Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Max Starting Cash
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
KarmaInferno
Trolling is deliberate attempts to provoke angry responses.

I've seen none of that so far. Point of fact, the only person slinging allusions to personal failings is you, Kruger.

I have been the rules adjudicator for Living campaign in the past. I approach game rule writing as if I were entering data into an Excel sheet. It's very binary. Either something is true or it is not. =IF(TRUE,RESULT).

It makes for very clear rules with no arguable grey areas.

Again, I did not at any point say your extrapolations of the intended meaning of In Debt were unreasonable.

I am merely pointing out they are, in fact, extrapolations.

Just like other folks here have been coming up with extrapolations.

As such, they are not, by definition, RAW.

I will say I personally believe that the RAI is that you must pay off the debt, AND pay off the double karma cost.

But that's not what's written. My point is that it could have been written better.

Additionally, I agree that even aside from the syntax issues, it's too good a quality - it gives significant mechanical benefits but no immediate significant drawbacks. This is always a warning sign of a bad rules option in gaming. It is possible to pull such a thing off, but it requires careful balancing, something which In Debt does not do.



-karma
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Kruger @ Sep 24 2010, 12:21 PM) *
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.


I did not say "must" at any point. Only that there IS a default rule for removing Negative Qualities.

In the absence of other specific exceptions, that is the only LISTED general method in the rules.

I do not use terms like "must" a whole lot. I WILL use rules references.

Of course the GM has to allow it. The GM has to allow EVERYTHING. It's pointless to even say "if the GM allows it" when talking about rules interpretation. To even start discussing the subject we have to first posit that the GM is, in fact, allowing it.

"Negative Qualities - If the gamemaster approves, a character can work off a negative quality by undertaking severe changes as appropriate to the quality. For example, a character with an Addiction quality must work hard to kick the habit, resisting the temptation to relapse for a significant period (chosen by the gamemaster). If the gamemaster feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow that character to pay twice the quality’s BP cost to remove it."

Note the last sentence. In addition to whatever else the GM decides is appropriate to working off the NQ, there is a karma cost.

The GM might require the nuyen to be paid off before allowing the quality to be removed with Karma.

Or the GM might decide the Karma expenditure alone is sufficient.

Either way is supported by the text of the rulebooks.



-karma
StealthSigma
QUOTE (Mäx @ Sep 24 2010, 11:05 AM) *
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.


Or maybe because the addendum isn't relevant at all and stated that his problem was that he needed more cash. Blackmarket pipeline does not alter that fact nor do you know if his character already has it. Considering he's quoted two qualities from Runner's companion and expressly stated more cash it is not unreasonable to assume that he knows about the pipeline quality and is in fact looking for qualities that may be presented in other books.

And even if you bought a 825k nuyen vehicle for 330k. A physical asset is only worth what you can sell it for right this minute and every single one of those modifiers that applied when you bought it will apply when you sell it. You will probably at best get no more back than the 330k nuyen that you initially spent. You saved 495k on the purchase price, but you picked up nearly 250k worth of direct liability (stolen, used in a crime) that could cause you to lose the asset with no recourse or even cause you to land in deep doo-doo and about 165k nuyen of indirect liability (used) which would require you to put money into repairing it. The reality is that you only saved 82.5k nuyen off a real price tag of 412.5k nuyen. There is also the reasonable interpretation would suggest that blackmarket pipeline discount would be calculated from the street value of the item rather than book value. So a 412,500 nuyen vehicle that has a book price of 825,000 nuyen would only get a 41,250 nuyen discount and not a 82,500 nuyen discount.

Those discount measures, along with pirated software, are meant to shift some of the nuyen cost into non-liquid costs with their own liabilities either through loss, further costs down the line, or degradation in the case of pirated software.
Kruger
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 24 2010, 11:58 AM) *
I did not say "must" at any point. Only that there IS a default rule for removing Negative Qualities.
I wasn't replying to you, lol.


QUOTE
Note the last sentence. In addition to whatever else the GM decides is appropriate to working off the NQ, there is a karma cost.

The GM might require the nuyen to be paid off before allowing the quality to be removed with Karma.

