Ha, sorry. Sometimes I post with successive edits; it's a bad habit.

I do the same I post then go oh wait... and add more.

Just because the In Debt quality gives a starting character a little extra cash to start with, that doesn't mean that the debt is strictly money.

In Debt means you owe someone. You are under their thumb. Maybe they gave you 30,000¥ advance on something, or you're carrying 30,000¥ worth of gear (talking about drugs here) that you're hoping to flip for more cash. The point is, you've taken 6BP worth of goods that you owe, and 24BP worth of favors you need to pay back, and, until you pay back those favors with 60 karma, you're going to be somebody's bitch.

"Hey, chum. Long time. I got a message for you from _____. He says that an ex-Lone Star cop, used to be on our payrolls thinks he still needs some cash to keep his lips closed. Now, we got no more use for this scumbag head-kicker and he needs to catch that message. We would consider it a personal favor if you were to deliver this message, and make sure it gets through his thick skull, capiche? I'll be waiting on confirmation that it's done." *doot-doot-dooo* +6 karma towards paying off your Debt. Zero cash.

*shrug* The rule says nothing about doing favors, only paying interest. It says 10% interest. I dunno how to calculate 10% of a favor, so I assume it's cash.

Your version sounds fun (Negative Quality: Somebody's Bitch), and I'm sure it could work. It's just not what the book says. Again, I'm *only* arguing that Tymeaus shouldn't say the book says things it doesn't.

Maybe it should be 10% of the original debt or total debt the largest applies 'till you pay of the karma too? Might need some rewording but it works as a real incentive to pay it off karma wise.

Agree++.

Agree++.

Yes, Dumori, I could see that. I also like the idea Karoline mentioned of paying off in cash and karma (as other Neg Quals), but allow small chunks.

I'd favor a 'no BP, no Karma' version, but at that point, it's just a flat out loan shark deal; do it in-character and leave the chargen out of it.

But like I said earlier, if you pay back karma (or have to take other negative qualities) there is no incentive to get the quality in the first place. You have to pay back 150% (if you make it before the first month) of what is borrowed, and you have to pay back 2x the BP in karma, or take another batch of qualities.

So, you've netted a 50% loss (minimum) in nuyen, and either traded 60 karma for 30 BP (A bad trade 95% of the time) or end up with 30 BP of other qualities that you don't have direct control over.

So, why not just get those 30 BP with other qualities, and not take the 50% (minimum) loss in nuyen?

If you really want the boost in cash, or heck, even as an RP hook, just make it a 0 BP thing. Then you don't have to screw the player for all time (Big karma loss) or pull random extra stuff out of what is a straitforward quality (The fact that you 'owe favors' to someone, when in fact the quality states fairly plainly that you owe them money. Nothing in the quality even says that the debt is anything besides a bank loan)

Well, getting shark loans is *supposed* to be a really stupid (read: desperate) move. Properly ruled, no one smart (read: in a position not to) would ever take it, yes. Improperly ruled, it's free BP and money, small downside of 50% cash penalty. So… indeed, In Debt is either too good or too bad to exist.

If you wanted to make a balanced version that's actually a Flaw (instead of simply a loan), then perhaps remove the 50% part, for one thing? There are several options. It could function like Born Rich instead of giving cash, or it could *cost* BP with a better BP/Nuyen ratio than 1:5000? The GM can be creative. I still like Somebody's Bitch.

Not that there's anything wrong with 'simply a loan', except you want to limit the use of that at chargen. That's what In Debt is intended to do, and it's not a bad goal.

Isn't that Sinner + Day job?

It's more like that In the Mob one.

It's made man plus day job. Have fun trying to find time to run with at least 45 hours a week of favour doing.

