They only "don't do much of anything", if the GM allows it. OTOH, if the GM is on top of his game (as he should be), then the negatives will matter as much as the positives (proportional to their relative cost, of course).


See, here's teh thing. "Dictate" ... when did that come into the discussion? When did the player ever get the right to say "This is what I want, and so shall it be, for my word is Law" ...?

Just like any part of character creation, an Advanced Lifestyle is a negotiation between the GM and the player.


So ... because someone might abuse a system, the whole system should be thrown out?

That is basically what you're arguing, here. And you know as well as I do, that character creation itself is far, far more readily abused than Advanced Lifestyles. Oh, and Character Advancement, too. So by your logic, those too-easily abused systems should no be allowed to most, or perhaps even any, players.

I reject that, 200%, as the absolute foolishness it is. Half the job of a GM is to provide oversight for these things. Every possible abuse, is preventable just by saying "no". And if you have only players who won't take "no" for an answer? GET NEW PLAYERS.

No player ever dictates anything about any game, beyond the actual actions and dialog of their character. Players do get to make lots of choices outside that, but those choices are always subject to GM approval.

...

See, I have a simple guideline: if a given negative quality - be it for yoru character, or your lifestyle - will have no appreciable effect on your character, you get 0 points for it. And the only person qualified to judge whether or not that quality will be a hindrance, is the GM. Period, end of story, discussion closed.

Not a hacker, don't have any matrix-related skills you might ever use from home? Network Bottleneck is worth -0 points for you.

Not a hacker, but actually do have Data Search 4, and a good Browse program? "We'll see for now, but if you end up not using this from home, hey look at that, the local matrix infrastructure just got upgraded, no more bottleneck!" And of course, no more -1 LQ.

Are a hacker or technomancer? Same as the answer above: "we'll see", and if it proves to be a nonissue, it'll be removed.

...

Which all boils down to "the GM doing their job".

If you don't think you need a GM to custom-tailor the rules for yoru group's game, why do you need a GM at all?


Easy correction: use the Availability rules already provided.

And, as I suggested above, say "Sure, sure, but _______", where that blank can be "also <add an LQ>", or even "<remove an LQ>".

Even better, both. After they make the Availability test, they locate someplace ... but maybe it's not quite exactly what they were hoping for. Treat it like any plot-hook a player throws your way. Heck, maybe they find the (almost) perfect place out in the barrens - but there's a BIG ghoul nest already in residence. "It's huntin' time, boys! Yee-haw!"

See... then you are *NOT* using the rules at written Pax. You're house ruling.

If you're house ruling then the rules themselves were not well done in the first place despite all your plaudits.


You've illustrated my point perfectly. The player has the 'shield of RAW'. The rules as written say X, Y , and Z. But now you're forced to be an evil vindictive GM because you won't allow them to have this or that or to fully make use of the rules. Now that you've come in and said no... you're the evil one and the seeds of strife have been planted in the group.

This is exactly what often comes of poorly done construction rules.


Nezumi:
Thank you... you understood what I was saying unlike the others. I was feeling very frustrated by the whole deal that I wasn't getting my thoughts out clearly.

The advanced lifestye is nothing more than an ala carte.. instead of paying 10k a month for a high lifestyle and all which comes with it.. (which is never actually defined in the main book...). Instead they pick and choose only certain elements. And a lot of the positive qualities just don't make sense or simply come down to bean counting.

Min/Max is the problem... they take a poorly thought out and designed +5 quality like feng shui (ANY technical or artisan skill check) then tack on a lot of meaningless negative qualities. So the cost doesn't double from 4400 to 9000... it only goes up a nudge because they take something like pests or the like which don't mean jack in the game. And I object to the argument that if they can pick the features down to the smallest detail then they're also picking the drawbacks unless the rules state otherwise (example Changeling... point out that the quality states that the GM can pick the negative changeling qualities and some people go absolutely ballistic because they won't get their precious 'astral hazing' 'negative' quality). Those rules specifically give the GM cover by RAW to say you've gone too far now... here enjoy this cephaloid skull instead of astral hazing.

The other problem is that runs and things practically never involve the players own place/crash pad. So most things related to it are such minor threats in the course of game play as to be silly. But they'll pick things which give them big bonuses in their downtime activities which get handwaved away in 90% of the cases.


