This is something I've wondered about for a while, but never bothered to fully explore: What if you modified the Trust Fund quality from Runner's companion to represent smaller fixed payments for things like disability benefits or welfare?
Granted, public assistance programs aren't something you'd expect to find in the corporate-run dystopia of Shadowrun--but it might be interesting to have a character who gets small regular payments, (maybe as part of a settlement or severance package) but turns to shadowrunning as an off-the-books way to supplement their meager income.
Offhand, I'd say a 5 BP version that covers a permanent low lifestyle and 200„ spending money sounds about right. The existing Trust Fund quality comes in a 10 BP version than gives you a permanent medium lifestyle + 500„, and a 20 BP version that gives a permanent high lifestyle + 1,000„. Adding together the lifestyle cost and spending money, that's 550„ per BP for both versions. That would pay for a low lifestyle and 750„ a month for 5 BP, but the round numbers of "lifestyle + 1/10 the lifestyle cost" appealed to my OCD more.
Another issue I'm considering is whether it would be horribly game-breaking to just give the character the money, instead of forcing them to spend most of it on a lifestyle. I have a game coming up set in California during the aftermath of the big earthquake. It's basically going to be a post-disaster survival game, so paying rent isn't really going to be much of a consideration--but I am going to have some of the bigger (and more intact) megacorp-run franchises stay open under heavy guard to sell supplies to the survivors. (Cheaper than airlifting their entire inventory out or writing it all off, and it's a hell of a captive market.)
One of my players expressed an interest in having a quality like this that would give them a small but regular income. Since the disaster is localized things like automatic deposits would still go through to the character's account, so it would give them an easy means of affording basic supplies. Day Job doesn't quite fit because all the businesses in the area are either going to be closed or under martial-law style lockdown with the employees forbidden to leave the premises.
(Think of the situation in Snow Crash, where businesses are basically islands of extraterritorial order in a land of anarchy.)
I guess my main questions are:
1) Does a 5 BP version of Trust Fund sound reasonable/do-able?
2) If yes, should I go with Low Lifestyle + 200„ or Low Lifestyle + 750„?
3) Would letting the character just have the cash be completely foolish?
Figured I'd ask dumpshock their opinion on this rather than just try it and see how it goes.
Full Version: Monthly Payments?
1) Yes, the 5-point version sounds reasonable.
2) I lean towards Low Lifestyle + 200„, for consistency with the other levels of the quality.
3) Normally I would not recommend this, but for that particular campaign (where lifestyle rules won't be in play and prices for basic goods will probably be inflated due to demand), it should be okay.
2) I lean towards Low Lifestyle + 200„, for consistency with the other levels of the quality.
3) Normally I would not recommend this, but for that particular campaign (where lifestyle rules won't be in play and prices for basic goods will probably be inflated due to demand), it should be okay.
What Glyph said.
I despise the Day Job flaw because it gives you money, and actually enforcing the flaw screws the player more than the character. In this case, it sounds like you're not going to be using Lifestyle costs, though. Normally things like food and basic stuff is covered under lifestyle, but if you're going to play with it, you may as well just give the character the nuyen.
I despise the Day Job flaw because it gives you money, and actually enforcing the flaw screws the player more than the character. In this case, it sounds like you're not going to be using Lifestyle costs, though. Normally things like food and basic stuff is covered under lifestyle, but if you're going to play with it, you may as well just give the character the nuyen.
I agree. Day job sucks massively and never pays out (welcome real-life). 
But it is a negative quality anyway, so i think it is reasonable?.
With your proposal you can cover the monthly costs and put the money from your runs seperately. I would take it.
But it is a negative quality anyway, so i think it is reasonable?. With your proposal you can cover the monthly costs and put the money from your runs seperately. I would take it.
if the payments are from a hacked account, then maybe a decker buddy helped you set that up. and that logic would allow for buying the advantage mid-campaign.
just letting them have the money makes sense for some types of hacked accounts. it depends on how much oversight that specific program would have. the income could also be more complicated, such as cans of food which have a resell value as listed.
just letting them have the money makes sense for some types of hacked accounts. it depends on how much oversight that specific program would have. the income could also be more complicated, such as cans of food which have a resell value as listed.
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Apr 22 2014, 04:26 AM) 
I agree. Day job sucks massively and never pays out (welcome real-life). But it is a negative quality anyway, so i think it is reasonable?.
With your proposal you can cover the monthly costs and put the money from your runs seperately. I would take it.
But it is a negative quality anyway, so i think it is reasonable?. With your proposal you can cover the monthly costs and put the money from your runs seperately. I would take it.
