It's not confusing. You're wrong, and apparently believe the writers are retarded and/or malicious.

Every Negative Quality has a mechanical benefit and a role playing challenge/mechanical offset. If you reword and house rule In Debt the way you want to, then it loses that. The character then automatically loses the mechanical benefit and retains the full mechanical offset. In every other case, a player who buys off Negative Quality loses the mechanical benefit but also loses the mechanical offset/role playing challenge.

Why is In Debt different? Explain, or please stop wasting everybody's time.

Where in any book does it say "You can't get rid of the negative consequences of a quality without spending Karma"? I can tell you the answer is nowhere because you very much can get rid of the consequences of Amnesia, Lost Loved One, and Hung Out To Dry without spending Karma. In fact, the exact text in the latter two say this explicitly. "The effects of this quality are intended to be resolved through role-playing".

Beep beep. House Rule alert. House Rule Alert.

The case. It is relaxing with a cold beer watching the football game on TV.

I am reminded of the game Crackdown. In there, if you kill too many cops and civilians, your handler announces that they've had enough and are going to smack you down. A horde of cops show up and try to kill you.

If you slaughter all of them, the handler concludes with an "Uh, okay, then! Let that be a lesson to you."





-karma

Exactly. Those two spell out precisely alternate conditions in which you can be rid of them.

In Debt does not. Therefore since the only other applicable rule that allows you to get rid of a quality is to buy it off with double karma, that is the general rule that applies.

This is of course besides the GM just house-ruling it gone.



-karma

"Can" and "allow". You're still missing the words that say "can" and "allow". There is nothing that says or implies that the character can't just retain the Negative Quality, and nowhere does it say or imply that negative Qualities have additional effects not described in their texts.

And adding the bigger LOL to what you just said:

In Debt does indeed spell out precise alternate conditions in which you can resolve them.

Notice that the Hung Out to Dry and Lost Loved One do not to get rid of, or remove the quality. They say "resolve". That means the quality doesn't (have to) come off the character sheet, but it no longer has any effect. You don't lose a new loved one when you find the old one.

Precedent kids. The legal system revolves around it. And guess what laws are? A set of... rules.

I give up, I don't understand where In Debt gets this magic rule ignoring ability. Feel free to point it out though. Until then, I'll treat it like every other Negative Quality in the game (the ones that don't have specific sections on how they're different)

Since pointing out the book didn't work for you, I advise you to read:

Mystery Mod Noise
High Maintenance Implant
Nano-Intolerance
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
Buggy 'Ware
Reduced (Sense)
Paraplegic
(probably more that I'm forgetting)

and tell me what the rules say about trying to shortcut a negative quality. No, it's not a direct quote - that doesn't make the rules any less clear. You can choose to interpret in a manner that is consistent with the rules, or in a way that isn't - guess which way is correct?

Wow, I didn't realize you had such a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "can". "Can" in this context is a very strong word, actually. Only by fulfilling the previous terms does the GM have the ability to allow a player to buy it off.

The wording can't make it any more clear that it's serious business to buy off a negative quality.

Except modern legal systems in fact account for common sense and alterations based on individual cases.

Games don't. They don't change unless the developers deliberately change them, or a GM houserules something.

Games are generally written with general rules that only get superceded if a specific exception is made.

General rule: You can take qualities. Qualities normally persist forever by default, except for one general method of getting rid of qualities once you have them: Pay them off with Karma.

Some qualities have specific exceptions on how you might change the effects. Like the two you mentioned.

In Debt tells you you have a certain amount of money you owe, and the minimum you need to pay if you want to avoid the legbreakers. It does not, notably, state what happens after the debt is totally paid off. The quality remains, as all qualities generally do, unless you pay off the Karma.

I was pointing out, more or less because it was amusing, that the way the rules are written, technically if you pay off the Karma cost the quality still goes away even if you never paid a single nuyen. Some GMs will take exception to that and apply consequences. Others might figure that the karma cost abstractly also pays off the nuyen debt or just gets rid of it in some way. Either way, it's a GM houseruling, not something covered by the rules.