Magic will end up the exact same thing I feel... a bunch of people using arbitrary rules to cherry pick the best of things while offsetting with minor inconveniences at best. Right now a tradition is something done whole cloth and accepted or rejected as such. With construction rules... you're chained to the construction rules no matter how bad.

That's exactly what they do right now with mentor spirits. They pick a tradition or make one up that works mechanically best for them but doesn't fit well into any gaming setting. Then toss on the mentor which gives the biggest bonuses and least penalties.

Another good example of poorly done construction rules we've seen lately... warform construction. So we get people claiming special genecrafted chipmunks/hamsters whatever... with the most vicious poison they can find and all the other perks is only chump change to buy.

Yet another example... the karmagen rules as published and errataed... and the BP system before it. Every kind of point based system I've seen them put out is blatantly abusable to the point where if you don't you seriously hamstring yourself. (yeah dumpstat that one attribute to 1 or 2 so you can get this other one to 5... so you don't hammered through the nose to raise the higher skill/attribute later... don't buy a lot of skills in chargen but buy them in play afterwards... specializations lousy deal in chargen... great deal after play starts).

Houseruling, how, exactly?

BEcause "Excercising the standrd GM's Discretion" is not, nor has it ever been, "house ruling".


You need to get out more. Take in some sunlight, interact with actual human beings for a while.

No, seriously. BEcause that is the most ridiculous, paranoiac tripe I have seen posted to an RPG forum in ... well, something close to a decade.


SR4A, pp267-269. Every bit as defined as the Advanced Lifestyle rules' basic attributes are.


And the same is true of Character Creation. Do you see that in the same light?

If not ... why?



The negative qualities are only meaningless, if the GM elects not to applyt hem, and/or if the GM elects not to roleplay scenes at or around the PC's home address. And if either or both of those are true, the GM simply should not use those rules.

IOW, there's only a problem if the GM wants there to be a problem.


Again, the negatives mean something if the GM actually applies them.



As a player, if I say "I want changeling, with <positives> and <negatives>", the GM is perfectly within his rights to say "No, you'll have to have <otehr negatives> instead".

At which point, as a player, I am also perfectly within my rights to say "Fuck no, I don't want to play that", and skip on Changeling altogether. Or, alternately, say "I was really interested in <originalnegatives> as part of my character concept. Would a different set of positives make them acceptible?"



If that's true of your games, then, Advanced Lifestyle may not be a good fit for your games. That doesn't make them bad rules in and of themselves, however.

Also, if a player wants to put forward a location with good narrative potential, and you as the GM elect not to take advantage of that ... it's not the rules' fault, it's yours.

...

Seriously, Falconer ... find a new hobby ... you have an IMO unhealthy "GM-versus-the-bastard-players" attitude.

The lifestyle negatives do not give extra points to build the character, and as such "does this affect the character 'on the job'" should not be considered. Just because it doesn't affect their professional life does not mean it doesn't affect their life even if their personal life isn't played out.

By definition, if you're invoking Rule 0... then you are house ruling. That is the purest definition of the term.

You are no longer 'playing by the rules'

You are selectively taking some ideas from the rules and applying them and ignoring the rest. That is in it's purest form rule 0 and house ruling. If you need to do this with construction rules in particular... then there is a problem in the construction rules.

We are discussing rules which work and which don't work... in a thread devoted to a new RULES edition coming out. If you feel the need to constantly houserule something. Then this directly pertinent to the thread. You may not like my position... but there are others who feel similarly and don't like it when the rules force you to houserule things constantly.



And lay off the ad hominems Pax. I've never attacked you personally in all of this, only referred to your posts by referring to your handle. I have no idea why Grinder singled me out for voicing frustration with expressing my views. There's nothing in that post directed at you, just expressing frustration at your continued house ruling as an example the rules aren't broken.


You don't know my attitude... you have no place calling another poster paranoic, etc. etc. You may not like my views but take issue with them not me. Your posts are directly aimed at me, and not my views... reread your last paragraph.

Oh for...stop the RAW versus GM discretion argument. It's pointless. There are ways to abuse most systems in most games and that doesn't mean the game is badly designed. There's a range between "badly designed mechanics" and "mechanics that can potentially be abused somewhere." That's it. If some people really like a particular mechanic and it's great for their games, then that, as a game designer, is awesome. If some people don't like the same mechanics and don't use them, that's unfortunate, but understandable. You can't write a game for every table, that's why a GM is there.