I have used it. Worked well every time I used it. But then, I never tried to complete payments without reducing the flaw either. Since it is a tandem requirement, it makes sense to do so. If you are trying to pay it off without reducing the flaw, then you are trying to game the system. And that is where most of the arguments come in.
I have one char. that took this flaw and it was a pain in the ass. This is one of the options in the game, that make it extra easy for the GM to f**ck you from behind. ^^ I took the money as well, but of course it interfered with the runs, expecially if they took a bit longer than expected. In addition to the flaw "dependends", it was pure horror.
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Apr 22 2014, 08:38 AM)
I have one char. that took this flaw and it was a pain in the ass. This is one of the options in the game, that make it extra easy for the GM to f**ck you from behind. ^^ I took the money as well, but of course it interfered with the runs, expecially if they took a bit longer than expected. In addition to the flaw "dependends", it was pure horror.
I have said it before - A negative Flaw that is no flaw, is in fact no flaw and should not be worth any points. The fact that they were onerous to you is an indicator that they were a good choice for a flaw the character you played.
I totally agree, but there are some flaws that...let“s say "doesn“t have the same impact than other ones". ^^ And this one is....one from the others. ^^ The next time, i will take something easier. E.g. Combat Monster.
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Apr 22 2014, 08:55 AM)
I totally agree, but there are some flaws that...let“s say "doesn“t have the same impact than other ones". ^^ And this one is....one from the others. ^^ The next time, i will take something easier. E.g. Combat Monster.
Heh...
Combat Monster... Easy?
Jup, you get in combat, you freak out and kill everybody. Ways "easier" than explaining your boss why you didn“t show up the last few weeks/days and to find a babysitter that is willing to take over care for your child from one second to the other for weeks.^^
Here's my issues with it.
First of all, it's a flaw that gives you money. A flaw should be a penalty to a character, not a source of income.
Second, if you don't roleplay it out, it still gives you money. Since it's a flaw, the only way to get rid of it is to buy it off. So, by RAW, you can blow off your job whenever you feel like it. As long as you don't spend karma to remove it, you still get the income.
Third, if you do enforce it, you're screwing over the player, not the character. While the character is stuck at his day job, the player is sitting on his hands, bored, while everyone else is having fun in game. Deliberately staging things so a player isn't having fun is one of the worst GM sins possible. The character is fair game, but messing with the player so he isn't enjoying the game is just cruel.
First of all, it's a flaw that gives you money. A flaw should be a penalty to a character, not a source of income.
Second, if you don't roleplay it out, it still gives you money. Since it's a flaw, the only way to get rid of it is to buy it off. So, by RAW, you can blow off your job whenever you feel like it. As long as you don't spend karma to remove it, you still get the income.
Third, if you do enforce it, you're screwing over the player, not the character. While the character is stuck at his day job, the player is sitting on his hands, bored, while everyone else is having fun in game. Deliberately staging things so a player isn't having fun is one of the worst GM sins possible. The character is fair game, but messing with the player so he isn't enjoying the game is just cruel.
QUOTE (Cain @ Apr 23 2014, 02:36 AM)
Here's my issues with it.
First of all, it's a flaw that gives you money. A flaw should be a penalty to a character, not a source of income.
Second, if you don't roleplay it out, it still gives you money. Since it's a flaw, the only way to get rid of it is to buy it off. So, by RAW, you can blow off your job whenever you feel like it. As long as you don't spend karma to remove it, you still get the income.
Third, if you do enforce it, you're screwing over the player, not the character. While the character is stuck at his day job, the player is sitting on his hands, bored, while everyone else is having fun in game. Deliberately staging things so a player isn't having fun is one of the worst GM sins possible. The character is fair game, but messing with the player so he isn't enjoying the game is just cruel.
First of all, it's a flaw that gives you money. A flaw should be a penalty to a character, not a source of income.
Second, if you don't roleplay it out, it still gives you money. Since it's a flaw, the only way to get rid of it is to buy it off. So, by RAW, you can blow off your job whenever you feel like it. As long as you don't spend karma to remove it, you still get the income.
Third, if you do enforce it, you're screwing over the player, not the character. While the character is stuck at his day job, the player is sitting on his hands, bored, while everyone else is having fun in game. Deliberately staging things so a player isn't having fun is one of the worst GM sins possible. The character is fair game, but messing with the player so he isn't enjoying the game is just cruel.
Those are not Issues with the Flaw, however, they are potential Issues with the GM. And they can be overcome completely. Again, if you are not playing to the Flaw, then you should never take the Flaw. You should know that going in, and the GM should enforce that in play. If neither is willing to put in the effort, then that Flaw should be removed from the options.
