*Grin* You gave me an idea...

1) Actually you can redye your blue hair another color. You can also shave it off. No need to pay karma (as Umidori points out).
2) I was referring to a single-situation event. If your hair is blue, then it is gawd damned blue in that situation. Someone is either going to react negatively, positively, or not, based on your hair color. If there's no difference in their reaction to natural blue vs. dyed blue, then natural blue is not a drawback. Getting a negative reaction, stepping into a shower stall, redying your hair, and coming back isn't really going to change anything.

The character may not "have control" of the mutation, but the player should. It is his character, not the GM's. Sure, there are GMs out there who will be reasonable about what to pick, but there are those out there who will pick the absolutely most debilitating for the character just so they can sit back and cackle maniacally--no matter which one is in the minority, that the latter type exists should preclude the GM picking those 'flaws', the whole "one person ruins it for everyone" deal.

Well look at this way Bigguns, if you're going to pick the most min-max positive selection you can think of, I'm gonna make you a greased up ant-eater with bug eyes... Fair is fair

Dude, people pulling those shenanigans are not the majority of players, nor is everyone defending the player's right to have control over his character "just trying to 'min/max'--something that is CONSTANTLY used entirely incorrectly*--all the way to the bank".

* For instance, people on either forum will say that a character with two 1s in attributes is "min/max". No, it's not. Someone who does "min/max" would never take a 1 in an attribute, as that creates a massive weakness and "min/max" is all about removing as much weakness as possible.

Yes, there's two scenarios here that are left untold
Scenario 1: "So I got this idea for a character with snake traits, you know unblinking eyes, scales, keen scent..."
vs
"So I got this character with Orange eyes and Chest hair in the shape of canada, and also I got metagenetic improvement..."

Which one do you think I would turn into an ant eater?
and yes I would probably let the first example take +attibute but only for reaction or agility

I may not like the second one, but all I'm gonna do is roll my eyes a little. I'm not going to force a player into something they don't want to play just because what they made doesn't fit what I like.

Read again i didn't say no mechanical disadvantage, i said unnoticeable(as they dont change how you look), but here's a list anyway:
Berserker,Critter Spook,Nocturnal,Impaired(Attribute),Slow Healer and Symbiosis
Also Balance Receptor,Bicardiac,Electrosense,Keen-Eared,Low-Light Visio(can be),Magnetosense, Natural Venom.Ogre Stomach,Thermographic Vision and Vomeronasai Organ from positive side.

By the strict RAW even if all your qualities are from that list you still have distinctive style, but really GM has to be quite a dick to enforce that.
Where as if you have blue hair, you have now room to complain if some one who knows that can track you down more easily.

He always have the option to go back to the drawing board and make a proper concept...
Like a player of mine
"I want to make a counterspell expert..."
*two seconds later*
"Can I play a gnome?"

The emphasized portion is exactly the problem. This smacks of "elitist" thinking to me.

It wouldn't if you knew some of my players
I'm willing to let a lot of things fly, providing you got reasoning to back it up.

Actually, it still would. There is no such thing as a "proper concept".

In an absolute sense...
But there is such a thing as having no concept and just building a character around numbers without any sort of cohesiveness, theme or personality.
It has less to do with what you are and more to do with "what's your story".
There's of course outright broken things that I never let fly.

And there's nothing wrong with starting out that way and letting things get more fleshed out as play goes on.

Perhaps you should be the one to be doing the rereading, as this is something like the fourth time I've said it, but...

MY COMPLAINT IS ABOUT THE MECHANICS. If your response fails to address the MECHANICS, you are wasting your time. If you aren't talking about the MECHANICS, I don't want to hear it. Please, for the sake of my sanity, stay on topic.


Berserker - Chock full of game mechanics. Composure Test, Berserk status, +1 to physical attributes while -1 to mental attributes, Willpower X 1D6 Combat Turn duration, triggers Adrenaline Pumps.

Critter Spook - Inflicts a -2 penalty on animal handling tests, applies Fear effect on animals with 5 meters, in combat applies a "Taunt" effect to critters, driving them to target the spook first.

Impaired Attribute - Your natural maximum in an attribute is lowered by one, which also affects your augmented maximum.

Slow Healer - Inflicts a -2 penalty on all healing tests.

Symbiosis - Area attunement based on Essence, Body + Willpower test to resist, once attuned receive +1 to Outdoors and Social Skills while in attuned area, if area is "unhealthy" suffer -2 to all actions from mild "allergy".

