I see I missed some text. Again, I am not sure why people assume that because I find myself debating it for every character that I always choose so.

The point made is that some qualities are inherently worth more, to far more builds, than others. If you are discussing balance, this cannot be ignored. And while roleplaying is the epitome of play, you will not find all players so obliging as to not take advantage of available numbers bumps if they are present.

so, again, if some qualities are picked far more than others, REGARDLESS of archetype (fixed), than should it not be considered that this quality may be unbalancing to gameplay?

"Popularity" does not necessarily mean "unbalanced".

In D&D 3.5, I like playing half-elves. No particular reason ... in fact, mechanically, they'r the weakest PHB race. But I like 'em, a lot, "just because".

In any game where it makes the remotest sense, I tend to like playing characters who are adolescents - all the way down to middle-school-aged kids (13 or 14). Not only is this not a mechanically superior choice, it's often a disadvantage; in GURPS, for example, you start with lower attributes ... and don't get any points for the reductions. Picture if Neoteny was a 0-point NQ, and carried a -1 to each of Body and Strength, after buying your attributes. But, nonetheless? I like playing that sort of character; the "boy sorceror", the street-urchin "Artful Dodger" thief, the kid superhero ... *shrug* ... to me, RPGs are about character growth, and noone grows as a character faster, or with greater potential for change, than an adolescent.

(Plus there may be a sliver of leftover "adolescent power fantasy" left in me - wanting to be a young teen again, but have power of some sort ... ^_^)

Even things that are picked by EVERYone, rather than consistently being chosen by a single player. Fake SINs. Everyone takes them, often enough at the maximum rating the game allows during CharGen. Does that mean they're unbalanced ...?

.... or just that they're important elements of the genre and setting?

Have you taken a look at Walking the Ways, from the link in my signature line? It exists specifically for the adepts that don't seem to fit neatly into any of the existing molds.

@_Pax._
No Power does not equal popularity.
This is due to the fact, that there are a lot of "fluff" advantages and dissadvantages associated with several choices. For example the halb-elf in DnD is a bit more mysterious, lifes longer etc. compared to the human. But he has no "restriction" what so ever.

Power has an influance on what kind of characters are picked. Give humans a racial cost of 10 and an additional +1 to Edge and you will see more humans.

Of course some character options are not to be taken to begin with. Either because the GM bans them or the rules for them are to fucked up or because they can not be played in most grooups. (Infected, AIs, Free Spirits, some "sentient critters")

But power *is* significantly correlated with popularity. Just because other things are too doesn't mean there's no fire here.

Correlated, yes. Caused by, no.

I just wanted to point out, that not everything popular is necessarily a smoldering ember in need of a good stomping.

IOW, I was admonishing everyone to "check your targets", if you will.

I have never built a sammie with Type-O PQ ... at 30BP it is kinda expensive, and with the essence-liteness of basic bioware anyway it is not what I would classify as absolutely necessary on all but the most bioware-intensive builds. Remember this quality has no effect on cultured (i.e. grown-for-you) bioware, and takes up almost all of your Positive Quality allowance. YMMV, of course ...

I take it that by "vig" you mean interest. While I agree this is an elegant solution, to me it flies in the face of game world logic. Even to a mob-connected loan shark, a shadow runner [who may find himself dead through no fault of his own at any given moment in time] is a high-risk toxic loan, and you're gonna want to get that money back as soon as if not before. Just to muddy the waters a bit more ...

*Cough*Pre-digensted pap of crappy pop music by talentless hacks designed for the lowest common denominator.*Cough*

Well, of course it is a cause. It is not the single cause (there are always more Factors).
But of course it has an effect.
If you increase the bonus to edge humans gain by 1, there will be more humans. If you increase the agilitybonus the elfs get by one and add one, there will be more elfs.
If you introduce an "halfelf" gaining the boni of humans AND elfs while adding the costs you would see a lot less elfs and humans.

Pretty much my way, except I wouldn't put a limit on how much Karma could be paid per month. Karma's a rare resource, if you want to blow it all on paying down a debt rather than improving the character you should be allowed to and I would consider permitting 1 karma being spent to lower principle by 500 rather than requiring 2 karma to be spent.

That works too...

Apologies for the pedantry, but just can't help myself.


elves (potentially debatable)


much fewer (not debatable)


Aaaaaah, addiction quality satisfied.

Side note about the Ways: They were introduced (and the fluff states this) as additional options/power for those who *don't* branch out from the "typical" adept options. If you plan on being a hybrid whatever, the Ways weren't designed for you. You might still benefit, but you weren't the target audience.

That's not an addiction quality... that's the Poor Self Control quality....

Oh snap, StealthSigma. Incidentally, the 'less/fewer' prescriptive rule is *totally* debatable (for this context).

Starting here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1333 , which links to:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2819
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2826
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/003775.html

Based on some of the links, it would suggest that both are acceptable. Fewer is quantifiable while less is not. While we may be able to count how many fewer elves there would be we may not be able to so it would also be acceptable to say that there would be less elves. Whether or not you must know the count in order to determine whether fewer or less is appropriate is what I believe is debatable.