QUOTE (Cain @ Apr 23 2014, 10:36 AM)
Here's my issues with it.
First of all, it's a flaw that gives you money. A flaw should be a penalty to a character, not a source of income.
Second, if you don't roleplay it out, it still gives you money. Since it's a flaw, the only way to get rid of it is to buy it off. So, by RAW, you can blow off your job whenever you feel like it. As long as you don't spend karma to remove it, you still get the income.
Third, if you do enforce it, you're screwing over the player, not the character. While the character is stuck at his day job, the player is sitting on his hands, bored, while everyone else is having fun in game. Deliberately staging things so a player isn't having fun is one of the worst GM sins possible. The character is fair game, but messing with the player so he isn't enjoying the game is just cruel.
I don“t have a problem with the flaw being like it is, because you still can choose if you take it or not. But some flaws may have more impact on the game than others and also a lot of edges have drawbacks too. Made-man e.g. is the same just the other way round. Local fame is more a flaw than a benous. It is the investment effort/effectiveness' relationship that makes the difference. Day-job needs to have an income, otherwise it would be stupid. But this flaw has too much potential to make your life even more complicated, than other flaws do. If your GM is cool, it will not influence you, but if not....you better skip it, because you will not be able to keep it for a long time. First of all, it's a flaw that gives you money. A flaw should be a penalty to a character, not a source of income.
Second, if you don't roleplay it out, it still gives you money. Since it's a flaw, the only way to get rid of it is to buy it off. So, by RAW, you can blow off your job whenever you feel like it. As long as you don't spend karma to remove it, you still get the income.
Third, if you do enforce it, you're screwing over the player, not the character. While the character is stuck at his day job, the player is sitting on his hands, bored, while everyone else is having fun in game. Deliberately staging things so a player isn't having fun is one of the worst GM sins possible. The character is fair game, but messing with the player so he isn't enjoying the game is just cruel.
Ugh, haven't been able to keep up with this thread like I intended--got caught up GM-ing another Shadowrun game with my main group. Protip: If you tell your group of retired Shadowrun players you'd be willing to run a one-shot if the normal GM can't make for next week's pathfinder game, expect everybody (including the GM) to show up with character sheets and have your "one shot" completely hijack the normal campaign. (Not that I'm complaining, mind you. 
)
Anyways, thanks to everyone for all the input on this. It really helps to get other people's take on an idea especially when you're relatively new to "holding the reins," so to speak.
I will say that I think day job can be handled fairly well as a limitation on downtime activities. Not every archetype has a lot of use for downtime, but those that do like hackers, riggers, conjuring mages, or people with crafting-type skills (armorer/demolitions/chemistry/ect) will definitely feel the effects if having a day job cut into the time they could spend whipping up a new program/upgrading their drones/binding spirits/modding weapons/creating IED's/mixing up combat drugs/ect.
Also, I think the fact that day job gives players money despite being a negative quality is a bit of a cost/benefit thing like the SURGE qualities in runner's companion. You do get a benefit, but there's also a drawback, and the overall value of the quality reflects both. Whether those costs/benefits are well balanced for the value in this case is open for debate, but having run a character with a mild addiction to combat drugs and a die pool for addiction tests that made it nearly impossible to fail, I don't think Day Job is particularly egregious in that respect.
Last but not least, Day Job gives the GM potential plot hooks and complications to throw at their characters, which can be valuable in and of itself. Giving a player a few BP and some extra nuyen in exchange for a hook like that can be well worth the trade sometimes.
)Anyways, thanks to everyone for all the input on this. It really helps to get other people's take on an idea especially when you're relatively new to "holding the reins," so to speak.
I will say that I think day job can be handled fairly well as a limitation on downtime activities. Not every archetype has a lot of use for downtime, but those that do like hackers, riggers, conjuring mages, or people with crafting-type skills (armorer/demolitions/chemistry/ect) will definitely feel the effects if having a day job cut into the time they could spend whipping up a new program/upgrading their drones/binding spirits/modding weapons/creating IED's/mixing up combat drugs/ect.
Also, I think the fact that day job gives players money despite being a negative quality is a bit of a cost/benefit thing like the SURGE qualities in runner's companion. You do get a benefit, but there's also a drawback, and the overall value of the quality reflects both. Whether those costs/benefits are well balanced for the value in this case is open for debate, but having run a character with a mild addiction to combat drugs and a die pool for addiction tests that made it nearly impossible to fail, I don't think Day Job is particularly egregious in that respect.
Last but not least, Day Job gives the GM potential plot hooks and complications to throw at their characters, which can be valuable in and of itself. Giving a player a few BP and some extra nuyen in exchange for a hook like that can be well worth the trade sometimes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.