I'm not saying In Debt isn't written badly. It is. Any GM in his right mind will houserule changes to make it work.

I was just pointing out the absurdities of how this stuff is written.



-karma

Sure, call that a house rule if you like. It's not a rule though. It is not meant to be applied across every game. It is a scenario, which I as a GM might or might not used, based on the greater interpretation that your debt is not cleared without paying off the karma. So, looking at it that way, it's a karmic debt. How would I, as a GM, choose to represent paying off a karmic debt? Favors. That is my suggestion. It creates a scenario where the player "resolves the effects of the negative quality through role-playing." I guess it does use a mechanic to do so. Call that a house rule, sure.

That interpretation that the debt can only be gotten rid of with karma is, in fact, more in line with the rules than the idea that you can pay off the money debt at all. Assuming that you can pay back the original debt and assuming that you can't require the GM to interpret the language of the quality since it is so poorly written. It doesn't define what you can pay off, so the idea that you can pay back the owed amount is an interpretation. Assuming that you can pay back the original sum, there are no rules regarding what happens when you do so. You would be paying back 10% of nothing, each month until you buy it off, otherwise you get button men at your door asking why you didn't make your payment. Once again, RAW is nonsense.

You mentioned the Quadriplegic quality earlier when we were talking about buying off qualities with karma. RAW says that a Quadriplegic character can not preform any physical tasks. There is no definition of "physical tasks" in the book. There are active skills, and even among those active skills, there are physical active skills... like perception... which is improved by enhanced articulation... anyway...

There is no such thing as a physical task among the rules of Shadowrun, therefore, Quadriplegic only requires one to maintain a high lifestyle.

It's all nonsense if you try to treat rule as law.

You're a comedian. But I wouldn't give up your day job. There's just no market for your sense of humor.

Is this like formalism where you invent a new meaning for a word or idea?

a : know how to <she can read>
b : be physically or mentally able to <he can lift 200 pounds>
c —used to indicate possibility <do you think he can still be alive> <those things can happen> ; sometimes used interchangeably with may
d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to <can hardly blame her>
e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to <he can hardly have meant that>
f : be inherently able or designed to <everything that money can buy>
g : be logically or axiologically able to <2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1>
h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to

2
: have permission to —used interchangeably with may <you can go now if you like>

transitive verb
1
obsolete : know, understand
2
archaic : to be able to do, make, or accomplish

Please pick the one that contains the words that define "can" as a force or inevitability. Hint: you'll get closest with "f", but still be misusing it since it implies a purpose that enables, not a purpose that creates.

The only one misunderstanding here is you. The GM "can allow" a player to buy off a Negative Quality because he "can" also disallow it and tell the player they are stuck with it.

Of course you don't understand. You also don't understand that there is no rule that you're "quoting" (of course, the concept of quoting was one of your stumbling points), lol. The text of the book says, explicitly (explicit versus implicit is your major stumbling point here it seems) "can allow" a player to buy off a Negative Quality. It sets the guideline that it is possible for the player to get rid of them. The opposite scenario would be where Negative Qualities are irrevocable and permanent. Not that they would be free to get rid of. Those qualities state that the GM "can allow" the quality to be bought off with Karma, in addition to other specific requirements or conditions. For instance, if a paraplegic character wants to walk again, they buy the quality off with Karma in addition to undergoing nanotech or genetech therapy. If a player with a mysterious mod noise wants to get rid of the problem they have to buy it off with Karma in addition to removing the implant. If the player with TLE wants to get rid of it, they have to buy it off with Karma in addition to undergoing brain surgery or gene therapy.

For other Negative Qualities, it is left up to the GM's discretion what the reversing stipulations are. In Debt isn't ignoring those rules. Like Hung Out to Dry, or Lost Loved One, or Amnesia, it has resolving factors that do not require the character to buy it off with Karma.

I can imagine this is frustrating and embarrassing for you. But you're doing it to yourself.

Actually...no...as...it...isn't...linked...to...a...physical...attribute.