The last line of his post was aimed at you, yes, and I agree with him, Falconer.
The one where paranoic was mentioned, well that was aimed squarely at--and hit dead center, IMO--on your views.

Rule 0 is not houseruling.


Grinder apparently disagrees.

But I have a simple solution to any and all of this:

*plonk*

...

To everyone else, I apologize for not doing that sooner, and dragging this out longer than it needed to go on. I'm a bit Quixotic that way; often can't resist the urge to go tilting at windmills ...

Plonk?

That's the sound of him dropping the subject.

Ahhhh... yes, I hear it now. Thanks. The sound got lost in all the office noise around me.

... into a deep well, labelled "ignore list". I don't believe in leaving someone hanging wondering if they're being ignored or not.

So your opinion is the one that's correct? Not cool (I'm saying this is a normal user here, hence this is not in my mod color).

I think he is saying that he enjoys the argument but that trying to change someones mind on DS (or anywhere for that matter) can be like tilting at windmills not that he is necessarily correct.

That's ... that's not even ont eh same continent as what I meant. I honestly can't see how you got to that, from what I said.

...

I enjoy debate, and even mildly-passionate argument, on forums. Enough so that I find it difficult NOT to continue my side of one, even when perhaps most of the others involved in a thread would like to move on to a different facet of the thread's topic.

And I apologised to those people - you included! - on the off-chance this was one of those times. That's all I did; there was no assignment of correct-or-not involved.

Obviously, I did and continue to beleive I was "correct" and Falconer wasn't. But that has no bearing on my attempt to apologise to everyone who isn't named "Falconer" or "_Pax_", for continuing the argument for so long.

Yeesh. I never thought I'd need to explain a simple "sorry for not dropping it sooner, guys" to this extent.

Hey, at least you realized when to stop yourself and pull back.

The other forums I go to, those guys are always so hot-headed and self-righteous that the only time they stop is when a mod steps in.

On Mechanics:

Could a computer run the game mechanics and keep it balanced when there is no GM?

If not then your rules don't work as written.

I hope the 5th edition developers work well with the computer game developers. There hasn't been an edition of Shadowrun yet where a computer could effectively use the rules. Shadowrun is a game that has survived in SPITE of its rules, based on the extreme strength of setting, plot, story and style.

...um...isn't the whole draw behind every single tabletop RPGs ever made is BECAUSE there is no computer involved in actually running the game?

And that because there is no inherent programming that restricts players what they can and can't do, and to be able to move beyond the base ruleset? And that tabletop RPGs, by their very nature, allow for improvisation of both the gameplay and the stories being told, outside of what is just given by the developers?

Because if you want a game that could be run by a computer, then go play a video game.

To that thought, If we are supposed to play a Tabletop ONLY by the rules supplied & never branching out, why should we bother playing Tabletops at all? I play Tabletops to do things that I can't do in video games, to make a character completely built in concept in my head & supply some points & details to that concept & play in a story created by someone else & imagine that characters interactions & such in the story. I don't wanna be told by a GM "Sorry that move is not specified in the rules, so I will not let you do it" I'd rather be told "That move is not specified in the rules, lets think of a way to allow you to do it because it sounds cool"

Then no tabletop RPG ever has had rules that work as written.

Neither do most MMOs

To be fair, those work better than the spoiled and whiny brats whom are the most vocal players on them would have us believe.

Got to agree with All4 on that.

And it's more than just "whiny brats"; generally, if you took all of the PvP-centric complaints out of the equation, the volume of dissatisfaction would be reduced by a huge, HUGE degree. Seriously, most of it amounts to "Dear devs: Rock is overpowered; Paper is just fine. Signed: Scissors." Not all, but the vast majority of it.

SWTOR for example, other than the complaints which basically amount to Pax's quote, the rest are basically whining from people who spent the first few days after launch maxing out a few characters and then whining about there not being much for max level characters already.

Yeah, that's the other major component of complaints - people who think the game is a race to teh finish, and not, you know, a game you enjoy while playing. People who don't or won't grok the idea that "it's about the journey, not the destination".



