THAT was a D&D game, which I and another player quit because the GM was a dick.

He got strength drained to paralysis (by a giant spider that was a higher CR than the party could take even if it was solo) and I had a bridge dropped on me. It would have killed me outright, but the other players cried fowl.

And not related to the HARP game I started on with imbalanced distributions.

I love Tashiro's post. Personally, whenever I was writing material for Shadowrun, I took mechanical balance seriously, but I agree with him that mechanics serve the setting and both serve the story. I certainly never removed anything I thought was a great idea because it might not be 100% balanced across the board.

People that treat RAW like gospel make me laugh. Game designers aren't infallible and aren't writing the Bible. Our words aren't meant to be treated like gospel. We're normal human beings working collaboratively, always with the idea in the back of our minds that there's a GM there interpreting what we are writing and arbitrating on it. And that we're writing for hundreds of different game tables with different styles and it can't be perfect for all of them.

I see your point, and agree this can be a problem. Cherry-picking the best qualities for lifestyles or magical traditions can be min/max-y and break immersion. In some ways it's inevitable if you give players this total control, as it's pretty counter-intuitive to take options that aren't useful. But I think I'm also against having it all in the hands of the GM - part of the fun as a player is having a concept and trying to realize it.

I'd say maybe a mix of both would make the most sense? For lifestyles / magical traditions / whatever, the player can have guidelines on creating some of the content, then after they're finished they hand it over to the GM, who also has guidelines (or free reign) on how to finish it up. This could result in the GM making a change that the player doesn't like, but then again, I think rule ∞ comes into effect, the rule that everyone should be mature and not dicks to each other.

Didn't say it was. But if the mechanics aren't balanced, the rules aren't working. Mechanics aren't everything I'll be glad to admit, but it should make a firm starting point for everything else you want to do.



No, not really. Mechanics when translated into computer code is just math. A computer is impartial and if it can't execute your "code" and get a fair result then the mechanics aren't fair. Human interaction has nothing to do with it because their ultimate potential is limited by the math.



Exactly, and if you don't have fair balanced mechanics then it is an uphill battle for any content developer.




So paper rock scissors isn't balance by mechanics? Tic tac toe isn't imbalanced by mechanics? - Of course they are. Neither do games like Pathfinder (at least at lower levels) doesn't have imbalanced mechanics, everybody uses the same d20 mechanic. Take away the names and descriptions of abilities, and really most play the same. Having been a playtester for many games, it is amusing when given a set of "units" without names or fluff and seeing them nearly identical and then having the titles "Wizard" and "Fighter" thrown on them and people argue about mechanics which are the same but people don't realize because they're biased by their preconceptions towards different sets. Another good example is Anima. The content makes a difference, but you're still making almost identical types of dice tests on an identical percentile system whether you're playing a Ki Warrior or a Psychic.

Now Hacking tests in 4th edition versus a skill or shooting test? A Rigger chase in Shadowrun 2nd edition (just try finding all the rules that apply from the Rigger book) versus chasing someone on foot? Very different mechanics. Not only is it imbalanced, but as a GM very not fun. I have gone to great lengths to avoid those chase tests for Riggers and outright ignoring the RAW. Is it that the Rigger concept isn't fun?

Also, I'll end with while a computer is potentially great for mechanics, it isn't great for content. I stick with tabletop games because we aren't limited with the content someone had to program in and we can go as far as our imaginations can take us. But then that begs the question, why do people always return to the rules at all?

Now I return to lurking.

I don't see the problem with players cherry picking attributes of lifestyle since I have friends that take months to find the perfect rental - looking for exactly what you want is the "normal" thing. As for magical traditions I am sure some people in the 6th world understand that beliefs determine what is possible so they could get themselves hypnotized/brain washed to believe whatever gives them the most useful spirits etc. I don't necessarily approve of munchkin traditions but it's possible.