But it really doesn't, the rules for it doesn't say that you can actually pay of the dept, just that you owe it to someone and have to pay intrest every month.

Oh.... yeah.... you're right....

As someone already pointed out, it says that each month you must pay at least the interest, indicating the ability to pay more. It does not however state that paying more reduces the amount you owe, it simply means that you paid more. Anything beyond that is an interpretation (and thus according to some, a house rule) as opposed to what is actually written Suppose that means that the RAW is actually fairly good, it is all that RAI house rule interpretation that paying more than your interest reduces the amount you owe that is mucking everything up

Really, the arguments here are getting fairly stupid over something entirely pointless. What everyone should be defining instead of 'can' and 'is' and 'allow' is 'house rule'.

Alright, I'll concede that I misspoke when I used the word "quoting" the one time.

And h. is the obvious answer, since we're actually talking about rules/law, and this is clearly a case of empowering.

As for Formalism, I get that you didn't study Literary Analysis; don't worry, I won't bring it up again. If you want the nickle tour though, Formalism strives to, within a given body of work, look for a coherent and consistent interpretation of meaning. Basically, the direct opposite of the Deconstructionist argument you are making.

The rules explicitly state that you can't get rid of a negative quality without paying karma.

The rules implicitly state that you can't shortcut out of the negative consequences of the quality.

There are qualities that have explicit exceptions to this - In Debt is not one of them.



And here is where your disconnect is - the GM is not given discretion, by the book, for other qualities. Lost Loved One and Hung out to Dry explicitly state that they are to be resolved through roleplay - In Debt does not (nor does Amnesia for that matter, though in the 25 point version, there is a mechanism for getting to find out your character sheet). Therefore, it follows the rules for all other qualities.

Also, you can learn about yourself throug role-play and still have the Amnesia quality.

Though, I still wouldn't trust myself to role-play the difference between remembering your past and discovering it...

You used quotation marks in the first post, and the phrase "rules I'm quoting" in the follow up. What rules were you quoting then if you weren't quoting but actually quoting?

Hahahaha. Ha... Heh. <wipes tear>

No, they don't.

Correct. However, paying off the nuyen cost is not short-cutting. It is the stated resolution for In Debt just like roleplaying is the stated resolution for Hung Out to Dry and Lost Loved One, and the resolution to Amnesia is learning or remembering the forgotten details.
Wrong. Amnesia has an implied exception because nowhere does it state that the character overcomes Amnesia by learning about his or her past. It's just obvious that if the character learns about his or her past, the quality is essentially nullified.


You don't even own a copy of Shadowrun 4 do you. It's all clear now. I'll fill in the blanks for you: Page 271, third paragraph under the emboldened heading "Negative Qualities" which falls under "Other Improvements" which falls under "Character Improvement" in the "Running the Shadows" chapter of the book.

All following bold text is highlighted by me for the purpose of clarity and emphasis. Notations follow the quoted section.


*That thing you said the gamemaster isn't given discretion to do? Funny how that's the very first sentence of the section.
**The language describing the changes that have to be made come before any mention to the cost in Karma. There couldn't possibly be significance to this.

By the way, that is the "Negative Qualities" section in its entirety, unabridged and altered only by the inclusion of bold text and notated asterisks.

Could you tell the rest of us where exactly is that stated, as it definitely isn't in the qualities description.
The quality doesn't say anythink about you even being able to pay of the debt or what happens if your allowed to pay it of.

You've been black-out drunk before, right?

Your friends will tell you all about what you did, and it even sounds like something you would do, but you never really know.
There's always a hole there. "Can other people really account for all that time? Where did my keys go? Who drew all these dicks on my face?"

Your own life becomes a 2nd hand reference. Maybe the public record is only part of the truth? Maybe no one really knew but you? Who and what can you trust? The only way to really know the whole truth is with the karma buy.

But again, I agree, role-playing the difference is an impressive bit of subtlety. That isn't to say that "hearing about your past" nullifies the GMs ability to smack your amnesiac ass out of left field.