And then there is the small, but nonzero, number of complaints that directly speak to whether or not the "rules" are working correctly. IMO reasonable complaints like (pseudo-WoW example) "Building up <skill> is too tedious because there just aren't any interesting recipes between 140 and 180"... or maybe, "getting from level 39 to level 42 was a nightmare - there were NO quests to do, aside from the 3 or 4 repeatable PvP zone quests, and those got really old after the fifth or sixth time through 'em" (that one is one of MINE, from City of Villains about ... six years ago? Yeah, I had to grind out three levels in my Mastermind, because I had NO alternatives, bah).

And here I am. I enjoy the hell out of SWTOR (at least when I'm in a mindset where I can enjoy online games, which I'm not at the moment). I don't PvP, I don't race to max out the character, I just play and enjoy.

No. No. A hundred times no. As a game designer, I don't believe this for an instant. I apologize in advance, but statements like that really get under my skin - and I feel obligated to stand on a soap box and rant. Please, feel free to ignore this if you wish - I won't be offended.

It is not the place of the mechanics to keep things balanced. This is impossible to do, because there's entirely too many factors to take into consideration -- how a player will use the mechanics being just the tip of the iceberg. There's also the fact that the more mechanics you add to the game, the more moving parts the game has, the harder it will be to establish a 'balance'. Add onto this the setting itself, and how the characters interact with the setting, and balance will get thrown right out the window.

It isn't the job of the mechanics to hold everyone's hand and ensure everyone is 'equal' - or that everything is balanced. The characters should not be 'equally powerful' in their respective fields. Again, there's just too much that goes into a game to make this possible.

No. The entire purpose of mechanics is to create the framework for the setting. The setting determines where you're playing, the mechanics determine how you interact with the setting. Full stop. Nothing else matters as far as the mechanics are concerned. If the setting says that cybernetics are the Big Thing, and blow everything else out of the water, then the mechanics should support that. If the setting says that magic is the Big Thing, then so mote it be. As long as the setting supports this, and the rules support the setting, then the mechanics are doing their job.

No. Balance isn't done by mechanics. It should never, ever be dictated by mechanics. Balance is ensuring that each and every person at the table is enjoying themselves. It is ensuring the game master is creating an engaging setting and running adventures which are absorbing and fun. Balance comes from giving everyone a chance to shine, ensuring that everyone has something to do, and that everyone feels that the time and effort they invest into the game is rewarded. That is balance.

I've heard people respond with 'well, if class X / setting aspect Y / mechanics Z are underpowered, why would anyone bother to play / use these, when they could use class Z / setting aspect X / mechanics Y?' The answer? You're not in kindergarten anymore. Players are (usually) mature enough to pick characters which they find engaging, and the 'power' aspect of the character is (usually) secondary to how fun the character will be to play in the setting provided by the books and the game master.

Case in point? Exalted. You can play the lone Dragon Blooded in a team of Solar Exalts. Everything is against you in this kind of game - whether it's the setting (the gods and spirits won't give you the time of day), or power set themselves (Solar charms blow away Dragon Blooded charms). I've had players who chose to play Dragon Blooded, knowing full well they were going to be outclassed. But Dragon Blooded are interesting. And if the game master ensures that the Dragon Blooded has things to do and the player feels they're contributing to the game, then score!

It's the same thing with playing an Elder Campaign in Vampire, and someone wants to play the elder's childe. The power disparity there can be grotesque. Or hell, my current Shadowrun campaign, where all the PCs are 700 karma in, but the new character coming in started with 0. Balanced? Not mechanically, by a long shot. But the veterans are answering to the newbie, because the newbie is a scholar, and is effectively 'the middle' of the current plot - he's the one with the resources and contacts they need to work on the current assignment, so he's got weight. That's balance.

And no, an imbalanced setting or mechanics is not 'bad setting' or 'bad mechanics'. It's only this if the setting and mechanics aren't fun. Case in point? Synnibar. The setting makes no sense, the mechanics make no sense, the two mess horribly, and the game master has to work overtime to give anything to the players - and the mechanics work explicitly against the game master.

I'll get off my soap box now. If you got this far, thank you for your time.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

The system has to create balance. The GM then needs to maintain it, but they shouldn't be expected to create it whole cloth. That forces the GM to focus on things other than making an entertaining game for everyone. A well-balanced system should make things easy for the GM, not harder.

They're getting my money, but then again, I've always been a sucker for this kind of stuff.

I don't really have an edition of SR I love more then anything else. In terms of themes, everything fits. Nothing is too shoehorned. I used to play 4e Eberron, and that was too shoehorned in for it to work!