I think there's a difference between choosing a "perfect place" in the real world and choosing it in SR. In SR, if you choose a lifestyle that doesn't have Pests, then your house just doesn't have pests. Try to guarantee that 100% in the real world

So that's where I'm coming from with allowing the GM to have some control over the lifestyles. Just like in the real world how your friend can't guarantee every single aspect of their living place, a character probably shouldn't be able to detail every single aspect. Life is full of things not controllable, this "not controllable" stuff is the purview of the GM in a game.

I keep wanting to say this, yes I realize this gives rise to the opportunity where the GM can cause conflict with the player by making a change the player isn't happy with, but hopefully rule ∞ above can solve this.

As for magical traditions, I've been thinking a lot about this. Maybe building a magical tradition with spirits has separate parts (someone mentioned them above): Choose a ritual type (Summoning, Binding, Calling), choose a mechanic (Materialization, Possession, ?), choose spirits available. The GM would be the one to get to choose the relevant spirits. Rule ∞ applies, as always.

It's not that it doesn't have pests, its that the pest problem is so minor as to be irrelevant.

For a normal person, the squirrels living in my ceiling/attic/walls wouldn't be considered a "pest" level quality (it's like two squirrels, and we could solve the problem if any of us felt like hauling out a 40 foot ladder).

However, I would, because I'm a light sleeper, and one of those f*ckers gnawing on something will wake me up every time.

I would consider having pests to the extent of a quality being sentient cockroaches the size of a small terrier.

For some people, yeah. I had a friend many years ago who's apartment had a terrible, terrible cockroach problem. Definitely would have been worth a negative lifestyle quality. And then there's bedbugs...Most of us in the real world wouldn't choose a house with captial-P pests, but it happens. And that's just one example, not to focus too specifically on it. Many of the qualities would be things the character might not have any control over, like Helpful or Nosy Neighbors.

So I don't see that there would be a disconnect in SR where a player chooses the lifestyle they want along with all the qualities (subject to Availability rules), then the GM gets to decide some additional qualities (pq or nq).

Take them as a group contact.

Just because the character doesn't have control over it doesn't mean the player shouldn't.



Sentient cockroach Cyber Doc
How's that for a Perfect Roommate?

Can you elaborate? It doesn't add much when you just post a simple sentence like that...

Well for one thing, if the GM made the decisions on everything the character didn't control, then the only thing the player would have a choice on would be skills and gear (but not the points allocated to get the resources for that gear).

Others here have expressed unhappiness with the Lifestyle rules, and I'm starting to agree with them to a certain extent. I'm advocating an addition to the rules that would allow GMs to have some say in what a character's living arrangements are like, similar to what might happen in the real world. Maybe it wouldn't even need to be GM choice, maybe it'd be a random table or something. The idea that a player can pick exactly every single living detail for the character's abode and expect *poof* to find it, seems silly.

It could also lead to interesting role playing opportunities.
- "What, my house has AI in residence? Where did the AI come from? How can I get rid of it?"
- "My neighbors are too nosy, so I'll find out some intel on them and bribe/blackmail/make friends with them"

Again, in no way should these additional rules be used to dick the player over.

The thing is, the bad ones will just go "Woo Hoo! More control! Dance my little puppets dance!"

It needs to remain as-is because of those bad ones. Sorry, but it's a case of a few ruining it for everyone.

I think this is really wrong. A "bad one" has an infinite number of ways to screw players over if they want to in the first place. They're the GM after all, they decide what happens in the game world. Rules shouldn't be decided based on whether or not the GM is a dick.

As you say, they have plenty of ammo to use against their players, so why give them even more?

I disagree that it's ammo to use against players, unless the GM is already a dick. And then, no amount of "ammo withholding" will save the players, as long as the GM is the GM.

You seem to see the game as some kind of competition, with the GM vs the players. Really antagonistic. I'm sorry you see it that way.

No, I just realize that there are those that do, and I don't want those people to have even more to use in their "struggle".

phlapjack77... you have to understand All4BigGuns posting history. This is the impression I've picked up after reading many of his posts the past few months.