My o My, after all this time there is still people foolish enough to argue with kruger ?

Stop wasting your time, he is best left /ignore.

Some of us are bored at work.

I kinda like my topics making sense, if i did that half the topics in here would stop making sense.

Dang, spending over a half an hour on your reply to me - I'm touched. It does mean you missed my almost-immediate edit to my first statement though.

IK's right though, I should have known better, but I thought that since this was so incredibly clear that you might make an exception to your usual rule.

Silly me.

(a valiant rearguard action though - dismissive laughter, ignoring my main argument while picking at the supporting statements instead; you would make a very good defense lawyer, and I mean that as a sincere compliment.)

If you are that bored, you can try guessing his rants from the answers

Speaking of rear-guard actions, I had to laugh as you epically failed by suggesting I'd never studied literary analysis. That was a good one. Still, I maintain that you shouldn't pursue comedy as a profession. There just won't be money in it.

Oh, it was good though. Being told I never studied literary analysis by a guy who cannot even use the word "can" correctly. I will admit though, you're a dedicated troll.

The quality both gives a stated sum that is owed, an interest rate that accrues, and says that payments must be made in an "at least" fashion. It appears the writers didn't want to insult the intelligence of the players by suggesting that when the amount paid equals or exceeds the amount owed, that the debt is obviously now zero nuyen and the consequence of "sending somebody after her" would then be nullified.

Just like Amnesia doesn't have to say that if the player leans or is allowed to slowly remember his or her past, that the Amnesia quality is then nullified. Just like the book doesn't say that if through role playing you eventually find your lost loved one, you no longer have to make willpower tests to avoid looking for them, and just like the book doesn't say the character will be able to use their contacts once they've resolved Hung Out to Dry by role playing. The resolution is given and the effect is obvious and didn't need to be, It's just common sense. And common sense is obviously an uncommon virtue. Because there seems to be a lot of people here who would insist that Amnesia be bought off with Karma too, or at least hypocritically deny that there are exceptions to the rules for buying off NQs with Karma and that very obviously, In Debt is one of them. Instead they want to make up house rules and then claim that those house rules are invisible text the writers meant to have in there, but just forgot in the writing process or something.

Of course, it costs 5 whole BP. How could everyone afford the 'argue over pointless stuff' skill at such high levels?

Seriously, are people still arguing about which bad interpretation of In-Debt is RAW?

"In-Debt sucks because it says this." "No, it sucks because it says that." -> flame war

Everyone agrees on the important parts, and that is that In-Debt is a poorly written quality that should just be ignored because no matter how you deal with it is poor, either by being too good or too bad.

Common sense for the player, unfortunately. There's no Build Point system for players.

And, to be clear, this isn't a flame war. As many times as I've been insulted and spoken to condescendingly in this thread, I've restrained myself from firing back. At most I laughed at the absurdity and sometimes irony of the insults like when Mooncrow suggested I'm stupid and don't understand what the word "can" means or when he insulted my by suggesting I'd never studied literary analysis. Neither statement is even remotely true. The second one is incredibly hilarious actually, though in Mooncrow's defense he has no idea what my educational background is. Though, shame on him for commenting on it when he doesn't know anything about it. Then again, not having the appropriate knowledge hasn't seemed to stop him from commenting on other things, so I guess I am not surprised. It was still funny, and you can't possibly put me at fault for finding it funny and laughing at it. The fact that I never said "okay, even though you're wrong, I'll say you're right to make you feel better" doesn't mean I'm insulting anyone here.

The funny part is that even though I'm the one being repeatedly insulted, some people here still look at me as being the bad guy, haha. I didn't even start the argument. I made the original statement of fact, and was told I was wrong, when I wasn't. Being better at constructing coherent arguments doesn't make me a jerk.

Well, you don't know how to interpret a single word under clear circumstances and you don't know the meaning of the term Formalism, what else am I supposed to think, Kruger?

I could give you my c.v. but that seems silly over the internet, so at this point all I can do is recommend you go to an expert that you do trust, and ask them what they think.