The GM doesn't have to do anything he wouldn't be doing otherwise - making the game entertaining for everyone. You don't need "balanced" mechanics to do this.

Examples
Exalted. Exalted is impossible to keep balanced. If someone doesn't want to play the same exaltation type as everyone else, the balance upends instantly. If people aren't mechanically aware of their character's capabilities, or aren't careful with how they build their characters, power disparity is nearly instant. However, the setting is excellent, and the players can easily have fun regardless. The game is not balanced at all, but perfectly viable.

Vampire. The different Clans, and what their Disciplines do make balance difficult (then look at Changeling, and Mage, and...) There's little or no way to keep the characters balanced, but by altering the focus of different scenes, you can ensure everyone has something to do and that everyone's enjoying themselves. The game is not balanced at all.

Anima. This one throws balance right out the window. The game is a point-based system (much like Shadowrun), and the power difference between characters can be horrendous right out of the gate, and only gets worse from there. And this isn't a problem for this game either. The martial arts in this game are designed by the players - they get to choose how their martial arts manifest and work, and when you do summoning, you get to design your own creatures.

Pathfinder. As most people can attest, some character classes are simply better than others, and the disparity only increases as the campaign moves along. The game master is expected to find something for everyone to do during an adventure, to fulfill their 'niche'.

Legend of the Five Rings. A little less point-buy than Shadowrun, you start with a number of selections, then use points to round things out. The options for shugenja in spell selection are pretty impressive, and depending on how the player focusses their XP can determine how quickly they level, and how powerful they can get in their chosen niche. I've made archers who can take down demon lords in a single round, while my sister's shugenja was able to shape-shift, cause opponents to botch repeatedly, and mind control her enemies with ease.

7th Sea. A complete point-buy system, I love the setting and the mechanics for this game, but it isn't too hard to make characters with a huge power disparity out of the gate. The choice of swordsman's school, tweaking your weapon, and the type of sorcery available to characters all help to shift the balance of power in the game, and if you're smart with your XP expenditures you'll level faster than anyone else, and if you are able to bring your personal storyline into each adventure, you'll also be collecting XP faster than anyone else.

These are all fun games. None of them have a hope of being balanced. And there's nothing wrong with that.

To a degree you've hit it. And I think availability is a quick fix for this (and I don't know why I didn't figure this out on my own; it seems obvious now!)

However, it's more than that.

If rifles are the most effective weapon in the game, and your character specializes in rifles, I as GM can ask 'aren't you power-gaming? How does it happen your character is so good at rifles?' The answer is, of course, 'because my character realized rifles are effective, and so spent extra time practicing with rifles'. Same-so with your attributes (to a degree, anyway), your equipment and cyber, your spell list. A few other items (such as race), we leave a la carte because the player says "I'd like to play an ork fighter", and the system has to support that.

But there are other things which aren't normally under your control. I did not want a house that can't get DSL, but because of availability of the market, size, location, price, etc., I settled on that one anyway. I can control things like 'pests' in a house (not so much in an apartment), and even how defendible it is, but I can't change its location on ley lines. When I was house-hunting, if I made a list of 'my house MUST: Be on a leyline, have feng shui, have a confusing address, have good Internet connectivity', etc., etc., I'd be searching for years, if I'm ever successful at all. Yet PCs regularly have this crazy degree of granular control over the house they found and occupy, and it's not even a thing. Those are mechanics which don't support the setting.

Sameso with a la carte magical traditions (even moreso there. The house only figures for ten minutes a session. Your magical tradition defines the character!) Being able to 'tweak' your tradition irks me as innately violating what makes magic special. It's not cyberware you can get tweaked. It's not a car you build from parts. You don't change your understanding of God because hearth spirits are so much more useful than forest spirits. To give my players that level of control just strikes me as innately silly.



Of course, you're right. And any experienced GM should know that (although this comes back to the 'why am I, as GM, going to spend hours making up random houses to let my players go house shopping? How is this fun?') But a new GM is going to go off of what's written in the books, and if what's written suggests the players can do this, that GM will let the players do it. The rules need to help the BEGINNING GMs in creating a fun game and a believable setting, without expecting them to draw on their great GM wisdom in arbitration. And more to the point, if there's a rule in the book, but 9 out of 10 good GMs houserule it differently, or need some special arbitration to make it work, *that rule needs to be rewritten*.