These all have mechanical disadvantages. I asked you to find negative qualities that do not have mechanical disadvantages. Please try again.


I... these... these are... positive... qualities. Of course they aren't going to have mechanical disadvantages. Are you drunk, or something? Or just being absurdly pedantic? Because even if it's the latter, they do actually have mechanical disadvantages - their BP costs.


I would agree with you... if Unusual Hair actually affected Distinctive Style in any way. It does not.

~Umi

Yes it does.

It is a Metagenic Quality.

All Metagenic Qualities are "advanced character options".

All Advanced Character Options carry the full mechanics of Distinctive Style, in addition to their specific effects.

Ummm Dying Hair is a natural hair modification, is it not? So, obviously, dying does not work.

I want something I can grab on to and play off with a character, if you give me a blank sheet with stats I'm gonna atleast ask you to answer the 20 questions before I even consider letting you through.
Like this guy in my group he got Cha 1 and Str 1, his concept is a recluse tech nerd, doesn't need to be hard.
We had some great fun playing out those flaws, but he's also allowed to shine with his skills.

Clarification. If it affected Distinctive Style in any meaningful way. You already have DS from being a Changeling, Unusual Hair doesn't add to that, at least not according to any rules I'm aware of.

Please don't mistake me for arguing that this is how it SHOULD be, by the way. I'm actually doing the opposite. I think the Runner's Companion rules, particularly the metagenetic stuff, is very sloppily put together. Hence why I'm complaining about Unusual Hair in the first place.

~Umi

You're actively trying to piss me off now, aren't you?

You know damn well what "a natural hair modification" is, you cheeky bastard. Please don't mess with me.

~Umi

Unusual hair is fine for werewolf syndrome, would be nice if they were a bit more stringent with what it could be though... Like things you can't achieve by going to the supermart.
Extravagant eyes is worse as even the quality assumes people won't give a drek.

Fiber Optic hair is also out.

Each Advanced Character Option comes with Distinctive Style. They stack.


I agree with you on principle. I just don't think the problem is quite as bad as you've been presenting it to be.

Not really, no...

My point is that if you choose to not enforce the negativity of the Quality, that is not the quality's fault. The Unnatural Hair Color Quality is purely fluff, but it is still a negative. I choose to ENFORCE the notion that you CANNOT dye the hair (after all it is a natural Modification... can't argue that because you are modifying it with dye). Sure, you can choose to shave it all off... until it grows back, you still look like a freak (distinctive) becasue you have hints of blue where your hair is growing back, but until it does, you are missing all body hair. Kinda wierd, don't you think?

Is it more work for a GM. Perhaps. Is it any greater an amount of work? No, no more so than remembering the character has an allergy to sunlight. *shrug*

I think it is easily inferred that each distinctive trait from SURGE gives you a level of distinctive style. It is not explicitly spelled out, but it is still an easy stretch of logic to make, to the extent that I would call it a rules interpretation, rather than a house rule.


I don't always agree with All4BigGuns, but he is correct that the GM has no business picking out a character's negative qualities. The justification of cutting down "min-maxing" doesn't wash - if a concept doesn't pass muster, then reject it, and let the player know why. If you get a sheet with SURGE II, with celerity and glamour for the positive qualities, and astral hazing for the negative quality, and you don't like it, then tell the player something like "Sorry, but I want to see something visually obvious for class 2 SURGE, like unusual skin and hair coloration at least. Plus, I don't allow the astral hazing flaw, because I think it should be solely the province of things like cyberzombies." That's a million times better than going "I'm changing his negative quality to cephalopoidal skull, ha, ha, ha!" That's just douchebaggery.

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with saying "Gee, 'unusual hair' just doesn't seem dramatic enough, what with Glamour and all. I'd rather see you take either Mood Hair, or maybe Bioluminescence (and we can apply it to yoru hair specifically)". IOW, the GM should still feel free to make suggestions.

Oh good, the two of you are on the same page.

I believe that, right there, is his complaint.

Never said I was not on his page as far as the fluf goes. I also have no problem enforcing Fluff negatives. They usually flow from the narrative, so it is no skin off my back. *shrug*

So you're saying that a level 1 Changeling is going to have 2 to 3 levels of DS, even if all they have are a Bicardiac and an Impaired Attribute? So other characters get +6 dice to their legwork tracking down a dude with a second heart and poor Willpower? Because those are just such noticeable attributes in a person, right?