No, I don't know your background, and you don't know mine. So when I talk about a term and you fire back that I've "hilariously misused or misunderstand" my undergrad discipline, yeah, I get defensive.

I mean, it's possible the term has changed, I guess. I don't follow the journals any more, but if you want to actually correct me, feel free to do so - leave the 'lol moron' bit at home.

For the record, I wasn't actually trying to be condescending at first, I was (and still am) frustrated that I'm somehow not communicating my point. But you put my back up with your next insult, so perhaps I've been a little more irritable than I should have been from then on out.

If you studied literary analysis as a major and even earned a degree in a related discipline, and you're still misapplying the term formalism and misusing the word "can" then the failing has been yours for making the mistake, not mine for pointing it out. For the very reason I don't use complicated physics terms I only understand in passing to emphasize one of my arguments, perhaps you should not use these complicated literary terms in arguments.

K.I.S.S. is always the best way to go. Hemingway could have told you that. Never use a big word when a little one would suffice. It's harder to go astray that way. You approached the argument with this "lol moron" attitude, trying to hurl about fancy terms in an attempt to bludgeon my argument and stumble me. You miscalculated in using that tactic on someone with equal or superior knowledge of language and writing. I don't do that. See, I know I know more about language and writing than most people, but not everyone.

I've never insulted you. You perceived insult, but what you were feeling was anger at being challenged at what you thought you had intellectual superiority on, and then shame at looking foolish when you were shown to be incorrect. You tossed the word formalism, I did not. I told you that the way you were applying it was wrong. It's not an insult, it's the truth. Formalism, by the way, applies to art, math, laws, as well as literature. That was why I asked you which application you meant. I assumed that you meant literary, but we've seen what assuming got you, and I don't make such mistakes. Your interpretation of formalism was suitable enough, it was just your application that was incorrect. You were looking for consistency, and it is there. Qualities are consistently shown as having a mechanical benefit (for Negative Qualities this is typically BP, though for qualities like In Debt and Day Job there might be extra short term or long term benefits), and a role playing challenge/mechanical offset to them (Amnesia has a roleplaying challenge, Scorched has a mechanical penalty, Addiction has both). The way you wanted to "interpret" In Debt presented a situation that removes the consistent mechanical benefit without removing the consistent mechanical offset (the player would both lose the Build Points and lose the money, where as normally the player would simply lose the Build Points, but gain immunity from the penalties they incurred to gain the BP). The listed Qualities also have consistent exceptions to these rules, which means that not all qualities must be bought off with Karma, because very clearly there are qualities that do not require it because they have a built in resolution that nullifies the effect. Arguing that In Debt is not identical to Amnesia in this case is nearly impossible, at best. The resolution to Amnesia comes from the fact that all players are assumed to understand what amnesia is and that remembering or learning your past offsets its role playing challenge. The resolution to In Debt comes from the fact that all players are assumed to understand how a loan with compound interest works and how payments are made against a balance. If for Amnesia we all seem to agree that learning your past renders the quality more or less nullified, then based on that same common sense and common knowledge, it is impossible to not say that, as written, once the balance is paid off, In Debt is the same way. The only thing that separates the two is that In Debt gives significantly more benefit than it incurs risk, in a way not consistent with the rest of the Negative Qualities. That's simply a failure in writing and play testing, however, in a formalist sense, yet another example of consistent exceptions. If an application of formalism shows that there is consistent inconsistency, then it is impossible to use formalism to apply a rule with a broad stroke, as you have attempted to do.

The fact that you are not looking at the specifics in conjunction with the bigger picture is where we're not reaching the same conclusion. For example, you've repeatedly tried to use Day Job and Dependent as examples of things you can't just get rid of without paying the Karma cost. They aren't covered by the same consistency of presentation and precedent as In Debt. This is where the GM fiat listed on p.271 SR4a comes in. If a player quits the Day Job or gives up/kills the Dependent, the player becomes subject to the GM's discretion because there is no stated resolution to Day Job or Dependent, and the character still has to comply with the "If the gamemaster approves". A GM who does not approve could logially convert killing/abandoning a dependent into Big Regret, or Enemy, or Bad Rep. The player is not confined by GM approval with In Debt, because when the GM allowed the player to take In Debt, he has approved the quality's stated rules and resolution, just like if a GM allows a character to learn his past or find his lost loved one, he has approved the corresponding quality's stated or implied resolution and no Karma cost needs to be incurred.