Something I've found after playing other games is that I no longer like how Shadowrun (and WoD, and Gurps, and a lot of other games I played) do flaws / negative qualities.
IMO, you shouldn't get a permanent character creation bonus for something that might occasionally happen later in game, but which you probably try to avoid having fully affect you. Instead, a NQ should give you the option to invite the GM to make some bad stuff happening to your character (or he can just do so at will, maybe limited to once a session / adventure) in exchange for which you get a temporary benefit. If you don't want the bad stuff to affect you, then it (generally) doesn't (its just a style tip and role play issue at that point)- but you also don't get any of the good stuff.
Obviously the benefit from flaws would have to be something besides BPs. Perhaps triggering a flaw would give you back a die in your karma pool, or gain you a point of karma (to spend as normal), or allow you to activate the use of some positive quality.

As for "In Debt", it should certainly be a POSITIVE quality. Seeing as there's no other way to get a lone (or at least not one you can by starting gear with) if you only go "by the book", its basically a quality that says you have better than average credit. So why not call it that?

Good Credit- Positive Quality, 5,10,or 15 points
Your character had good enough credit to get a loan. Unfortunately, its a loan on rather bad terms; credit card debt with outlandish fees, loan shark money, or taken out as short stock that went up instead of down. You get 5,000 Nuyen per point of this quality. If you pay off at least 20% of the debt per month, at 20% interest per month, the creditor is satisfied, and won't bother you. If you don't you gain the "enemy" flaw at the same rating as this quality, with the enemy being a revolving cast of credit collectors, knee breakers, and hackers.

House Ruling the In Debt quality is all well and good, but Y is correct. All it says explicitly is that the character must pay off the monetary debt plus interest. We've already gotten one player here admitting he ditched it with a simple payoff, so it is obvious that people are exploiting the heck out of it because it is the most munchkin negative quality possible. Free money, free BPs, easy work-off.

It's gonna be hard to justify to a player how he can't pay his debt off, ever. 30K is chump change to a criminal organization or a corporation or anybody who would loan that kind of cash out. Making it out to be some kind of life debt is silly just to balance out the BP benefit. That's why it is a bad quality. If your solution to a badly written and poorly conceived Negative Quality is more poorly made arbitrary GM decisions and nonsensical punitive measures, you know something is wrong.

Following the written rules is neither of those things.

The written rules say the character has to pay off the loan plus 50% with 10% monthly interest. And if the character cannot pay at least the interest every month, the the creditors "may" send someone looking for them.

That's it. All the rest of these things are "GM should..." banter. Sure, the game says to get rid of a Negative Quality the GM "Can" allow the character to work it off and then pay twice the BP in Karma. So? So what? A character with a paid off debt still "has" the In Debt NQ. But what's it do to him? As written? Nothing. It's a 5-30BP NQ that the player has no reason to get rid of. And, as written, there's no further punishment that the GM can enforce on the player. He owes his creditor 10% every month on 0 if you really want to be literal on the wording.

But why would he pay Karma to get rid of that NQ unless you were house ruling additional punitive effects?

Because the rules say all negative qualities must be bought off with karma.

Just because logic may say "hey, this can be taken care of easily" doesn't mean that it ignores the basic rules for negative qualities, any more than you can just shoot your Dependents and be rid of them.

The "Somebody's Bitch" interpretation of the quality isn't really a character killer. Not like Uncouth, Multiple Personality, or a host of other terrible, terrible qualities. The character can still grow and work along with the rest of the team, just sometimes, they'll be called up to perform a task for the person whom they have a long history of favors to repay. Doing these favors, say 2 per level of In Debt taken, will eventually square the character away, karma-wise, but it won't always be convenient or easy. Maybe that character is on a stakeout and gets told he has to do something that night. So, now they have to figure out a way to either pass off their team duties, or they have to hire a contact to take care of their dirty business. Regardless of how they pay back the favors, be it theft, extortion, betrayal or cold-blooded murder, that character is likely to come out of the experience with enough Notoriety to possibly jeopardize the team's standing, working with a known syndicate leg-breaker and all..

No, you're right, that isn't a character killer. But it's also a house rule. I said "In Debt" was a munchkin, poorly written NQ. If you want to turn it into "Saint Sithney's In Debted For Life For a Paltry Sum of Cash", then it's now a different NQ all together. But it doesn't exist in 4e anywhere except your table. You're not coming up with an "interpretation" for anything, so it's incorrect to use that word. There's nothing in that quality that even remotely suggests anything like that. You're simply expanding and modifying an existing NQ into something different. Which is fair, and a little better conceived than what the guys who wrote Runner's Companion came up with. It still makes no sense to be in debt for life for 30K. That's why it's replacing a poorly conceived flaw with a poorly conceived "fix".