Or the GM might decide the Karma expenditure alone is sufficient.

Either way is supported by the text of the rulebooks.
So then a character with amnesia has to pay the karma cost off to get rid of it once he learns enough to no longer be excessively burdened by the quality? See, it still doesn't make sense. That's why you see "must work hard" (role play), and "can allow the character to pay" (mechanics). The only consistent and mandatory part of that ruling is that the change has to be reflected in role play. Hence why the character, through role playing learns about his past, or triggers the memories to return, then no longer is burdened by Amnesia. Just as a character through role play, accumulates enough money to pay off the debt and is alleviated of the burden of the debt.

Sure, I agree that an interpretation of the rules says that if he wants the quality removed from his character sheet, he has to pay Karma. I'll even agree, RAW, if the GM wants to let him get rid of it, he should have to role play good fiscal sense (lol) and then pay twice the BP in Karma. However, the rules don't say he must remove it. And the rules don't say what happens if he doesn't. So still, going by your own =IF(TRUE,RESULT) formula, if the debt equals nuyen.gif 0, then the result is Nothing.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Kruger @ Sep 24 2010, 04:32 PM) *
I wasn't replying to you, lol.


So then a character with amnesia has to pay the karma cost off to get rid of it once he learns enough to no longer be excessively burdened by the quality? See, it still doesn't make sense. That's why you see "must work hard" (role play), and "can allow the character to pay" (mechanics). The only consistent and mandatory part of that ruling is that the change has to be reflected in role play. Hence why the character, through role playing learns about his past, or triggers the memories to return, then no longer is burdened by Amnesia. Just as a character through role play, accumulates enough money to pay off the debt and is alleviated of the burden of the debt.

Sure, I agree that an interpretation of the rules says that if he wants the quality removed from his character sheet, he has to pay Karma. I'll even agree, RAW, if the GM wants to let him get rid of it, he should have to role play good fiscal sense (lol) and then pay twice the BP in Karma. However, the rules don't say he must remove it. And the rules don't say what happens if he doesn't. So still, going by your own =IF(TRUE,RESULT) formula, if the debt equals nuyen.gif 0, then the result is Nothing.


See, Again, I would say that you have to pay karma to offset the Karma Debt if you wanted to remove Amnesia from the Character Sheet... And here is why... You will NEVER know whether you have recovered everything until taht Negative Quality is removed from your sheet. If it is never removed from your sheet, tehn your GM will have infinite ammunition to use against you... it is as simple as that...

Here is an Example...

"What happened in Bucharest?"

If you have no idea what the GM is talking about, then you have NOT recovered all of your Memories... It is as simple as that... The only way to guarantee that you have everything is to buy off the Quality...
Traul
QUOTE (Kruger @ Sep 25 2010, 12:32 AM) *
So then a character with amnesia has to pay the karma cost off to get rid of it once he learns enough to no longer be excessively burdened by the quality?

A character has to pay karma to recover memory. Depending on the GM, he may have to learn about his past to do so, or a shock can be enough. As long as he hasn't bought the quality, there is no way for him to know whether he has learnt enough or not, or even whether what he has learnt is true or not because, you know, amnesia... Just think of XIII: that's what could happen as long as you don't buy Amnesia off.

QUOTE
Sure, I agree that an interpretation of the rules says that if he wants the quality removed from his character sheet, he has to pay Karma. I'll even agree, RAW, if the GM wants to let him get rid of it, he should have to role play good fiscal sense (lol) and then pay twice the BP in Karma. However, the rules don't say he must remove it. And the rules don't say what happens if he doesn't. So still, going by your own =IF(TRUE,RESULT) formula, if the debt equals nuyen.gif 0, then the result is Nothing.