He regularly posts GM's should have little to no control over their game worlds. They exist purely for the pleasure of the players. GM's are nothing more than control freaks on a power trip if they veto things or enforce consequences to actions in game. Players should not die even when they do blatantly stupid and egregious things; only bad GM's kill players pet characters. GM's should have no say whatsoever in any way shape or form what a player puts on his character sheet. You can't build a good well rounded character under karmagen with 750 karma you need 1000. We should all be playing my little pony, not shadowrun.

He also loves to get into rules forums and discussions and ignore the debate over the rules meaning and intent to post 'ignore the rules' all the time when it's pointed out the rules specifically state the GM can (or should) exercise this discretion or when he disagrees with them.

I suggest you search fu his posting history here and on the SR4 forums if you're expecting a rationale rules discourse.


For example... when I was having the lively discussion with Pax... I feel Pax's reasons are he feels the rules are fine in flavor... and as he's posted he has a monstrous document of all his 'house rules' for all to see. Others feel that this itself is a demonstration that there is a problem and don't wish to have to draw up such documents all the time to correct core mechanics flaws. It comes down to.. if you feel the need to house rule so much, why do you feel the need to criticize those of us who try and give constructive criticism and feedback on how the rules don't work because we prefer not to write our own rulebooks full of house rules.

All4BigGuns on the other hand wants as little power as possible in the GM's hand... or so I believe this to be his motivation on this issue... because I'm advocating that the lifestyle rules especially when it comes to the min/max ala carte stuff just don't make sense and GM's should have more say in how they're done as well as the qualities themselves should be looked at more critically. Again he tends to post against anything which gives the GM's more control or leverage.

I'm sorry, but during character creation, I think the player should have full control over his lifestyle. He's the one having to pay the points to cover the cost of the lifestyle, and he's going to have to pay to keep the lifestyle. I can see the game master putting a limit (only middle lifestyle or less, for example), and that's fair, but the type of home, and what's in it, should be completely in the hands of the players.

For my game, one player has her technomancer working in a shop that doubles as her home, in the sprawl. Her home is controlled by a committee. One player has his character living on campus, while another lives in an apartment provided by the corporation she works for. As a player, my character can afford a pleasant home on the coastline, with complete privacy - he's got a High lifestyle, and the house is tailored to his personal tastes.

Now, if you're getting a home during play, all bets are off. You might need to do a bit of shopping before you find a place you like, and the game master can add whatever quirks he wishes to your home before you sign the lease and pay the nuyen. That's roleplaying, so I'm fine with that.

But in chargen? It should remain firmly in the player's hands. I've even had fun with this -- one player was able to get a Luxury lifestyle specifically because of the sheer number of disadvantages he put into it -- it didn't cost him a thing to have or keep the house. I cleared it, as long as it made sense. We came up with the brilliant idea of the house being part of a reality-tv show (Fun Fun Danger House), where you got to live in the house as long as you could stand it, as long as everything was recorded for the audience. Hauntings, wonky tech, AIs, and worse all happened in the house, and the character was the 'star' of the show. The technomancer came in from time to time to try to fix glitches, and even got her own following -- though her actual identity was concealed by the network.

Ultimately, a test to see how far the advanced lifestyle rules could be pushed resulted in an excellent source of roleplaying in the game.

It's cool, I think I've said everything I wanted to say on this point anyway Moving to PM if there's anything further for me, please...

The addition they could use is availability so it takes time to find the perfect place.

I think that's fair. The goal of the rules are FUN. Balance is very important, but not as important as fun. As a caveat there, balance SERVES fun. If mages are most powerful archetypes, it will not be fun to be a street sam.

That said, cherry-picking all of the stats for your own religion is not fun (and I have said why, because it breaks immersion in favor of min-maxing in the one area where immersion and story needs to be primary).



As a new or middling GM, I expect that the game designers have more experience running games, do more analysis of the product they're putting out, and do more testing of it than I have time to do. This is why I bought the book. Even a beginning GM can design a game from scratch, but it's time consuming.