Really? Your argument is that I didn't specify that I was speaking of literary Formalism in a literary context? But that aside, if you had made this argument to begin with instead of 'Formalism, lol' it would have been a much more civil conversation. You're a generally insightful person, but in this case you are misreading me quite badly. I respect your intellect quite highly, that's why I assumed you would know what I was talking about. It was only after you attacked, not my interpretation, but the my understanding of the definition of my field, that I turned derisive. Yes, I perceived it as an insult; what other use does the term "hilariously" have in that context?

But, back to the interpretation:

Your argument with Amnesia is ignoring the fact that there is no by the book way to actually regain your memories. As Max pointed out before, you can find out who you were, what you did, etc, but no way is actually given of getting your memories back. No matter how much you learn, it still remains as an infinite source of GM plot device.

That said, it does belong in the same category as In Debt and Day Job, where the authors really should have specified the exact way to get rid of the Quality in-game.

Now, there are two examples of qualities that have the phrase "The effects of this quality are intended to be resolved through role-playing" attached to them - Hung Out to Dry and Lost Loved One. For these two, you could make the argument that you can get rid of the negative effects without paying the karma to have the actual quality removed. In Debt lacks this phrase. There is no clear precedent being set here.

But here's where we get to the whole "Formalism" thing again - you can talk about common sense, common knowledge and keeping it simple, etc all day long; the rules of Formalism state that you can only use information from within the body of work itself. So, I can only interpret the rules as they stand.

If you want to use a different method of interpretation, I don't find your stance unreasonable, but I was clear from the beginning what ruleset I was operating under.

We all agree that it's a badly written, terribly broken rule, no matter what by the book interpretation is put on it.

Actually, the way a HUGE percentage of players and GMs are, the rules really SHOULD spell out these things, because a LOT of folks approach game rules formally with "unless it explicitly says A, it's not A".

Understand, what you say above is reasonable. It is an excellent interpretation of what the rules as intended probably are.

It's just not the rules as they are written. And most of the rest of the folks in this thread were pointing out the absurdities of the Rules As Written, not arguing the Rules As Intended.



-karma

No, that was just an aside. And what was hilarious was the way you presented a concept to me and seemed to assume I wouldn't know about it. The thing that makes it funny is the assumption. Just as you felt insulted by my reaction, so could I possibly have felt insulted by your inference if I so chose to be insulted by the stuff that people chose to say to me on the Internet. Instead of being offended, I just laughed at it. But that's how I am. I don't attribute any worth to any of you, so you can't hurt me. If everyone was like me, the world would have less lawsuits.

Sure. But, this works on the assumption that your GM is feeding you false information. If he's feeding you false information, then it hasn't nullified the Negative Quality. Which is fine, that's his prerogative If he feeds you correct information, then the the quality is nullified. I mean, there's a bajillion "what-if" scenarios that don't lead to the quality going away. But there is also a very clear situation that does lead to quality resolution without Karma expenditure. And that's all that matters in this case. We're not trying to prove something doesn't exist like another poster suggested, as that's a fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam). We've proven it does exist, and that's the deciding factor.

I agree. I just didn't want to come right out and say that because it implies that most people are dumb. It tends to get me in trouble here.

Technically, even if the GM is giving you 100% correct information, it's data, not restored memories.

It'd be like reading details of someone else's life.




-karma

Not dumb, just used to thinking about game rules in a certain way.

Most of the same people don't treat the rest of their life in the same manner.

It's what MoonCrow said. Formalism. I personally didn't know there was a technical term for it. But a way of looking at a rule set and not assigning ANY outside factors to that rule set.