Rules that do not effectively establish a fun (which for most groups means it is also fair) game are not good rules. You'll never be 100% effective, but yes, if it's possible to eliminate an abuse, that abuse should be eliminated.



I agree, and posted that myself. Except for obvious things like that, the RULES should support it. Again, that's why we paid money for the rulebooks.



I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question. Most of the games I play and run I go by the RAW. What do you imagine I do at my table?

H.A.R.P. (High Adventure Role Play)
Using default/suggested character generation systems, a lucky roll can put one character and effective 4 levels above every other person in the party.
(I'm not shitting you, the higher your stats are, the more "point buy" points you get per level of experience. If my "average" stat character was to spend every single point on more stats, it would have taken 4 levels of exp to get to the same stat total (and thus point income) as another person's starting character...)

My question would be why you worry about Some One Else's Sheet?
I could care less what others have on their sheet, because it will not affect how I play my character.
That being said... I have never heard of H.A.R.P. Is it any fun?

See, here's the thing.

One, as I've said more than once now (argh), it is always withint he GM's authority to throw an extra kink your way, when it comes tolifestyle - because that's not just "your character", that's also the GM's "character" (the setting/world itself).

Two, Aspected Domain doesn't mean you have a ley-line running through your bathroom or whatever. It doesn't mean there's an active ley-line within a hundred kilometers, either. IT just means there's an Aspect to the local manascape. Not necessarily just your home, either - it could be the whole neighborhood.

Three, actually you can divert ley lines - or split small new ones off of an existing line - and even construct artificial Places of Power. Parageology has the rules for that. It's stupendously expensive, and requires the Geomancy metamagic you could have used to aspect your home anyway. But it is possible, nonetheless.


You do realise, that a system for building new Tarditions is something that a player would only use during character creation, right?

You also do realise that we don't yet have a Tradition for every real-world existing metaphysical system/tradition right now ... right?


There's a difference between "go by the RAW", and "slavishly adhere to teh RAW even when they demonstrably diminish the fun of the game".

Even the RAW offer optionas, and advice on how to tweak and adjust and custom-tailor the game to suit your group. Becaus what suits your group, may not suit mine - and vice versa.

Would it bother you if you created a brand new Shadowrun character--archetype X--and had someone else join the game at the same time--playing archetype Y--but they get to create a character with 50 extra Kama for no other reason than they rolled a 6?

Oh, and to top it off, you couldn't even finish building archetype X because you ran out of points early. And I mean really early. As in "go into debt choosing a metatype" kind of run out of points early. But the other guy not only gets the metatype he wants, but it's more expensive AND he has points to be a magician AND has points left over for spare skills.

And it's not like he rolled that much better than you. You rolled a 5 after all...

(No really, in HARP I rolled stats something like 64--low but not cripplingly so, 50 is the "human average" equivalent to a 10 in D&D--a couple of mid-70s, and an 84. This other guy rolled no stats under 70, one mid-80, and a 92)



No idea. Didn't actually get to play. Game died in the cradle.

42! . . nah, doesn't work . .

If that were built into the rules of the game? Not really an issue. Actually, Anima is a good example for that, in that you can roll attributes, which create a vastly different power scale, and someone can spend merit points to start level 2, and on their way to level 3. If I'm aware going in that this is how the rules work, and I'm comfortable enough with the mechanics and the setting, it won't bother me in the slightest.

Actually, I've also had some players be a little annoyed because they have a concept for Shadowrun, but not the BP to do it. I've had this happen myself, but I tend to mentally 'rewrite' the character to an earlier point in their career, and accept they have to work up to being as cool as I want them to be. Not everyone can do that though - they have a concept, they want to play that exact concept 'now', rather than working up to that concept later.

Different strokes.

So we should cater to these special snowflakes by giving them extra perks not available to the rest of the players?

The proper answer in that case is to pull the character concept back to an earlier stage of their career.

A big problem in many character concepts is how they got to where they are without developing any survival/support skills whatsoever. The BP makes this an even bigger problem with it's bias towards buying a few skills and attributes to high ultra-specialist levels and ignoring others to buy after play starts to 'round out' the character. Yeah I got this handful of skills at best in the world levels... with utterly no social skills whatsoever, no ability to drive, use a computer, etc. etc. etc.