As a more advanced GM, and beginning freelancer, I'm saying that the idea of permitting players cherry-pick their character's religion for purely mechanical advantages is a terrible idea. Don't put it in SR5. You began down that rode in SR4 and it was okay. Some people liked it, some people didn't, so it wasn't a great idea. Don't push it further.




I like your idea, or leaving X number of points of flaws or edges for the GM to pick out. The other alternative is to limit the number of flaws and edges you can take (like the chargen rules). If I want a house with good Internet connectivity by an Interstate, that's easy to find. It's when I'm looking for one with good Internet connectivity, by an Interstate, that's difficult to find, by a ley line, so on and so forth that it gets silly. (The availability modifier does limit the amount of edges, as long as flaws do not reduce availability).

That's not how I read that quality, just FYI. If you have the Pests quality, you have an infestation - you don't just see a bug indoors every few weeks, you see one every few minutes ... regardless of what you do to control or exterminate them.

Which is why we have the Currrent Traditions, with very little mechanical impact. The Tradition should be MOSTLY FLUFF, and it should be adhered to. If your magician claims to be from the Buddhist Tradition, and then goes out there and massacres or mind controls all of his victims, well, then I have a hard time believing he is a Buddhist. Something should be said, and maybe the Tradition should be changed, if the player will not conform to the TRADITION THAT HE CHOSE TO START WITH... *shrug*

Adhering to the fluff / tenets, is different from the mechanics actually reflecting the metaphysical beliefs of that tradition.

One does not need to abandon the one, to enhance the other.

Here's a thought, for example: maybe a Bhuddist tradition should come bundled with the first level of Pacifism? And/or, have a DP penalty to spells which deal Physical damage? (And a balancing bonus to some other category of magic; I don't know Bhuddism enough to suggest one)

See: mechanical support for the "fluff".

Precisely.

But you do not NEED those mechanical enforcements to play by the Fluff. It is actually pretty easy, in fact.
Take pacifism as a NQ...
Do not actually purchase Mental Manipulations or Combat Spells, etc.
Do not toss grenades willy nilly to take out your opponents when Drain gets too high, etc. *shrug*

See, all enforced with no actually added mechanics to the Tradition at all.

I would quite enjoy a tradition building system similar to the lifestyle system. Yes it can be abused, of course it can. Doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there.
There need to be defaults although...

It would be even more fun if the fluff choices made an impact on the creation.
Example
Nature lover
Pro: bonus to summoning beast or plant spirits
Con: penalty blah for something going against nature

Pacifist (3 level)
Pro: You may learn x noon-combat spells at y% reduced cost
Con: penalty to combat related stuff

Stuff like that

I just do not see why it needs a mechanic. *shrug*

Needs? No, but it would be a welcome addition for people that enjoy digging themselves into stuff like that.
Creating without structure is all well and good, having some actual structure and/or guidelines would (potentially) make it better

Mechanical support doesn't have to be about "enforcing" things. It can also be - and IMO should be - about rewarding the player for playing 'correctly'.

The Tradition for Bhuddism should be different, in how it operates not merely in how it's practitioners conduct themselves, from ... say ... a Tradition based on LeVayan Satanism. Or Gardnerian Wicca. Or Qabbalism. Etc.

And the differences should not, IMO be restricted to only "what specific kinds of spirits do you summon". Mentor-type adjustments seem to be perfectly in keeping with the kind of differences Traditions should have - maybe with DP adjustments of only +/-1, instead of the typical +/-2 of actual Mentors.

...

You can even do things like, for the Bhuddism and Pacifism thing ... make the Pacisfism NQ a requirement - a Geas, IOW - for Bhuddism. That, in return, should grant a commensurate boon of some sort. Like, oh, a +1 DP modifier for .... maybe Banishing tests? Isn't Bhuddism kind of anti-Spirit/Demon? (Again, I admit my ignorance, I'm grabbing at straws here.)

No worries. I get what you are saying, even if I do not think it is necessary.

