That's not what I said. Karma is earned through basically being there, not necessarily roleplaying; neither is the 'roleplaying karma' kept separate, or separately used to buy off the Quality. It's not correct to equate the two.

Maybe it is because, with my In-Debt Quality, I am asked to de favors from time to time, and the Kazrma earned from those applies directly to the reduction of the Karma Debt... This is, of course, in combination with repaying the Vig and original Debt as well...

If I am looking to remove a Negative Quality, the Karma earned in the actions that are helping me to reduce my Quality is applied to the Karma Debt, incrementally until it is paid off... I still suffer under the effects of the Quality until it is FUlly paid of, of course...

In my mind, the idea still stands, but I do understand your point there Yerameyahu....

Hey, technically in Missions you earn at least 3 Karma if you complete the mission successfully, even if you sat there like a lump of clay!






-karma

Must be nice...

The effects are resolved through rolepaying, not the quality itself. This line does not say anything about getting rid of the quality; but even if it did, it would not contradict the core rule: buying off with karma does not dispense you from from roleplaying. It is actually the opposite: you may only buy the quality back after roleplaying the cleansing.

And there is no need for an exception anyway: the GM can already grant any negative quality off for free within RAW. Who cares about the BP*2 cost? The GM is the one who awards karma. In the case of plot hook qualities like Lost loved one and Hung out to dry, it makes sense to give extra karma to the player who fuels the campaign, especially if he lives up to his central role. 10 extra karma at the end of the campaign? What a surprise! That's just the cost to buy the quality off...

The In Debt quality is one that the GM can really control and the player should be informed or talked to the GM about the quality before the game starts.

We are not talking about a bank loan here, we are talking about loan sharks, organized crime, organleggers that lend money or a megacorp with a runner on a leash.

Not to mention that who says the creditors cant get greedy? The karma debt could be paid of with the Cash for Karma option in reverse to represent the character being pressed for more money and one thing I can tell you that no creditor wants the customer to pay their debt, they want the interest.

If they plan for the character to only pay of interest of a 30BP loan for at least six months then we are talking about 45K and 10% interest each month is 4500Y and for six month that’s 27K. If the player pays of their debt in say a VERY good run in ONE month they have gotten 49500Y instead of at least 45K+27K.

Remember, in the In Debt quality the creditors set the rules.

And when my streetsam learns that organleggers have 'bought' his debt from the yakuza...

What if In Debt instead, said that you owe 'Favors' to an organization to be determined between you and the GM. Everytime a 'Favor' is completed at least 1 Karma awarded goes towards buying off this Quality. The Rating of the Quality determines the size and willingness to accept No as an answer.


And then, like Born Rich the Quality lets you increase the amount of BP/Karma you can spend on resources.

So you can take "In Debt" for BP without getting money for it.. if you want.

Yeah. You just don't take the 30 point version.
Because any 30 point flaw is, and should be, crippling.

10 points of in debt? That's flavor, something you can get out from under. 30 points defines your life.

My Current character's version is worth 25bp (50 Karma)... and yes, it defines the character's life in a lot of ways...

Ahh, so the reason you're arguing this so vehemently is because your current GM is cornholing you with the "pay it back, buy it off" version and you want to make sure other people's characters get punished like yours, huh? lol.

It does all make sense now, lol.

You are so wrong it is funny, and even a little pathetic... I am the one who argued for that at our table, as it only makes sense based on the entirety of the rules in the book... so unless you play at our table, do not make assumptions of my motivations... You are very unqualified to do so...

It amazes me that you just do not understand that I have absolutely no problems with how this works...

Have a nice day...

All that smoking is unhealthy for you. Besides, some people like being cornholed. I'm not so narrow minded as to believe my preferences are the same as everyone else's.

I do not agree with the negative connotations of your post... They do indicate a bit of narrow mindedness on your part, in my opinion...

But no worries though... My game table is imminently enjoyable...

Obviously the joke went a little over your head.

Still, the intent remains the same. You argue vehemently for the house rule you've set up because it's the one you're playing your character with. Whether or not your GM chose to stick you with it, or you stuck yourself, it's an obvious bias and very telling.

You guys have been having forward and backward throes for a while, not just in this thread. How about we let it go?

If there is some disagreement in another thread, which I don't believe there is, or if there is and I cannot remember it, it is unrelated to this one. I don't pay much attention to user names, only to ideas.

However, this thread solely revolves around a single concept now it seems. The fact that the rules say one thing, and some people are unwilling to admit that their alterations are house rules.

All qualities are good, period! Let a PC take it, make sure he has a contact that is linked to the quality. Then give that contact viable commlink stats that contain records of the loan. Every month take a hacker NPC and roll a check to see if he hacks into it, if he succeeds then the PC's loan is now available for the hacker to use to draw money off, even if the PC is making payments after awhile it keeps going up. Now you have a run that is just for the PC to get his loan under control....hell if the party is not tight then they may charge the PC if he needs there help! One of many examples to make this or any quality viable through role-playing.