And why I said very specifically that In Debt is not a very good quality.

I think it's safe to say this one's down to the "letter of the rules" versus "spirit of your, specific, gaming table" thing, again. A by-the-letter interpretation makes it free money and build points, a by-the-spirit interpretation (which will, naturally, vary from GM to GM) can, if using the karma-for-buyoff rules, make it a real character crippler. In the short term it's terrific, in the long term it can essentially stop all a character's growth.

Or, in other words? Runner's Companion, p. 96:

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the "Somebody's Bitch" thing - as I mentioned above, I think it would be a fine House Rule, but it's not what's written.

Having to pay off negative qualities with karma is written. Not being able to bypass the downsides of qualities without spending karma is written.

That's all I'm talking about.

Do you have a source for that? Because I think that rule only exists in your imagination.

Page 271 SR4A: "(The GM) can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP to remove it."

"Can" and "allow". No mention of "all or "must". In fact, that's almost absurd to even suggest. How would a character buy off being Quadriplegic? Or, what if the player liked their character being being addicted to drugs and the role-playing challenges that created? How "must" they buy them off?

Except there's no downside, RAW, of just keeping it forever, unless you also rule that you can't repay the principal. Which, as we've discussed, is a valid interpretation, but many people also interpret it to mean that you *can* repay the principal. It all depends.

Do I really have to diagram that sentence out to show the meaning of "can" in that context?

edit: Sorry, the "must" did imply an imperative that I should have expanded on. Please tack on "if they want to be rid of it" to the end of the quoted sentence.

But what it comes down to is that the player has to want to get rid of an NQ to pay Karma for it. A player might have motivation to get rid of an Enemy or an Addiction or Flashbacks. As written, the character can just retain In Debt forever at no extra cost or headache. The debt is for alone. Nothing else. Everything else is a house rule.

That's all I'm saying. I honestly wouldn't allow it as written either. But Yerameyahu (glad he was only one post up) was right about the RAW, and that was the only point I was making about all the house rules. And I took issue with many of the proposed house rule fixes because they don't make sense either. 30K is nothing to an organization like the Mob or the Yaks. If the character actually paid back 150%+ of the principle, they'd have no reason to hold anything further over the head of the character. Especially the Yaks, who are all about the appearance of propriety and honor. A debt like that that can never be "repaid" would be an entirely different flaw and likely had very little to do with cash. Or at least that little amount of cash. When you owe a debt like that, often the lender has no interest in collecting back the monetary investment.

What if a GM were to make the interest on the debt so insurmountably unfair that the player could never pay off the principal all the way? That would be a way of making the quality worse without house ruling anything, right?

Well, that's still a house rule. It's (Principal*1.5)*10%. Nothing *wrong* with house rules, but the point is that In Debt is broken as written… and that OP should *definitely* use it if he simply must have that extra 30k.

Sigh, there are plenty of rules examples that say you can't get rid of the negative effects of a quality unless you pay the karma first. There's nothing in the wording of the quality that exempts it from that.

From a Formalist perspective (and for rules, you can't really use any other) the "at least" in the In Debt description would be covering a circumstance where you spent karma and cash to pay down the principle.

There are plenty of RC qualities that could be gotten rid of in-game without paying karma from a logical perspective (Dependents, In Debt, Day Job, Enemies, etc) but the rules say otherwise.

Wow. That is...not a lot of 'points' (in the mob sense of the word) on the loan considering it's a 30 point negative quality.

I'm sure the argument goes, 'the negative effect is the 10% interest; I pay 10% of the remaining 0¥'. But, again, it doesn't matter which interpretation is right: either In Debt is brokenly good, or brokenly *bad*, right?

