The more time they have to spend codifying every little minute detail of little importance for you (like the qualities in question) the less time they have to actually work on IMPORTANT things.

Part of this is knowing your Gm if your GM would screw you, clearly you don't want to be in that situation, where the GM CAN pick for you.

People are also forgetting there is the option to "Surge" During game play, where in your mutations can be determined by the GM. Again, I'd only do so with a GM I knew not to be stupid or a jerk, but it is an option. As much as we might like to custom design our chars, if it's random gene expression through mana induced radical mutation, IRL you dont get to choose. You're stuck with it. If you take that option in the game, it's another 'reason' a gm might pick. (( The first being the before mentioned Mini-maxer type))

You miss the entire point. The character still doesn't have a choice. The player should, however, otherwise it's just another form of railroading--just a bit more subtle.

Remind me what part of your GM going - "You SURGE from exposure to X, here's what you got." is subtle?

I was just saying that it could be considered more subtle than normal railroading.

If you chose to take latent metagenic expression at chargen (or any latent quality for that matter) You purposefully left the ball in the GMs court, putting the creative weight on him. As such you can just hold on to your pants and hope he does right by you. Exactly the same as total amnesia... How on earth is that railroading? You left the decision to the GM.

It's different than Total Amnesia (which I won't take because one might as well just grab a pre-gen), because it's an optional thing. Personally, I'd see it as a sign of future railroading if a GM took up that option, or even worse, a sign that the GM is one of those few who power trips their butt off. There is ONE person I would trust to pick those qualities in my stead.


Note how 'few' is emphasized in case you decide to try the "show where the bad GM touched you" stuff.

Uhm, how exactly do you define railroading?

More to the point, if you don't trust the DM to be fair to you, to work with the players, why are you playing with them?

It sounds like you refuse to let the DM make any story telling decisions about your character because "You don't trust them." Why even have them there? You can, after all, run Shadowrun Missions for yourself and have complete control of what happens to your character.

I've made characters that just have latent "something" and let the GM pick whichever he wants - much more fun that way.

No I'm not missing the point. I'm saying the randomness of it is a part of it. A part you can either embrace or not. But it's there, if you ignore it, that's cool you ignore it, but the characters in question don't get to pick and choose, if you're trying to play it more realisticly, you wouldn't get to pick and choose either.

Just using a common example, Beast, from the Xmen wouldn't have chosen the huge feet and hands, and blue fur that eventually transformed into more feline characteristics. That further mutation happened in the course of the story. he started off just broad with huge hands and feet. The Furr and animistic features came later.

I get your side. "A PLAYER SHOULD HAVE TOTAL CONTROL!" I just don't agree with it. If you're playing a metahuman and you want to SURGE in game, then yeah, that's a GM thing. other wise you're just building a changeling from the start and waiting to get your freak on till later.

I get your 'A PLAYER SHOULD HAVE TOTAL CONTROL', but it's not universally true. We've all had games where there's one guy that just does stupid stuff ---if you let him---. Or, maybe not just dumb, but that one guy that will ignore the setting the group, the game and everything to do that math to get the mini maxed out character, --if he's allowed--. For people like that, if it's going to disrupt the game, cause annoyance to PLAYERS and ruin everyone's fun, they might not be allowed TOTAL CONTROL in that way. If the guy is going to give himself a tucan beak, neon pink skin, elephant ears, a monkey tail and 3 sets of extra arms, yes, it's best that the GM step in and go "If you're going to make a Surge character I'm going to pick out your traits.

Now... it'd be alot more simple to just not play with people like that, but every group usually has one (( if not more)) And sometimes if they're reined in, in the start, the game goes fine once it gets going.

__I__ Personally much prefer to build my own freaks, but I can totally see some situations where I'd understand a GM stepping in, and would actually prefer it.

I think some people might be talking about one thing, and others about another thing. The normal SURGE rules offer the option of the GM picking out the negative traits - which I think is a very, very poorly thought-out idea.