This is not punishment for the PC, it is just one of many events that happen to those in the world, just a crappy event that gives the PC motivation to remove the trait in anyone of the talked about manners above that fit the GM's game.

Day job is another great one. Let them take it, but work with them about the job. One job I would use for my PC's is Aegis Cognito, if they are a Physical type PC, then they provide skills like protection at the local handler meets a client to conduct their business, or if they are a hacker then they could use their skills to gather further data steals for the company, Magicians can provide magic security for these meets. Regardless have the PC take a equivalent skill set that is in line for the type of job (as long as it provides some benefit for the PC) so you take 10 BP day job for Aegis Cognito, then the PC will take 10 points in either stealth, perception, espionage type skill sets.

Once again bottom line for me is developing the game for what my PC's want, I have not been able to gather a group for shadowrun because I am just returning to the Seattle area but I would only game with players I could enjoy to game with....that cuts out allot of silly abuse, after that anything would go in my games if the PC's had a good idea for the PC in question and it was with in RAW.

More like your unable to admit that the rules don't say what you say they do, you just can't admit that your adding in almost as much to the quality as anyone else.

Guy, I'm not a mod, but...

Attack the subject, not each other, neh?





-karma

It's an interesting theory, but I have quoted the rules and the quality, verbatim. Nothing more. No attempts to interpret. If I've added something somewhere, please let me know. The rules say X. And some people say they say Y. Except I can quote you "X" right out of the books. And the counter argument can only present "Y" as what the writers... didn't write. Anyone who has taken even a freshman semester of college Critical Thinking courses knows that requiring something to be proved to not exist (argument from ignorance (that's a term, not an insult)) is a logical fallacy.

The evidence proves what I say. The language of the book proves it. The precedent set by other qualities prove it. Common sense based on real world knowledge of how loan repayments proves it in part. Conversely, there's nothing in the books that proves the argument that it works the way some of you have chosen to reword and house rule it, other than an absence of language that explicitly says that interpretation is wrong. It's like saying that picking your nose is illegal because there isn't a law that says you're allowed to do it. The book would be ten thousand pages long if it was required to tell you every single thing that wasn't true in the rule set. The choice to be obstinate about this is one certain people have chosen to make. They are free to do it. But it isn't like it changes the reality that interpreting In Debt any other way than how the book and precedent describes it is a house rule. Which, there is still nothing wrong with. House ruling is just as valid and encouraged as it ever was.

And it's "you're". I possess no unables and no addings.

Actually i and few others are not adding anythink to it, my point was that even you're interpretation is adding stuff to it.
We where going with just whats actually written in the quality description.

You're right!

THIS TOPIC IS GAY!

...wait...

(Max, it is not important but you have now used the wrong 'your/you're' both ways it is possible to do that.)

I know, this one's on purpose.

Um, you're confused.

Either about what is in the book, or about what I have posted. Please let me know which.

Because if you were going with solely what was in the book, we would have the exact same opinion. How do I know this? Because not a single person who has disagreed with me has been able to show me, using direct examples from the book (page 271 SR4a, and the descriptions of the qualities), that there is an alternate case that could be correct. This using examples is the key. The language of the book is very specific, and the precedents are very clear. Something not being in the book is not evidence of anything other than that something not being provable.

Which in this case would be the ability to even pay back the dept, the book only has rules for paying interest.

Actually, the book says "at least" the interest. And the book also gives the total amount owed. Arguing that because the book doesn't specifically state that the balance is what would be more than "least" is being intentionally obtuse because it defeats the understanding of the nature of a loan that is assumed. The game doesn't bother to explain what compound interest is either, so the amount just increases every month by ten percent of the character's interest in some unnamed compound. Heck, it doesn't say what a compound is. Is this ten percent of the character's interest in a collection of buildings? Ten percent of the character's interest in certain facets of chemistry?

If we're going to go by everything the book doesn't say, then it's a perfectly valid interpretation to say the character's owed amount never increases because there's no quantifiable monetary equivalent to a character's interest in compound. But nobody interprets it that way because we know what loans are, how they work, and to suggest that with a straight face would earn very deserved derision. Just as anyone who suggests the loan cannot be paid off because the book doesn't specify that the payments count against the balance is very deserving of the same derision.

Not to mention the crux of the opposing argument cannot be that the debt cannot be paid off because we can't assume to know how debts work, and that the debt must include favors because we know how debts work, lol. Your exception both proves the rule, and destroys it entirely. Something of a paradox. And since we have to assume that the rule works in some way, on some level, you cannot be correct.