I don't know what the argument is about, there is general consensus (to an amazing degree) that the pure RAW of in-debt is beyond horrid.

The main ways to fix this are:
1. Enforce buying off the quality when you pay back the loan (which cripples character growth)
1a. As 1, but the payoff is gradual. (There is still character growth, but the character will be (up to) 60 karma behind the rest of the group in exchange for losing money)
2. Enforce trading in the quality for 30 BP of other qualities when you pay back the loan (Which makes In-Debt nothing but a money sink and letting the GM pick a ton of qualities for you)
3. Enforce randomly owing favors, in addition to the money (Which is totally out of left field)
4. Make it 0 BP (A pure boost to chargen funds in exchange for having to pay it back in game. Potentially useful if you just need that little bit extra to squeeze in a couple extra pieces of equipment, or you want to simulate a money problem with that initial debt)

So, 1 sucks, 1a sucks, 2 sucks. 3 is reasonable, but is an entirely different quality really. 4 is... well, 4 is a loan.

Now, if you wanted a real 'in-debt' quality, then you make it a Han Solo debt. 5 points per level, for each level, you must give 10% (or 5% maybe) of all income to your debtor to pay off your debt. The debt never actually gets paid off unless karma is spent to remove the quality (or levels of the quality). Bam! In-debt as it should have been.

Make an optional rule (not a quality) that says you can take out a loan of up to 30k in chargen funds. Any loan taken out translates into a debt of 150% of the value of the loan, with 10% monthly interest. Bam! Additional money option as it should have been.

Nice. I can see some kind of 'income tax' working. You'd need some fluff justify how they *know* what your (secret criminal off-the-books) income is, but that's just details.

Hell maybe they don't but it will bite you in the ass if they think you are underpaying them all they have to do is ask your fixer ~how much is X making

Heh, I suppose that argument could be made But yes, strictly speaking it's brokenly bad. As usually played, it's brokenly good. Either way, it's a bad quality. Some good ideas in this thread to make it not-bad though.

@Karoline - I pick nits like an amphetamine-fueled chimp - it's just what I do

Well, in the case of my in-debt quality, it would have to be to some kind of criminal organization who would be capable of keeping tabs on you when you do runs and such. Mob, Yakuza, etc. And even if they don't keep direct tabs on you, they will always 'hear' that you've just made a big score.

That may be the biggest problem with loans in SR, is the ease with which a runner could slip out of a loan. I mean, all they need to do is go to a bank with a fake SIN with a good credit score (6k max cost) and take out the biggest loan they can (like maybe a 2-300k house loan), transfer the funds to a black account, and then ditch the SIN. Bam, they made 294k nuyen in a couple of days.

Or heck, there are plenty of people now-a-days running around with 50k or 100k or higher in debt (just listen to a debt consultation ad some time). Just get a fake SIN, run up a ton of charges on dozens of credit cards and such, and then drop the SIN. Maybe the Gunz-R-Us stand in the black market doesn't take credit cards, but you could get all kinds of other stuff.

define:indebted



The quality then mentions money and credit, saying that this money is loaned and must be paid back with vig or there will be consequences.

I can understand how you might assume that "indebted" means cash debt, because that is what is laid out in the description. However the very first sentence of quality description tells you that the character is indebted to the mob, etc. It says this in plain language. As a GM, it is your business to interpret the text as you see fit.

HUR HUR HOUSERULE not withstanding, until you pay off the Karma you are still indebted to the mob. Money alone does not change this.

Yeah just make sure you payed for that apartment you got it all sent to with that SIN and always disquised your self when using that SIN. Just incase the corps decide to make you the warning sign.

There was a fraud case hit the new recently over here in uk like that in less than a decade they had fruaded a few mil from various banks. One real thing you can do with the ability to juggle cerdit is take out a new X lone each month to pay the payment of the last one back that money in an account for Y years then for those Y years you are making the initial lone amount plus a lot of interest. Will need paper trail hiding and 12*y good SINs so will need some start up funds it's also rather not fun.

If the character actually paid back 150%+ of the principle, they'd have no reason to hold anything further over the head of the character.