Sorry but 50 karma is a huge deal and reflects months worth of karma at the least for most games. If mechanically the system just hands this guy that... without offsetting costs then yes it's a problem. This game also goes to things like missions where those GM's don't have your levels of discretion to ignore RAW along with regular groups.


If the construction rules require the GM to regularly go out and veto/house rule large swaths of things like negative qualities... then there are problems with those qualities and those rules. Rules should always keep an eye on keeping abuse in check... and oftentimes many of the rules and construction sets for SR seem more crafted for fluff & style than their mechanical impact on the game.

A balanced game makes the GN's job much easier, though. The problem isn't just when characters are too powerful, it';s when they're alongside useless characters that the problems become most manifest. For example:
I haven't played much Exalted, but the system is designed for gonzo power levels and has a detailed social combat system. While you can easily powergame a combat monster, creating a truly useless character is almost impossible.

Vampire, and oWoD (I haven't played nWoD) use a template system that generates consistent results. Like Exalted, it's damn near impossible to create a useless character, so the power disparities are lessened.


I haven't played this one, but I know people who have. They didn't report having much fun with it, but I can't really comment much.

I do know Pathfinder, and I'm not fond of it. It deals with power disparities via planned obsolesence; campaigns simply aren't meant to handle the super-high power levels.



I have zero fun with Pathfinder, so I have to disagree there. 7th Sea is a game I'm very familiar with; thanks to the R&K system, the number of cool things you can do (Swordsman schools, sorcery, etc.) is overshadowed by the number of dice you actually keep. Character with good base stats are balanced with the "kewl powerz" characters because of that.

The point is, a game has to create a certain balance. Each game sets that level somewhere else, which is fine. But without that default assumption, the game gives way to special snowflake-ism and serious imbalances. I buy game systems so I don't have to create that balance for myself, I just maintain it.

Something Pax said when talking about the MMOs and the complaints that surface there pretty much sums up how discussions on supposed "balance" sound, at least to me. To reiterate: "Rock is overpowered. Paper is fine. Signed- Scissors"

I agree (usually). A solid concept, I may make some leeways for, but for a fresh campaign, I expect everyone to build using the same set of rules. For my ongoing games (those I put down and pick up again, for example), I'll allow people to play their older characters, and give the option of dumping characters and making new ones -- and this is what happened to my Shadowrun game. One player decided he didn't want to continue with is veteran, so he made a new character from scratch, while two players decided to keep their veterans. I'm fine with it, they're fine with it, so there's no issue.



My players learned a long time ago, you pick skills to round out your characters, because I'm going to introduce skill checks for nearly anything under the sun. I've had the PCs train to parachute drop, pilot submersible drones, hunt wild boar, survive in the arctic and jungle... it's all fun, watching the PCs go 'oh crap, we need to go THERE and do THIS, time to get some training done!'

And as I said, I agree.

However, if the rules as written don't support the game and require GMs to make up new rules or special arbitration to work, they're bad rules and need to be rewritten.

Speaking for myself, the lifestyles rules always bothered me (not enough to do anything about it, but still). The availability modifier is a great idea, and the fact that I had to come to a forum and talk to some random Internet stranger to make the lifestyle rules start to work tells me that the lifestyle rules as written need to be rewritten. (As a quick note, again, I play SR3. If it's been fixed in SR4, that's great. But the SR3 rules need work.)



I don't know what Aspected Domain is, and in SR3, you can't divert ley lines. But you're totally missing the point. If you prefer; I cannot find the perfect house with A, B, C, but say 'well, I really wanted it next to an Interstate too' and make it so.



Yes, I understand that. And if the rules as written said 'GMs may design new traditions, and here are some traditions already created for PCs to choose from' I would be more comfortable with it. What would work best, IMO, is to have distinct and different traditions in the core book, without any mix-and-match option. Then, in a later book, explain to GMs how to create their own traditions and keep them balanced.

Otherwise, as a player, I'm going to say I'm a unicorn shaman who gets a bonus at night, to all seduction roles, to combat spells, and to summoning hearth and urban spirits, because that's the best combination for a shadowrunner, and it's up to my poor GM to say "yes, that is the best combination, and this is valid by the rules, but it doesn't make sense. Please continue making combinations."