If you really want to play out the ’criminal’ angle you can always add some modifiers when aquiring gear and vehicles, especially vehicles.

Stolen -10
Item Used -20
Used in crime under investigation -20
Black Market Pipeline -10

Total Price Reduction for vehicle -60%

It is a paradox BECAUSE it is written badly.

What do they say about assuming anything?


You are extrapolating stuff based on your reading of the rules.

Same as they other guys.

It's not an unreasonable extrapolation that you came up with. You make sense.

But it's still not what the text actually says.

I think the disconnect is that the "house rules" you state others keep coming up with are their attempt to come up with a 'fluff' explanation of how the rules AS WRITTEN could actually work. It is attempts to rationalize how the quality, as badly written as it is, could function as written.

Whereas you keep positing how you think the rules SHOULD work, what was INTENDED.

They're BOTH house rules.

The RAW states that, GM houseruling aside, there is one default method for a player to remove a quality. Paying off the karma. In Debt specifically tells us how to pay off interest, but never actually outlines that you can pay off the whole debt.

By strict rules default, the only way to be permanently rid of the quality or it's effects is paying off the Karma.

It is "bad rules writing" BECAUSE it partly assumes the reader knows about loans and interest and other outside information. Game rules really shouldn't be written that way - the rule should work even if you don't know a damn thing about loans.



-k

That doesn't affect your max starting resources. It just affects the value of your max starting resources. Make sense?

In your example that just makes the value of 1 nuyen worth 2.5 nuyen for the purpose of vehicles but you still have 1 nuyen.

True, but depending on character it affects your total value of resources.

Right, but you still only have 330,000 nuyen for resources. Just because you could stretch that into 825,000 nuyen worth of vehicles doesn't mean you have 825,000 nuyen in resources. You still have just 330,000 nuyen.

And now I'm getting cyclically redundant.

If you get a vehicle worth 825k then its functionally same as if you really had 825k -

Well, save that it's a stolen vehicle used in a crime under investigation you got from a 'friend'.

"What's that red stain in the back?"
"Would you believe boysenberry jam?"
"No."
"Strawberry milkshake."

Why do I think of ware when I read this?

"Yes, officer, I know my fingerprints have been found on the crime scene...
BUT THIS ARM WAS NOT MINE AT THE TIME!"

Nope, because that 1 nuyen that can buy 2.5 nuyen worth of vehicles can still only buy you 1 nuyen worth of guns or ammunition. In reality, no character is going to spend every potential nuyen solely on one category, thus saying you can get "X value of stuff for Y nuyen" is pointless since that X value is going to change on a character by character basis. Thus the only value of consideration for the original question is the RAW nuyen total you can acquire for resources, which is 330,000 nuyen.

Sure, but only the Black Market Pipeline is restricted to one category. Other modifiers can always apply. OK, maybe the GM will not accept used ammo

Which still creates a wildly varied cross section of possible value from the starting resources.

Also, I don't think "object was used in a crime" can be applied as much as people do.

Let's say I mug someone and bean them upside the head with my pistol. I used the pistol in a crime. If I sold that pistol to someone and they in turn sold it to another person, should that second person get the 20% discount for it being used in a crime? I say not for at least two reasons.

The victim very probably didn't know what the gun was.
The victim certainly didn't know the serial number for the gun in order to uniquely identify it.

I could even say the same applies to weapons that are fired. Forensics will be able to pull a slug but they need casings on the scene in order to find the weapon that fired the round. Caseless ammunition? Fugitaboutit.

The 20% discount for the object being used in a crime can and should only apply if there's a reasonable way that the object could be linked to the crime. That's why I think the 20% discount will -mostly- apply to vehicles (not drones) because they would be the most easily linked to a crime. It also applies a very real detriment to the runners for taking the discount.

You do know that the question was later clarified to be spesifically about getting money to buy a vehicle?

I don't have the patience to sift through 10 pages of Kruger and someone(s) else bitching at each other over paying off the In Debt quality. Something that has NOTHING to do with the thread's topic aside from the fact that In Debt gives you money.

Ignoring all the other rehashed mumbo jumbo, this is where it all falls apart.

Because this has been proven to be not true, and as the crux of your argument, is its failing point.

I believe that SR4 even says the majority of ammunition is now caseless.

How is it not true?

Default rule: You can have up to 35 points of Negative Qualities.

Default rule for removing Negative Qualities: Pay double the BP value in Karma. Possibly you may be required to do other stuff depending on GM whims, but this isn't spelled out and as such isn't useful to the debate.

Yes, the GM can also simply rule the quality away, but the GM can rule that pink elephants come flying out the character's bum too. GM fiat is not a useful argument when discussing RAW. Which is what everyone else is discussing, not RAI.