Well, the Char pays back the Money ingame that means he wants to ged rid of the NQ
The Rules say : to ged rid of a Disadvantage you have to pay back in Karma

The example of Shooting your Dependants to ged rid of them is the same (and a Good one too) shure ,ingame you god rid of them but outgame You're breaking the rules .
Same with In Debt. If you pay it back only in ¥ you're breaking the Rules(that clearly say that you can only ged Rid of your Disadvantage by A) creating an Ingame Situation to ged rid of it B) GMs approval C) paying in Karma for it) .

@Makkis Post
Thats exactly how I handle It with my Char "Nox" Ork Rigger who desperately wanted a "Ligter than Air-Aircraft"
He took In Debt and with every Run he's paying back in Karma and ¥ simultanously

Hough!
Medicineman

I like it, I'll bring it up, when I build a new Mage. He won't need money anyway...
He's running the shadows to pay his debt

I don't know why you're sighing. You're the one who continues to argue an untenable point not supported by the rules, or any reasonable interpretation of them, lol.

And actually, in terms of word usage, "at least" refers to an absolute minimum. "At least" means that the character, as an absolute minimum, has to pay the 10% compound interest on the amount owed. "At least" would never mean "this, in addition to".


That was my original point. The only other 30 point NQ in the game is the Burnout level of addiction which kills you if you don't buy it off with roleplay and Karma. In Debt is broken as all hell, haha.


And Saint, you can argue semantics all you like. However, the Quality is very specific in what the debt is, and the game mechanics associated with it. Catlike says that players gain +1 to Shadowing and Infiltration. However Merriam Webster defines Catlike as "resembling a cat" so you can assume that Catlike just means you're stealthy and nimble but in fact you also grow whiskers.

The Quality says specifically what is owed. "That much plus another 50%". Not "That much plus another 50% and some favors, and whatever the GM dreams up arbitrarily."

Conversely, the Burnout level of addiction very specifically says that Essence loss is at a rate determined by the GM. So the cases where the mechanics of a Quality are arbitrary are spelled out.

And you DID pay the karma cost to remove the Disadvantage too ? because if you dont then you are still in debt. 'Ok, I guess it would cover the interest... so see you next week for the payment'.

I sigh because the rules I'm quoting are clear, and that you aren't getting it means I'm not expressing myself well enough. I'll try to spell it out though.

The only written way that a GM "can allow" a player to buy off a negative quality is by paying the karma for it. Period.

There are a multitude of examples that you cannot get rid of the negatives to a quality without first paying karma to do so.

There is nothing that exempts "In Debt" (or Dependents, or Day Job, or Enemies) from the previous rules.

The "at least" implies the ability to pay more than the 10%. However, from a Formalist interpretation (which is what you use for rules and laws) the implication of paying more is there to cover the karma + cash paying down of the principle. It cannot be a blanket pass to pay off the principle without paying the karma first.

In b4 mods. Don't worry guys, Kruger and I are aren't going to get out of control.


Anyway, we all know RC is full of garbage. The folks who wrote it have said as much. However, it's not just a case of semantics.

I'll break down why I feel the way I do about it.

So, sentence by sentence we have:
1)The character is indebted to a third party, usually an underworld
syndicate, large gang or corporation, chosen by the player
with gamemaster approval.

The character owes some third party. Let's just say the mob, for convenience sake.

2)For every 5 BP taken, the character
receives an extra 5,000¥ at character creation; this money can be
above and beyond the normal 50 BP cap for gear.

Resolved at chargen. Not really a play issue beyond its relevance to the next sentence.

3)The character then owes her creditor that much plus another 50 percent.

Refers to the money above and how much is owed. Information only

4)The amount owed increases 10 percent every month, as compound interest.

This is the condition of the debt. It increases by 10% of the unpaid amount, compounded.

5)If the character is unable to pay at least the interest amount
each month, the creditor may send someone looking for her.

Consequences for not paying back money owed by at least the amount of interest.

So, 2 is resolved at chargen. 3,4 and 5 are obviously resolved by paying back money.
Sentence 1 not necessarily so.