That is only if you consider that the monthly increase is 10% of the remaining sum. The way it is worded, it can as well be 10% of the original sum. So as long as you don't buy the quality off, no matter how much you have reimbursed, you remain in debt.
Yerameyahu
That's possible, but it's very counterintuitive given how debt works.
Kruger
QUOTE (Traul @ Sep 24 2010, 05:49 PM) *
That is only if you consider that the monthly increase is 10% of the remaining sum. The way it is worded, it can as well be 10% of the original sum. So as long as you don't buy the quality off, no matter how much you have reimbursed, you remain in debt.
The Quality cannot both require us to use outside real world knowledge of how a loan works and to disavow all knowledge of how a loan works at the same time. What you suggest cannot be true because it creates a paradox within the rule. Remember, we have to assume the rule works on some level. It may be unbalanced and crappy, but it has to actually work.

Amusingly enough, ff you choose to read it the way you've suggested then "the amount owed increases 10% every month, as compound interest." Ignoring the fact that it clumsily doesn't say "by 10%", the total amount would increase. Meaning from 45K to 49500, to 54450, to 59895, constantly ballooning. Which would still go away if you somehow managed to pay it off. If the character took a year to pay it off, the total amount owed would be almost 500% of the original borrowed sum, lol. And then on top of it you'd owe 60 Karma. You'd have to be a dedicated masochist to take that flaw. Heck the punishment for Borrowed Time isn't that severe to buy off, and it kills you if you don't.

But, since that counteracts the knowledge we are expected to know to be true about loans and that we're expected to use, it can't be true. We either know that 10% compound interest is calculated off the balance, or we don't know anything. Without any rules specifying what is left out, you can only default to using all of the knowledge at hand.
Glyph
The rules aren't ambiguous about the requirement of paying Karma to remove a flaw.

They are ambiguous about what, exactly, happens when a character doesn't pay off a flaw, but has effectively negated it - a character with amnesia who has filled in all of the blank spots on his character sheet, a character who has completely paid off his debt, a character who quits his day job since he was planning on ditching that SIN anyways, etc.

There are a few examples that address this in the books - the SURGE deformity quality states that surgical procedures to fix it will run into complications unless the character buys off the flaw. But mostly, it is one of those areas of GM discretion. Personally, I believe that, until the flaw is bought off with Karma, the character will suffer from either the flaw, or negative effects related to that flaw. I don't consider this a house rule, but RAI. As such, it is very, very subjective, and something that will vary from table to table, but I don't quite consider it a house rule. To me, a house rule is replacing an existing rule, not using the GM's ability to adjudicate fuzzy areas of the rules.

In debt is a quality that can vary from free money, to a quick monetary boost at the cost of money and Karma later, to a crippling flaw, depending on how the GM runs it. It is one of those things where everyone should be on board with how it will be used before the game starts.
Saint Sithney
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Sep 24 2010, 06:00 PM) *
That's possible, but it's very counterintuitive given how debt works.



Not when you consider how mob debt works.

Mobsters don't lend money to people, they lend rope and tell people to hang themselves.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Saint Sithney @ Sep 25 2010, 08:11 AM) *
Not when you consider how mob debt works.

Mobsters don't lend money to people, they lend rope and tell people to hang themselves.

The problem is that if the GM goes that way the indebted Streetsam might jsut go on a rage and start a war with the mob instead of bending over more than he thinks that he should have to.

Both would be good fun.
sabs
Honestly, a Good Shadowrunner team should make a local mob guy nervous.
They usually can take out most of his infrastructure, if they so desire.

it's a complicated issue.

very similar to the Mob relationship Dillinger and his fellow Bank Robbers enjoyed.
Dumori
Yeah if you can hit hard targets and get away free that organised crime might be a bit shaky when it comes to fuckign with you. Cos if you want revenge you can get it. Hell you could even just feed the law enforcement with tips on their low level stuff as a bit of a warning as they know you can do more. I had an assassin char that people just didn't mess with like that. Manly as he killed at least 2 of the old organised crime bosses and was dealing with their successors. He played the "The bloods on my employers hands not mine" card. You tell me to kill I'm just a weapon their the direction. It worked quite well till some one tried to set him up. He escaped and made a nice example of the double crosser how ever.

Never went to far always played by is own rules. In fact the lucky guy retired edge is worth every karma.
Saint Sithney
If a shadowrunner team can slip past the security of one of the planet's most defended men, kill him and get out, why would you think that another shadowrunner team couldn't slip past the security of a single street sam and turn him to goo. The players are not magical gods. There is nothing they can do to others which can't be done to them.