It's not "wrong" to look at rules in this way. It's actually a very structured method of interpreting. But it does tend to break a bit if the base rules set is badly written.


-karma

Not always true. Sometimes people with memory loss recover their memories whether through therapy or through other things like incidence triggers It wouldn't always just be pieced together second hand accounts. However, from any standpoint, the quality will have been partially, or entirely nullified.

Like I said, the "what ifs" scenarios are endless. However, the "What if the GM gives your character all his memories back" is an example that proves the rule. It is possible to completely nullify Amnesia without Karma expenditure. And that's really all that matters in the context of the argument.


I hope not. One would hope they approach other things in life more rationally.

I know this is the Internet, and irrational arguments are the norm. Debating the semantics of a rule is entirely irrational and everybody continues either because like for me it's amusing or, because they're hell bent on being right. But at least use rational supports for the irrational arguments.

Oh, and it's not that I would be implying they were dumb. Just that's how it would be interpreted by certain people.

Or they're really bored in their unpaid job

I'm going to guess you don't know much about how retro and anterograde amnesia work. Well, aside from the tropes of how they work. While skills you had before the amnesia may be retained in muscle memory, you would be unable to recall the how on their use. The most famous example is a concert pianist who has both retro and anterograde who can still play amazing pieces of work when put at a piano, because the body remembers, but the mind does not. In this regard, expose to events and peoples and places does not return memory necessarily.

The GM gets to decide if roleplay or karma expenditure or BOTH are required for paying off the negative quality. Same with day job, same with dependent, same with in-debt.

Is repaying the debt for In Debt 'roleplaying'?

Actually, I would have it fall under the "paying off in karma" category, given that there is a nuyen to karma ratio already established. Although admittedly 30,000 + interest probably doesn't get all that close to the 20 karma that would be required.

Nuts. I was sure that doing what your character would do (paying the cash) was the roleplaying loophole. ;D

That's a matter of perspective. Some characters would pay it off, others might try and do a favor instead of paying cash. There's a lot of wiggle room.

The GM can also twist the RAW. In the quoted rule excerpt, the "amount owed" may be the unpaid amount, what it still owned at that point, as everybody assume. Or the "amount owed" may just as well be the total amount owed since the character took the flaw (AFAIK, it's not uncommon for loan to compound interest on the original principal sum, with no regard to potential prepayment). And then it never states this ever stops: the amount does increase 10% every month. May be far-fetched and counter-intuitive, but this would make In Debt a real flaw. The debt will never be paid back with money, there will always be 10% more to pay next month.

Yes, that was mentioned earlier. In that case, it's brokenly *bad*: your extra money is gone in 6 months, and you owe (60) karma.

Sounds like the Mob to me!





-karma

Yeah, I think the thing to take away from this thread is - House rule In Debt to something not broken, or don't use it

I take that Flaw, with the "Obviously Punitive" nature of having to pay the Karma back when the Money is payed back... so I guess that you cannot say that NOBODY will ever take it... It is a FLAW for a reason... I personally like the flavor of the roleplaying that it generates... Not everyone agrees with that though... so Your Mileage may Vary...

Just sayin'

Highlighted the part that is relevant... Roleplaying that will generate Karma to pay off the Karma Debt...

Just Sayin'

That doesn't make sense. 'Resolved through roleplaying' doesn't mean 'bought off with Karma'; the fact that Karma comes (in *small* part) from roleplaying doesn't change that.

However, because the rules state that Removing Negative Qualities takes Karma Expenditure, your roleplaying can generate the karma necessary to remove the Karma Debt incurred by taking the Negative Quality in the first place... Thus "Resolved through Roleplay" makes perfect sense...

If you can just bypass a Negative Quality with a little bit of time and no real effort, then it really was not a Negative Quality to start with was it? The method of removing its influence is through Karma... It is the GM's (and the Player's Ideally) responsibility to make the chosen Negative Quality have impact within the game... if he does not, then the character got free Karma for no reason...