And frankly, I'm sick of seeing xXxLegolasXxX and whatever hundreds of equally idiotic variations are out there.

I hardly think that purchasable items, which are in play burned, replaced, etc, are any comparison for positive qualities. Point stands, and Yerameyahu said it well: power will attract an undue amount of attention from any crowd.

Regardless of the argument there, I am having trouble pinning down other qualities I find personally unbalancing to the game. Type O system as an example, while powerful, comes with the difficulty of concealing what you are from everyone, and finding a doc you trust to keep their mouth shut (almost as bad as infected getting implants).

So, at the risk of getting misread again there are archetypes where certain qualities seem to be so useful that I would discard them only for roleplaying concept reasons, but rarely if I was churning numbers:
These are only advantageous qualities I thought of sitting here, it is always feasible to discard a quality in favor of another. In the presence of excess available points, these seem to fit a lot of situations though.

Mages - Astral Chameleon
Spy/sneaks - Blandness
technomancer - obscure
Everyone - Erased
Infected - Common Sense (joke)

Metagenetic Improvement - Seems like this is only numerically useful for attributes that start at 3 or higher (10+10 BP or 10+15 Karma; Quality is priced at 20BP but must be taken with a Surge level).

That seems like saying it's only useful when it's useful. I feel like it's almost always used on a 5.

ITS Gonryu. Loaded with a belt of 50 Monofilament Grenades. Need I say more?

Right, and the problem comes in when you realize that only applies to Trolls, and to two relative "dump stats" in Body and Strength.

Can you explain that, Samoth? I feel sure I'm misunderstanding you.

@Yerameyahu
Very simple. Since it is established that qualities in Chargen are taken before raising atttributes in most groups (and before taking ware), taking the metamagic improvement would leave a human with (for example) strength 2 (natural max 7, augmented max 10). A troll would get strength 6 (Natural max 11, Augmented max 16)
The increase for the human is worth 10 Karma, the increase for the troll is worth 35 Karma.

And I guess Samoth is missing the point, that the augmented and natural maximums are also increased.

No, I get the point - it is good if you start with high stats that you want to augment, but mathematically inferior if you are raising a stat with a min. of 1.

Ah, I see. I think that indeed ignores the whole point, as Irion mentioned.

I have. I actually read that becore I read the book. But everyone here seems to be rocking RAW for this discussion. Even then, and no offense ment to your good work sir, they are still a somewhat sad patch on some of the adept/sam divide. I realize that it's a balance issue for long term play. It just makes me sad. And I can'make a Walmer with chummer.

Raise a 1/6(9) stat with that, and it becomes a 2/7(10) stat. Pile Exceptional Attribute on top of it, and now it's 2/8(12). Add Metagenetic Optimisation, and now it's 2/9(13).

Any one of them is entirely worth it. (And all three is just obscene.)

Yes, but BY ITSELF it is not a mathematically positive option since it costs more for the quality than the BP/Karma of the same level, unless that level starts out at 3 or higher.

I don't see why some of you guys are having trouble understanding.

We don't see what YOU are having trouble understanding.

On the one hand, you have a 20BP option (which can be cheapened to 10BP, if you accept a few largely-cosmetic flaws) that gives you +1 to the attribute AND raises both the minimums and maximums. TOTAL COST: 20 BP.

Or, you can buy Exceptional Attribute, and raise only the maximum, for 20BP. Then spend 10BP to also raise the attribute itself (or 25BP, if you were already soft-maxed). TOTAL COST: 30 BP.

...

Which of those two looks like the more advantageous choice, for essentially the exact same benefit ...??




Let me put it another way. For 20 BP, you can either:

>> Change your 1/6(9) attribute to a 2/7(10) attribute and gain +1 to that attribute's current rating (because of how minimums work);
--or--
>> Change your 1/6(9) attribute to a 1/7(10) attribute.

...

Even if you're just looking at going from a 2 to a 3 ... you can either raise the attribute for 10BP, and leave it at that .... or you can raise the attribute and it's maximums, for 20BP. And if you're planning to eventually augment the bejesus out of yourself, those maximums are important.

That's not even the point I was getting at. Metagenetic is clearly better, but ONLY if the attribute you are raising starts at 3 or higher. I never once brought up Exceptional Attribute.

But our point is, you are wrong.

Look at it this way. For the same cost of getting an attribute of 4, you can get an attribute of 3 with a 1 point increase to your natural maximums.

...

Troll Hacker? 30BP can either buy you a Logic of 4 and vanilla-standard 1/5(7) (thre +1's directly to the attribute), or, it can buy you a Logic of 3, and 2/6(9) (one +1, and Metagenic Improvement). Same BP. Higher ceiling for augmentations, only 1 lower on the attribute.