Open, personal war with the mob is a death sentence.
Glyph
Generally, if someone took In Debt, I would assume the debt was owed to someone able to collect that debt, even on a shadowrunner. The syndicates have their own heavy hitters, after all.

Still, even if the mob could flatline a runner (usually a given), it won't always go smoothly, and a runner can potentially do some serious damage before going down. Runners are dangerous people. The mob will use their leverage, but they will usually be smart enough to show some respect - while still ratcheting up that interest and pressuring the runner into doing "favors" (or alternately, offering them jobs - jobs that will help them get out of debt, but that will slowly align them with that syndicate's interests).
Dumori
Personal War can be done you just have to play smart and not solo it play other smaller elements against them bring legal heat on them. While you strike hard and fast and stealthily. If you kill the right guys quick enought they won't have the brains to hit you back with out you having time to move.
KarmaInferno
If I was the Mob and had this problem "client" that wasn't paying up, and this client was known to be really, really dangerous, I wouldn't do something silly like attack him.

I'd have him tracked and watched for a few weeks, researched, find out EVERYTHING there is to know about this guy.

Everyone's got vulnerable points. That really dangerous guy has them. They might just be something like a family back home. A valued friend. Some secret pact. Even his reputation.

To quote a movie, everyone has pressure points. You find them, find out what is personally important to them, and you squeeze.

You make it clear to the client that his only real option is to pay up, to do otherwise is to have whatever he values most in the world destroyed.

smile.gif



-k
Dumori
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 28 2010, 06:58 AM) *
If I was the Mob and had this problem "client" that wasn't paying up, and this client was known to be really, really dangerous, I wouldn't do something silly like attack him.

I'd have him tracked and watched for a few weeks, researched, find out EVERYTHING there is to know about this guy.

Everyone's got vulnerable points. That really dangerous guy has them. They might just be something like a family back home. A valued friend. Some secret pact. Even his reputation.

To quote a movie, everyone has pressure points. You find them, find out what is personally important to them, and you squeeze.

You make it clear to the client that his only real option is to pay up, to do otherwise is to have whatever he values most in the world destroyed.

smile.gif



-k


Yep in the case of my Assassin I think his rep would have been the major squeeze point if it came up.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 28 2010, 01:58 AM) *
If I was the Mob and had this problem "client" that wasn't paying up, and this client was known to be really, really dangerous, I wouldn't do something silly like attack him.

I'd have him tracked and watched for a few weeks, researched, find out EVERYTHING there is to know about this guy.

Everyone's got vulnerable points. That really dangerous guy has them. They might just be something like a family back home. A valued friend. Some secret pact. Even his reputation.

To quote a movie, everyone has pressure points. You find them, find out what is personally important to them, and you squeeze.

You make it clear to the client that his only real option is to pay up, to do otherwise is to have whatever he values most in the world destroyed.


This is my favorite bit about the irrationality of the mob. In this case they will likely spend more than the remaining balance of the loan just to collect on the debt.

The thought is that you maintain your ability to force payment by forcing a trouble maker to pay up. This is probably a bad idea with potential assets.

If I was a mob boss with a loan out to a delinquent runner I would collect by offering him jobs. I would just take what he owes me out of the payment for the job. If I would normally pay 20,000 for a job but this runner owes me 3,000 still I would knock the job's payment down to 17,000 and upon completion "forgive" the loan even though the runner paid me back the 3,000 without realizing it since that was 3,000 I didn't pay to the runner. I get some good light as a "nice guy" by forgiving the loan while gaining a potential asset that I could use in the future.

Of course if the runner's team is 4 people I just forced his team to subsidize his delinquency but such is life.
Glyph
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 28 2010, 05:16 AM) *
Of course if the runner's team is 4 people I just forced his team to subsidize his delinquency but such is life.

Also, from the syndicate's point of view, if they can get this runner doing jobs for them to bring his buddies along for the ride, all the better. It means they can potentially turn the entire team into syndicate assets eventually.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012