

Keep the Faith

And yet if you put 5 pounds of gold on one side and 5 pounds of lead on the other side, they are balanced, and yet the gold is worth substabtially more... so what is your point?

Keep the Faith

EDITED...

No. Moving the fulcrum is moving the fulcrum. Look, I don't have a thousand pounds of gold, but I do have a small scale and some rocks. Let's see if your choice of one rock over another magically moves the fulcrum. I'll bet a substantial sum of money it does not.



I disagree. He's approaching it from the angle that a thousand pounds of gold is balanced with five if you have the choice. Let's look at chess: is an inferior move balanced against a solid move because you can choose not make it? No. That's not what balance means. Do you know why they often refer to it as "weighing the options"? Because the two moves are not balanced. You set them on a metaphorical scale and see which one is heavier. Sometimes it's close, and it's a difficult choice. Those options are more balanced. The word has a meaning, and ignoring it doesn't make him right, just coming from a different angle. his angle is blatant misuse of a very simple word.



I say again: What part of that actually has anything to do with the concept of balance? I'm not saying the cars all cost the same any more than I am saying the metatypes all cost the same. All I'm saying is that it's not balanced. Nothing more. Nothing less.



I'm confused... the gold is worth more than the other gold? Let's assume for the moment you were meaning to use gold and lead. It may have been something else, but lead works fine for me. The gold is valued more than the lead, yes. I'll concede that. If we are measuring monetary value, the loads are imbalanced. My metaphor was balancing weight. We can talk about balancing monetary value if you like. It makes no difference. Does your ability to choose the gold over the lead make both piles of metal equal in value? See? My point still stands. There are different kinds of balance, as I said before. I even mentioned monetary value specifically when I did so. In none of them does the ability to choose the heavier/higher priced/game winning option create balance out of the ether.

Sorry, That should have read 5 pounds of Gold and 5 Pounds of Lead...

Will fix it...

Yeah, I was about 85% sure that's what you meant. Couldn't resist a little jab, though.

Which weighs more, a pound of gold, or a pound of lead?

And no, "A pound is a pound" is not the right answer.

AS for the relative value of the gold vs. the Lead... SInce you asked...

Yes, Gold has more monetary value... but If I am in dire need of Bullets, Gold is a poor choice and I will choose the Lead every time... value is relative to the situation in hand... in the Monetary situation, GOld is more valuable... in the "Oh my god I am going to die in a few hours and I have no Bullets" well then the Lead is a much more valuable commodity AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT... and yet by wieght, they are still balanced...

In the end, I guess that this would indicate that balance is somewhat ephemeral, in that it means different things to different people... In my opinion, I would choose to play an Oni in a Japanese campaign as it would add more flavor, in my opinion, over the more common Ork, even though they have the same stats, and the Oni has a disadvantage the Ork does not, even if it costs the extra 5 points that the Ork does not suffer from. But that is just me... it is the same reason I would choose a less efficient build than a more efficient one at any given moment... that is what I wanted to Play at the time...

I really do come back to what I said before... Does the extra 5 points the Oni Costs REALLY affect your character? Really? I mean, look at it this way, there are a lot of Qualities that are more fluff than mechanics... and taking them has no real effect on game play, and having a character take one of these will alter the BALANCE of the character as compared to other characters... should we house rule those too?

For example... Perfect Time, Sense of Direction, Escaped Clone...I am sure that I could go on... Noticce that each of these is a 5 point Positive Quality, and yet has no REAL Shadowrunning applications that truly matter (except to those who want them as part of their concept) as they are mostly, if not all, fluff... Anyone taking them would be at a BP disadvantage for doing so... Should we make them more powerful beacuse of this? Or should we alter the Cost? Or do we play as they are written? I bet you can guess what I will do...

Qualities and Races are there to provide options.... the designers made decisions that placed a cost on them for reasons that to them made a lot of sense... why question their decisions, especially as no one really knows the thought processes that went into these decisions except the designers... just select and move along...

Houseruling causes problems in the long run if I choose to change groups... If i was playing in a game that was strictly RAW, I would be able to port my character from one game to another (via Missions perhaps) and have no impact upon the character whatsoever... However, Houseruling of BP costs will immediately eliminate me from doing so, if the game I enter does not agree with the previous group that I was gaming with... as such my character would suffer unduly becaues of someone else's interpretation... If I stick to the RAW, then I have no worries of this happening in a Standard Shadowrun Game.

Keep the Faith

Actually, the only reason makes poor bullets is because it costs too much money and lead is cheap. The weight and hardness is pretty similar, so they will perform in roughly the same manner.