You can pay back all of the money, setting the compound interest to 10% of zero. This means that one needs to pay nothing to keep the creditor from sending goons. This does not negate sentence 1 though. The only thing that negates sentence 1 is paying off the Karma.

So, until you buy off the quality with Karma, you are still indebted to the mob. You may be indebted for 0 nuyen, but you are still indebted to the mob. As a GM, I say that means demand for personal favors, on and on until the player gets fed up with it and pays off the Karma. It's not so different from how the actual mob works. They lend you money only to buy you out. "You remember how we helped you out when you needed ____? Now it's your turn to help us out."

You borrow money from the Mob, you owe them for Life.

Who's life depends on whether you've paid off the flaw with Karma.





-np

The quality specifically says how much you owe. 45K, 10% a month interest.
It doesn't say.. oh that's just interest if you pay it all off. I'm still going to slowly pay off the karma cost, but really. interpreted the way you have it, it's incentive never to pay it off.

Well if you consider how often the players care to pay back for other disadvantage it wont make a lot of difference...

Personally I would get rid of indebt
and instead allow players to go up to 75bp in resources.

I miss the priority A resources :/

Your condescension is amusing, if misplaced. You have yet to "quote" a rule. For someone who is trying to toss around fancy terms like "formalism" (which you've hilariously misused or misunderstand), you're forgetting that to quote something, you have to repeat it word for word. Which you haven't done. I told you exactly what page 271 in SR4A states. You're telling me that there is different language than what is used, but not showing me where to look it up. Of course, that's because there is nowhere to look it up.

Yes, the only way a GM can allow a character to buy off a NQ is to pay Karma. However, the game does not anywhere, and in any language say that NQs have permanent effects other than what is described in them. If you take Amnesia, for example, you don't continue to forget stuff. The quality is 10-25 BP, and lasts only as long as it takes for the character to discover his past. Heck, you don't ever even have to buy Amnesia off, because the character will have always forgotten his past, even if he finds out a lot of the details about it. Many of the Qualities may be broken and may be poorly conceived, but they are all very specifically worded to avoid this kind of confusion some of you have (except for Distinctive Style which gets half a page and still says nothing, lol). So, yes, the GM can allow a character to buy off an NQ. Nowhere does it say what the penalties are for not buying one off. The NQs have very specific mechanics. A non-magical character with Sensitive System who never buys any cyber or bioware doesn't suddenly get cancer because the GM thought he wasn't being penalized enough and hadn't bought off the quality. Neither does a Scorched character suddenly become an alcoholic because he stays away from BTLs and never hacks anything with Black IC. A character with Nano Intolerance who never uses Nanotechnology doesn't suddenly develop a painful rash if he stands next to somebody who does. A character with a mild addiction and decent attributes can pass resist tests pretty much indefinitely, and doesn't suddenly become a burnout.

Saint, you've affixed yourself on the first sentence of the NQ when you've missed clearly the sentence you detailed as 3)

The NQ delineates exactly what is owed in no uncertain terms. The Made Man Quality delineates specifically what the trade-off is for gaining a 12 point group contact. If In Debt had more language and more effects, they'd be written there. Elf Poser tells the player what happens in non-game mechanics. As written, nothing happens to a character once the monetary debt is paid off and as written there are no consequences for not buying off the quality.

You're free to house rule all you want on In Debt. I encourage it because it's a stupid, broken NQ that gives way too many BP for way too little cost. But that's what you're doing. House ruling. You're not interpreting, you're not adjudicating, or whatever you imagine is being done. You're creating, you're expanding, you're re-writing.

And with that, now that this has devolved into semantics and obstinacy, I bow out. There's nothing more productive to come from this.

If you don't see what I'm saying at this point, then my condescension isn't misplaced in the slightest.

Read all of the Augmentation negative qualities, remembering that it was the first book to come out with negative qualities that you could get rid of in-game easily. Then check out the Impaired (Attribute) and Enemies sidebars in RC. There are other places, but forgive me if I don't look them all up.

Heh, misunderstood. That's pretty funny.