I follow the rules as written, except for those segments which we handwave for time. If there is a disagreement, I go to the book. Why? Because I want to get back to gaming. I don't like making rules calls 'on the clock'. I don't like telling my players, "no, that's game-legal, but I just don't like it." I don't like having players frustrated because they think I bend the rules for or against them when it's convenient to me. We have a rulebook for a reason; to arbitrate disputes when my indian shoots his cowboy. Funny enough, that's what we use it for. If the rulebook does not give me a good way to arbitrate these disputes, *I find a better rulebook*. And I expect most other players and GMs will as well. I don't consider it a slavish adherence. It keeps things fast and fun. And I know that, as a GM, I'm not alone.

And really, that's what it comes down to. If I paid for a book of rules to use in a game, I really want a book of rules to use in a game. If the rules I bought don't work for running a fun game, they're crappy rules.

But I'm willing to bet that there's a fair amount of diminishing returns there. In HARP there isn't. By being better at start, you can accelerate your growth relative to the other players.

In the time it would have taken me to equal the other person's stats at chargen, I would still be a level behind in skill points. So that makes me 5 levels behind. In those five levels he could have been able to bump his stats up farther, accelerating away from me, effectively having a level 12 character by the time I'm level 5. Or a level 30 character by the time I'm level 10.

It's not so much as "different power scale" but "not even playing in the same room."

Essentially think of it this way: take your SR character, sum the 8 stats (3 phsy, 3 mental, edge, magic/resonance using augmented values), and divide by 6, round up. That's how much Karma you get per session. All the time, every time. No "you did something awesome" bonus, no "you completed the mission" bonus. Just a flat "how high are your stats" amount.

And then roll for random stats. No point buy.

... it should concern you, to a degree. Because it can affect your play.

Back to D&D for a moment: I despise dice-generated characters with an unholy loathing. And do you know why that is?

Because a luck-imbalance between players, sunk no less than three entire (2E) campaigns I GMed. See, there's this guy I used to know, who had preternatural lick with dice. We'd all sit down, and roll up new characters. Two of the three players would get typical scores - most between 8 and 12, maybe a couple 13-14's, and a high score around 16, maybe 17.

And then the guy with unnatural luck would start dropping dice, and he'd have nothing less than a 14, and usually multiple 18's. AND I GUARANTEE HE WASN'T CHEATING. Because that happened no matter what dice were used, and even, no matter who actually handled the dice.. I swear to god, he got attribute sets like that even when he wasn't in the building when the dice were rolled.

And let me tell you, his characters always so outclassed everyone elses - despite being such a newbie to the game, he had trouble remembering which die was which size and used when - that the game really boiled down to "Mike and his sidekicks". Every. Single. Damned. Time. >_<

...
So, yes. What's on someone else's character sheet, especially if it speaks directly to intraparty balance, can and does affect your game play.






... was his name Mike, by any chance?

Personally, I think that if someone's own game play is affected by another player's character then they need to seriously think about why. Honestly, I think there would be an 'issue' there that the person needs to get taken care of before it starts affecting other parts of their life.

... that's what houserules documents are for.

My SR4 houserules - list of available books, list of optional rules I intended to use (memory willing), and then actual "I don't like how the book does this so here's how Im changing it" houserules - was some 4-5 pages.

My Eberron "this is how all these books fit into my Eberron" document, though I didn't actually finish it, was pushing 14 pages as of it's last revision. And I intended to also have a parallel "here's how I'm changing this" document, probably with double-digit pagecount, too. (Keep in mind, even fifty pages of houserules and "rulings in advance", compared to the sixty+ books, each 100+ pages in length, that I have for 3.X edition D&D ... that's a fairly short houserules packet, really.)

...

As for altering a lifestyle on the fly? Hey, that's called how the game works. Players should NEVER expect things to go exactly according to plans; unexpected outcomes are the rule of the game. Literally, in fact.

That game? No.

Another game? No. But I knew a guy named Joe who had that kind of luck. He ran a game once and he insisted that he roll the dice for all our character's stats (due to his supernatural luck) because it was going to be a tough game, and he wanted to make sure our characters had that extra edge.

No one objected.

Everyone had at least one 18, usually followed by a 17, I think there was one 12 in the group.

Is that so? I'd love to play in some of your games. I have a few characters in my closet I've been *dying* to dust off.



I ... are you even reading the words I write? I'm guessing not. Do other people understand my point here. or am I writing just for my own amusement?

That'd be a big difference from "just that one guy", now, wouldn't it?