The standard rules tell us that if the GM allows negative qualities to even be removed, ultimately by general default whatever else happens you must pay twice the BP value in Karma in the end.

Some qualities have specific rules where you can adjust or remove the effects of the quality by other means, but those only apply to the specific quality they are listed in.

In Debt tells us that you owe X amount and that you must pay Y minimum every month to avoid additional negative effects. It really does not tell us anything else game-mechanic wise.

The GM can rule that you need to pay off the nuyen debt as well, but ultimately you still need to use the standard "pay double the BP value using Karma" to be rid of the quality and it's effects.


-k

Then could you maybe not bitch at people who have actually read the topic at hand.
God i hate people who post without reading the topic, if you cant be bothered to read the topic, then theres no need for you to post in it.

See. never buy second hand ware from shady fixers.

Object Used in a Crime means more:
Object is cataloged in a Law Enforcement Database as having been used in a crime.

And for that object to be in such a catalog it would need meet two criteria. Law enforcement would need to be able to uniquely identify the object and the object would need to be the subject of an open case.

If it were, it means that the weapon in question was confiscated and logged into evidence, and then subsequently 'disappeared' or was 'destroyed', then released by enterprising mooks back into the urban wild.

That's what I take from the price bonus.

Okay, I need to say something here as a writer of rules (not for SR). This is FAR from bad rules writing on a clarity level.



Okay, I admit that I am joining this argument without fully understanding it was about, but...this indicates to me that the loan MUST be paid back before the negative quality can be removed with karma. The fact that it is a negative quality indicates it must be bought off with Karma. The BOLDED TEXT (which does not require any knowledge of anything, since everyone understands the concept of being indebted) indicates the debt must also be paid off. It is not a bad rule because it is unclear. I can't even mentally picture the GM who would let the quality go away for JUST THE KARMA with the established in-game debt not being paid off. And while I can imagine a GM who would let the quality go away for just the money, that would be a clear violation of the rules about negative qualities. A loophole in this case is that once the principal and the interest is paid off, there is no REASON to pay Karma for the quality to go away because it doesn't DO anything any more.

It is a bad rule because it gives you 30 BP and 30,000 Nuyen for almost nothing.

I don't disagree that 'Bad Rep' negative quality spells it out more clearly:

[quote]A character with a Bad Rep has a dark and lasting stain
on her reputation in the shadow community and even beyond.
Something she did, or was falsely accused of doing, in the past
has stuck and permanently tainted the way people perceive her.
The character starts play with 3 points of Notoriety which cannot
be removed or decreased except by confronting and resolving the
source of the bad reputation. Only then may the Bad Rep quality
be bought off with Karma.[/quote]

It is very easy as a writer of rules text to assume a modicum of common sense and a willingness to make reasonable interpretations on the part of the player base. I think that In Debt is a bad rule on a BALANCE level but I think on a clarity level it is nowhere near as bad as you are making it sound.

No, people who are arguing the language of the rule says the loan cannot be paid back/doesn't say it can be paid back, are just being intentionally obtuse for the sake of argument. I'm fine with that. It's been identified as trolling and moving on. The language is very clear and only requires basic outside game knowledge of how loans work mathematically.

Yes, the problem is that the rule says you get 30 BP for the cost of 15K nuyen plus whatever interest accrues on 45K. It's really cheap unless your campaign is so low cash that you can't make that money fast enough.

The alternate version people have provided as their own house rules force the character to pay back the money, plus the interest, plus the Karma on buying off a NQ which will have no game effect, which means they get 60 Karma's worth of headaches all for the minor benefit of getting to spend it at character creation. That's way too expensive, and it breaks the precedent set by all other qualities in that getting rid of it would require a loss of the benefit as well as retention of the negative effect. For every other quality, the trade in buying it off with Karma is losing the benefit and also losing the negative effect.

The one place that you're misreading the rules is that nowhere does it say that qualities must be bought off with Karma. There's not even one use of the word "must" in the entire section on improving characters, let alone the paragraph that outlines Negative Qualities. The whole section on Character Improvement is riddled with the words "should" and "can" on purpose because there are no hard and universal rules about how it is done or what the GM is required to do aside from giving math on the various numerical costs. This is a common misconception among players it seems. In fact, a GM doesn't even have to allow a character to buy off a quality at all. He just "can". Likewise there is no reference that a quality "must" be bought off with Karma, because by default they cannot be gotten rid of without GM consent, and there are multiple examples of qualities that are not bought off with Karma at all.

Really what you shouldn't be able to picture is a GM that would allow In Debt as written as a quality because it's way too broken. Because, according to the rules, paying it off with just the money is all you have to do.

Maybe I got lost somewhere but last time I checked the In Debt flaw was only worth 10BP, not 30.

<edit> nevermind, its 5BP per 5000 nuyen