I disagree. it's not that balance is ephemeral and means different things to different people. It's more that you can balance for different properties. As I mentioned earlier, there are different kinds of balance. Things like "It looks cool" and "I dunno, I just like it" can absolutely add value. However, this value is not in any way universal, and YOU thinking it's cool in your game in no way creates a balance in my game. You seem to really like to point out the five points for Oni. What about the other ones? What about the ones where it costs less? Are they especially undesirable in some way? Keep in mind, what we're talking about here is the way the cost is applied unevenly. The devs offered the explanation that the cost was raised for rarity while more common, less powerful cost fewer bp than less common and more powerful variants in some cases. This isn't balance. This is an arbitrary line and attempts to rationalize it after th fact.


Are you admitting it's wrong, only it's not wrong enough for you to feel like complaining about it? Because if that's the case, why are you defending it?


Really? Perfect Time has no value? Sense of Direction? Your GM is a lot nicer than mine... or alternately, he's a douche for seeing players with those abilities and never giving them a chance to show them off. Regardless, let's assume you're right, and there are qualities that cost points but give no real advantage - that's a design flaw. It's unbalanced. Things that cost 5bp should be roughly equal in value to other things that cost 5bp. Anything else is poor design.


Because 1) the designers tried to explain their thought process and it doesn't make sense; 2) "Because I said so" is NEVER a good enough reason for anything; and 3) Nothing in this world is above question. The game designers have made mistakes in the past. That's why there's errata. During the course of SR4, stats on things have changed. I'm sure they changed because someone pointed out that there was a problem with the old stats. What makes those people more qualified to see skewed numbers than I am?


Actually, your RAW character would be invalid in my games, very likely, because we houseruled several things. Do you know anyone who plays without house rules? I don't. Because the rules are, quite often, borked. But, more to the point, I'm not talking about houseruling things I don't like. I'm talking about the game rules being wrong, and needing correction. Do I think my saying something will get a change pushed through? No. But if no one says anything ever, nothing will ever change. The changes that have been made were made because someone pointed out something they disagreed with and why. This is me doing the same.

If your entire argument comes down to "The rules are right because they are the rules in the book, and the book is right," just come out and say it that way. Save us both a lot of trouble.

Lead is cheaper, therefore a pound's worth of lead weighs more than a pound's worth of gold. You can't even get a pound of gold for a pound. You can get a little under two pounds of lead for a pound, though.

That in no way addressed the question I asked.

While on the face of it a pound of lead would seem to weigh the same as a pound of gold, this overlooks the fact that gold is universally weighed using a different definition of 'pound' than that used for most other materials.

Precious metals such as gold are measured in troy weight. A troy pound is 12 troy ounces, and each troy ounce is 480 grains, making a total of 5760 grains to the pound of gold.

Most materials use pounds and ounces from the avoirdupois system, and such a standard pound is made up of 16 ounces, where each ounce is 437.5 grains, making a total of 7000 grains to the pound of lead.

All this means that a pound of lead (or bricks, or feathers) is heavier than a pound of gold.

If you don't specify troy, then weight defaults to the standard measurements. Especially when dealing with mixed material types. Intentionally using imprecise language with the overt purpose to deceive does not make you clever. It makes you a jerk.

Its not me being "clever" or a "jerk." That is a very old and very well known saying.

It doesn't make him clever, it makes you... not so.

Ah, but my choice is to move the fulcrum in favor of one rock over the other. Hence choice moves the fulcrum.

In what way? Did I fail to grasp what he was saying? No... you're just trying to score imaginary argument points. If it makes you feel better, award yourself +1 Called the Opponent Stupid points. They won't help you come out ahead on the whose's right and who's wrong front, of course, but if it makes you feel like you're doing well, I won't begrudge you that.



No. Moving the fulcrum moves the fulcrum. Choice did exactly fuck-all. Moving the fulcrum would be the equivalent of declaring that bp spent on being an Oni only cost 90% while bp spent on being an ogre cost 125%, for example.

Next time I'll be sure to insert a huge piece of red text saying "I'm being facetious" for you.

Oh but I cannot award myself Called the Opponent Stupid points when you have already awarded yourself an "I am stupid" point. That would be stupid.

No. The choice is to move the fulcrum. When you make any choice, you tilt the scales towards the side you choose to favor. But you can deny it if you wish, it won't help you come out ahead on the whose's right and who's wrong front, of course, but if it makes you feel like you're doing well, I won't begrudge you that.

*TEXT REMOVED*

Oooopps..... Not sure why I was responding here... my mind went entirely blank... sorry for the interuption, return to your regularly scheduled discussion...

Keep the Faith