The Dormant Metagenetics quality explicitly states that the GM picks the level of SURGE, and the negative qualities (I was surprised when I read the actual quality, because I thought the GM picked everything). So someone getting the latter quality at least knows that some of the qualities will not be his own selections. It's the same as Latent Awakening, only the player does get to at least pick out the positive qualities. The only reason it is less likely to be abused, is that it will only be selected by players who have some degree of trust in their GM (same thing for things like amnesia or mysterious implant).

I know that I was talking about normal Surge. If they're talking about the other one, then I can definitely see where lines got crossed.

I found evidence a while ago that you can, in fact, have multiple distinctive styles. that may change things.
For example, a nartaki that is ALSO incredibly gaudily cybered with extravagant custom casemods is MORE distinctive than just a nartaki.


My solution to this is to buy off the Distinctive Style quality during creation. If you're not suffering a penalty for it or it doesn't fit, just pay the points to get rid of it. Its not like it's unprecedented, since sapient critters can buy off the freebie Uneducated they get slapped with.


My biggest problem with Surge is really the Negative qualities that are really positive qualities in disguise. Mostly Astral Hazing. Thorns is another example, but it suffers from a simple type +1 where it should be a -1.

Not-so-recent discussions make the point that Astral Hazing, does not in fact, do what you think it does.

(That is, a direct LOS spell cast from outside background count, into an area of background count, does not in fact fizzle).

It's still godawful cheese to plop an astrally hazed dude in a one-room apartment to shut down the magic of a city in a year or two.

Background counts are still pretty useful things to have around, if you don't give a shit about magic!

Edit: I'm still not entirely convinced. If you can cast a spell through a magical impediment, then you should be able to cast a spell through a mana barrier with the same ease that you do a background count. The results of this thread's discussion are worth perusing. I think it's this thread; either way, it involves questions about creating magic inside a ward while being outside it, and whether the barrier would interfere with the subject inside it, and also some side questions about what happens when a mystic link passes through interference.

My main problem with people griping about mundanes taking Astral Hazing is that taking it with Awakened is nothing more than making your character useless. A mage or Adept will be built around their abilities as an Awakened, all of which are pretty much shut down entirely by the constant background around them with the quality.

Astral hazing itself needs a serious overhaul, as do background counts in general. The text for astral hazing is very insistent that it affects magic, but doesn't say how - I assume normally, meaning a hit to Magic rating and spell Force for purposes of Drain (it lowers Magic and gives spells higher Drain - it doesn't affect Force, other than possibly creating situations where the effective Force of a spell is higher than twice the lowered Magic rating). This doesn't quite make sense, unless you assume that the link between caster and target means you get affected unless you and the target are both outside the background count.

The detriment of astral hazing is that it does not distinguish between hostile and friendly spells, that it can be a serious hindrance to magical allies, and that to astral observation, you are the visual equivalent of a "a nartaki that is ALSO incredibly gaudily cybered with extravagant custom casemods", or maybe even a "greased up ant-eater with bug eyes". Very inconspicuous to any astral observers... NOT!! Like day job and a few other flaws, it is one that some GMs don't allow in their games.

It refers back to background count, which explicitly states that while inside the area, Magic and Force are reduced and Drain is increased. For the purposes of casting spells: Magic is reduced (meaning you can't cast as high, and it gets to be physical drain right fast) and Drain is as if the spell was a higher force (even more drain). The force of the spell is not effected.

Eg.

Mag 6, BC 2:

Magician casts as if his Magic was 4, so he casts a F4 spell (F/2 drain).

Spell is F4, but the drain is treated as if it was F6. Magician resists 3 stun.
If he cast a F6, he'd be taking 4P drain.

The spell itself remains F4 unless it falls into one of several categories which are effected by the background count:
basically everything but instantaneous spells.



Actually, the astral hazed character is the visual equivalent of a very tiny storm cloud. You can't see into it, buy you know it's there.