Human Technomancer? 30BP can buy you an attribute of 4, and vanilla 1/6(9), for one of your mental attributes. Or, the same BP can buy you a 3, and 1/7(10). Not the best stat to start with, but in the long run, an advantage to grow into.

Sure, but how many games have you played where actually maxing an attribute happens during gameplay?

Depends on the attribute, but it's trivial for Reaction and pretty damn easy for Strength and Agility. The game I'm gearing up to play has 2 augmented maxed agility scores and 1 augmented maxed reaction score.

Agreed: no one is using Metagenic X to go from 3 to 4. They're using it, as I said, to get a 6 without paying 25BP, and to allow their augments (which they will certainly have) to go higher.

this is why I felt it sort of retarded. Is there any reason for a house rule NOT to just rule Metagenetic improvement a mated pair to Exceptional Attribute, and make you still raise the stat normally? THAT would be damn near fair, 20BP exceptional made into 10BP because you took -10BP flaws. The math places them about equal, doing that. It's largely the "raises minimum" part I think was a little over the top.

You think that's hard. I had a week long argument over whether "2% more hp" or "takes 2% less damage" was mathematically equivalent or not.

In the end their argument came down to "A and B are the same, but B is overpowered."

"A is A."

You thought I was joking.

That depends on which value is higher! If HP is higher then +2% hp is larger but if damage is higher then +2% damage reduction is more potent. Of course the real answer is to get both!

Reduction to damage > more health. Because reduction to damage effects everything while more health may not neccesarily help. Depends on the number system really.

100 + 2% = 102 health, a troll punches you for 10 points of damage 10.2 (round up to 11) times before you fall over.

100 health + damage resistence, a troll punches you for 10 points of damage 10.204 (a higher percentale of hits taken however small, but round up to 11) times.

For such a small percentage it doesn't matter, where it matters is flat reductions and larger percentages when stacked with other mitigations. What also matters is whether you round up or down. Imagine if you will... an additional cyber-ware for dermal armor or coating that allows you to reduce all damage by 25% percent for a single round. Vs an item that gives you 25% extra body for a single round... I'd go with the resistence every time.

I want to make an additional comment on Genetic Heritage while we're talking about Positive qualities (not whether hp or DR is better....stay on topic boys). So we all know about the possibility of taking synaptic boosters using this depending on what your gm allows. What i see as a more interesting use of this references a line in Runners Companion.

Runners Companion Pg 110, under metagenetic qualities


So you could get Metagenetic Improvement (which would cost 500k as geneware or 20BP as a quality) for free using genetic heritage, a 10 BP quality.

Of course a smart GM would look at the above quote and see that it says its rare and new so would be impossible to have with genetic heritage. But I know all the die hard RAW followers of this forum would look at that and scoff because "its just fluff" and doesn't explicitly state that they can't.

Anyway, just something i thought was interesting.

That doesn't seem very efficient, though. The whole point of Metagenic X is that it's cheap already.

Only in a perfect world. The problem is that it's rarely ever a perfect world.

The damage reduction may not be universal (rather common).
You may need to increase hp just to survive.
Some beneficial effects to you may be based off your hp.
The relative costs between hp increases and damage reduction increase may be such that it is more cost effective to go with hp.

--



You don't need to surge and take negative metagenetic qualities to get them....

Dbl post.

1. your not surging...your completely mundane

2. Your not surging, so you don't have to take any negative metagenetic qualities to counter the point cost of metagenatic improvement (20 BP > 10BP)

3. its half the price of Exceptional attribute for a greater benefit...you get the free attribute point to go with it.

4. You can still get exceptional attribute

5. You still get the other benefit of Genetic heritage - 20% reduction in geneware costs.

if anything, it seems more efficient than surge...

Why would you not want to SURGE, though? 'Negative' metagenic qualities is a joke… the real price is 10BP. Besides, and I mentioned this before, metavariants can take it by default, right? And everyone wants a metavariant anyway.

You could just get both, and get a much better 'free' genetech. I guess this depends on the GM being too strict to allow good 'free' genetech… but not too strict to allow the very optional Genetic Heritage version of Metagenic Improvement? Anything's possible.

The 2% damage reduction was universal in this case.
More HP is not required (300 minimum hp on the smallest class of ship, highest damage is 100 for early-game weapons)
As for cost, the idea was to equate A with B, so costs would be considered identical.

But yes, in most cases the 2% was identical, it was at larger values (10%) that it started being noticeable in terms of number of hits needed. But the person I was arguing with wouldn't see that. Instead they claimed that any mechanical system that would have the same gameplay function (i.e. "ships survive more hits") should have mathematically equivalent results then continuing on with "but the system we have doesn't go far enough."

and get a free version of "distinctive style" which is a real detriment ^^

And for some players (like myself), surge is still playing non-human. Sometimes you want to play the straight human mundane. And yeah, you will also be noticed as not being a normal human in many cases with surge, even if it many of them have few crunch downsides

But I don't know why i'm arguing this because I would never allow it for a player (because of the fluff).