Distinctive Style is just badly implemented. End of story, full stop. It needs a complete rewrite. (Or at least the rules regarding which "advanced character options" do and no not impose DS, or modify it, need a rewrite, because technically it works fine as an ordinary negative quality.)

~Umi

His point is that he's getting a non-fluff-benefit for having a fluff-detriment.

Suggestions are fine. Just like a GM might say something if a sniper lacks an infiltration or perception skill. But making a character a "greased up ant-eater with bug eyes" purely out of petty vindictiveness is unacceptable behavior from a GM.

+9999 for both of you.

~Umi

Which is dumb. Why should you get a Non-Fluff Benefit from a NEGATIVE quality? Does not really make any sense when you read, it does it?

Again... Why should you benefit from a Negative? It is a DETRIMENT, not a BENEFIT.
The BP you get are insignificant in comparison.

God you really cant read can you?
I didn't claim qualities not having mechanical disadvantage, that was you missreading.

That list is exactly what i said in my post it to be.

Pretty much what I'm getting at, though, I do think that instead of a knee-jerk rejection, they should at least give it a chance, just with a disclaimer laid out right then that if it turns out not to work out well for the game, he may ask for a change of character later.

Except when it's exactly that kind of behaviour that your group thrives on *shrug* We like having a laugh and bug eyed greased up ant-eater is more fun then saying no

Nope, that's why I specified distinctive traits. Things like unusual hair, or scales, or what have you. I think that one line, about "advanced character options", was very vague and poorly-worded. I would use a bit of common sense with it. Obviously, an allergy to silver is not going to make someone easier to find. But the rules are going to have those little glitches. Look at the thorns negative quality, which gives you "+1 to all Physical Tests" due to discomfort. Obviously, the GM is going to have to figure out how to implement that as an actual penalty (increase thresholds, change it to -1 instead of +1, etc.).

Like those 5 build points, maybe?

I don't know what you're table looks like, but at mine "getting 5 more BP to work with" is a benefit. And a non-fluff one, to boot.

I guess it's not enough that unusual hair or mood hair makes it more of a PITA to disguise yourself to infiltrate some place?

Shave n' go! The new product just for you!

Then again, there is a way to turn that negative into something of a benefit if you're good enough at Disguise to manage pulling it off in the first place. You infiltrate a place disguised as someone with blonde hair and blue eyes, and once you're out, you ditch the wig and contacts becoming someone with purple hair and yellow eyes. I don't think they're gonna find you and what you took that easy, and heck if a player is smart enough to figure that one out, I'm by god gonna let 'em pull it off.

I never said it was a GOOD rule; remember, I agree it's all poorly written.

However, it's more than there being no rule at all.


I agree. It should possibly be 1 die per level, plus 1 die base.

And I'd like to see various of the Metagenic qualities, as well as the Metatypes and playable Sapients have a "distinctiveness index" assigned to them, with their costs adjusted accordingly (the more distinctive something is, the more mechanical effect it has before it's own description comes into it..

It'd be grand, too, if things like "distinctive hair" and other such things, explicitly stated that things as simple as hair dye either didn't work at all, or, required expensive materials to work. (For an example of that, look at BiPolar. Essentially, it's BP for a monthly expense of 500¥.)

And as a GM, I would happily reward that with "not screwing it up", because it's creative roleplay.

Also, because I've actually pondered a Face who is a master of disguise ... so much so, that noone has seen their REAL appearance in a decade, or more. Not even their lovers.

I agree with this general notion. But I would want every "distinctive trait" to actually be specified as such.

Any quality which adds to your distinctiveness should come out and say so. The rules as they stand are badly written.

Edit: And as odd as it is to say this, I agree entirely with Pax regarding a distinctiveness index and all that.

~Umi

That's really all that needs to be said, anyway.

Or maybe they're just expecting people to ::gasp:: use some Common Sense rather than have their hand held.

Wow, insulting and logically fallacious in one fell swoop. Congrats.

There is nothing wrong with wanting rules that leave no room for misinterpretation or variation from table to table. Your personal tastes do not equal Common Sense.

~Umi

Siding with Umidori on that point.

I's all well and good that we CAN use our own brains to interpolate and nterpret.

It would be best, however, if we didn't NEED to do so - and could instead apply the brainpower saved, towards creative ends. Like, entirely NEW rules. Or storylines. And so forth.

Yeah, got a Ninja build like that...