Yes, and no, I think, Tymaeus.

See, IMO ... if I need to give up those Mental Manipulations and Combat spells, then I think I should get something else in return. If you take somethign away ... you should give something else back, or you create imbalance.

I would tend to disagree there voluntarily rejecting certain options is an RP choice, it shouldn't give you a direct benefit.
Why would you intentionally hamper yourself like that then?
Because constraint breeds creativity.

Yes I realise this goes against what I was suggesting, but the distinction is that I'm not seeking to actively empower constraints but rather validate diversity.

Then why do we have the Pacifism NQ? Or Bipolar? Or any Manias or Phobias (e.g., Media Junky)? Or Paranoia? Or Prejudiced? Or Signature?

I disagree with that. That is the concept you are playing, so you are Self Limiting yourself. There should be no reward for doing so. It is your choice.

In some cases, there will be a reward (Negative Qualities). In others, there should be none. If you want to play a Tradition that is a Pacifist, you should take the NQ instead of getting it with the Tradition. *shrug*

In other words... You can TAKE 100 Points worth of Negative Qualities if you like, but you will only ever get the BP for the first 35 points in Chargen.

A negative will only ever be my choice, if it's balanced by a concurrent and proportional positive.

Real people don't receive compensation or benefits for their flaws and morality, the purpose of flaws is to inject a sense of flavour and personality into your character. You shouldn't expect to be rewarded for it omae.

Which is all fine and good. I guess you won't be playing most Traditions then. They all have negatives that are fluff based, if you care to actually look them up. *shrug*

Real people aren't charactrs in an RPG, produced by a point-build system, for a rules-set that at least claims the PCs should all be roughly equal to each other.



But I do.

I'm not volunteering for a flaw, unless I get something back. My real life has plenty of flaws that didn't get balanced out, and I game to get AWAY from that.

Each to his own, personally I think negative qualities is one of the best aspects of SR chargen.

But you do get something to compensate, the extra points for taking them.

EXACTLY what I was about to post, All4.

In Shadowrun, if you wish to play a Pacifist, you take the Pacifist NQ. Doing so gives you BP or Karma, that you can spend elsewhere.

So if a given tradition is going to declare entire Categories of splls "off limits" ... something of roughly-equal value should be provided in return.

Just like ... let's say I put forward a tradition where there was some large BENEFIT - say, "+4 dice to all [Fire] spells". Would you agree to let that through, without a balancing drawback ...?

If you wouldn't let that stand as-is ... why not ...?

And more importantly, why would it be more important for you to balance a POSITIVE, than it is to balance a negative? It's the same math, just in the other direction. It shouldn't matter which you see first, the positive or the negative. If you see one, you should see both - or the Tradition is unbalanced.

That is true, it's not an equal trade although. Many flaws far outweight the benefit you get from the extra points (with exceptions where the opposite is true of course) Also in most cases you don't get extra compensation from flaws that are particularly hindering for your role. Like a street sam with pacifist or combat paralysis.

Not all flaws have a return on Points for the character. Any Tradition Flaws (for Magic) come at no compensation. You are expected to play the Tradition, complete with its Flavor. Buddhism is a good example. No Combat Mage should have the Buddhist Tradition, it just does not fit, and yet, I see it from time to time, because the player does not take the time to actually look into the Tradition he has chosen. *shrug*

TJ:
Though I agree with your points and disagree with Pax's here about RP constraints and role playing decisions. Your example is seriously flawed.


Question how do you square the tradition of Buddhist warrior monks then. That's why I disagree slightly with the no combat mage part... but there are RP constraints there.

You're confusing Zen buddhism with buddhism... that's like confusing a catholic with a calvinist. There have historically been many factions within it.

TJ, the post I quoted specifically referenced Negative Qualities, and those you do get compensation for.

And Pax made a good point. It is unlikely that a benefit would be allowed through without an accompanying drawback, so why would a drawback not be stopped dead without an accompanying positive? Nice double standard.