Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Making a 4e Character: Optimization & Avoiding Traps
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 19 2014, 10:24 PM) *
Guns are easy. Holdouts? Cavalier Scout. Light Pistols? Why bother? Heavy Pistols? Predator Machine pistol? Ares Crusader SMG? MP5TX Taser? Defiance EX Shocker AR? Ares Alpha Anything Heavier? Shave your mohawk, you look like a wanker.


Not as easy as you make it out to be. And I PREFER Light Pistols (Ares Light Fire or Hammerli 620) over the Heavy every time and twice on Sunday. smile.gif
psychophipps
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 20 2014, 09:23 AM) *
And I PREFER Light Pistols (Ares Light Fire or Hammerli 620) over the Heavy every time and twice on Sunday. smile.gif


That's OK. You're allowed to be wrong. wink.gif
Stingray
..myself i prefer Heavy pistols, but if selecting Light pistol, it would be Colt America L36 ( w/ light modifications)..
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 20 2014, 07:32 AM) *
That's OK. You're allowed to be wrong. wink.gif


If lovin' the Hammerli is Wrong, I don't wanna be Right. cool.gif
Shortstraw
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 21 2014, 12:14 AM) *
And yet if you do not pay off the Quality, the GM can mess with you in ways to make you do so, by either continuing to have you on the ropes with whomever loaned you the money in the first place, or replacing it with Qualities of equal value that will cause you grief in the future. Want to avoid that, then you pay off the quality. By RAW. smile.gif

Paying off the Money does not relieve you of the necessity of buying off the Quality. You choose not to do so, and you suffer the Consequences. Again, By RAW.

By RAW the quality does nothing after you pay off the money. Messing with the character is like having a sunbeam bounce off a side mirror onto the rear view mirror and thus sunburning an albino rigger - it's a dick move not good GMing.

toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 20 2014, 10:14 PM) *
And yet if you do not pay off the Quality, the GM can mess with you in ways to make you do so, by either continuing to have you on the ropes with whomever loaned you the money in the first place, or replacing it with Qualities of equal value that will cause you grief in the future. Want to avoid that, then you pay off the quality. By RAW. smile.gif

Paying off the Money does not relieve you of the necessity of buying off the Quality. You choose not to do so, and you suffer the Consequences. Again, By RAW.

No, by RAW, all the GM can do is make the character pay a percentage owed. Paying off the Money does not relieve you of the necessity of buying off the Quality. You choose not to do so, and you suffer the consequences, of which is nothing if you owe nothing.
Mantis
I wouldn't say nothing can happen. After all, you don't owe this to a bank. You owe it to some underworld figure or loan shark, who has leg breakers on hand. They don't want you to pay off the debt. It is a source of income to them and they don't have to worry about the law, unlike a bank (sure, sure, I'm being an idealist here regarding banks. wink.gif ). I could certainly see a GM giving the character some other flaw if they've paid the debt down but not bought it off with karma and show no signs of doing so in the future. Is that a dick move? Maybe but it is also within GM purview.
X-Kalibur
"But I already paid what I owed you last month!"

"You show Boris receipt, yah?"

"... oh."
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 20 2014, 07:54 AM) *
No, by RAW, all the GM can do is make the character pay a percentage owed. Paying off the Money does not relieve you of the necessity of buying off the Quality. You choose not to do so, and you suffer the consequences, of which is nothing if you owe nothing.


Which is wrong on so many levels. But then, that has always been your stance. Which is why I would never let you take the Quality in one of my games. smile.gif

GM's are free to assign qualities on their own recognizance, and if a player refuses to pay the Quality off (not an issue at our table since debt and quality are reduced simultaneously), I would either withhold Karma until it is paid off, or would assign the character equal value qualities that they would likely hate until they removed THOSE qualities. Works either way for me. smile.gif
Jaid
funny, I could've swore there was an entire sub-heading in the SR4 book about how to get rid of qualities.

it talks about how you should have to resolve it in-game by your character's actions, and then mentions that if you want to actually get rid of the negative quality, you either have to take an appropriate (and equal value) replacement, or you have to pay the karma.

you got character building resources for it, you pay character building resources for it. you have to pay karma for the same reason you were rewarded with BP.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 20 2014, 11:58 AM) *
funny, I could've swore there was an entire sub-heading in the SR4 book about how to get rid of qualities.

it talks about how you should have to resolve it in-game by your character's actions, and then mentions that if you want to actually get rid of the negative quality, you either have to take an appropriate (and equal value) replacement, or you have to pay the karma.

you got character building resources for it, you pay character building resources for it. you have to pay karma for the same reason you were rewarded with BP.


Indeed, but apparently Toturi chooses to ignore that section. smile.gif
psychophipps
All joking aside, I have had characters with light pistols, it's just a waste for most characters with roughly-equivalent ammunition capacity, higher damage, built-in AP, and the increased range of a Heavy Pistol. Rickson used a custom MAD-proof light pistol with a 20-round capacity and integral suppressor aptly named "Hush Puppy", as an example.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 21 2014, 03:57 AM) *
Indeed, but apparently Toturi chooses to ignore that section. smile.gif

I am not.

The character never gets rid of the Negative Quality and thus that section does not apply. He simply pays off the debt as per the specific rules in In-Debt.
Glyph
In debt gets singled out, but there are plenty of qualities that can be abused that way if the GM is permissive. Unusual hair and extravagant eyes from SURGE? Fortunately, I shave my head, and the contacts I use for my smartlink are tinted ones that make my eyes look brown. Day job? Yeah, I never show up for it. Dependent? I put him in a rest home. Many GMs, though, will rule that if you have negated the disadvantages of the flaw, it is no longer a flaw and has to be paid of with Karma. Not like the player has a choice, either, since the GM can just dock points from the Karma he hands out until the flaw is gone.

The section on negative qualities pretty much says the character needs to work through getting rid of the negative quality, before being allowed to buy it off. If you could just do the first, alone, with no repercussions, then why would anyone bother paying off a negative quality?

In other ways, though, I disagree with the RAW, which says the GM can assign negative qualities or remove positive ones, without reimbursing the player with karma for the former, or giving the player a "refund" for the latter.
SpellBinder
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 20 2014, 06:50 PM) *
I am not.

The character never gets rid of the Negative Quality and thus that section does not apply. He simply pays off the debt as per the specific rules in In-Debt.
Okay, you think you pay off your debt without paying the karma to get rid of the negative quality, so the loan shark you thought was paid off comes up with some simple reasons as to why you still owe money, like "There was a 55% processing fee with your last payment, so you still owe me money." or "I got your payment fifteen minutes late, so there's a late charge and compounded hourly interest, so you still owe me money."
CaptRory
Rule 0: The GM can do whatever he wants.
Rule 0a: If the GM is too much of a jerk he won't have players anymore.

I wrote this Gentleman's Agreement up some time ago for a Pathfinder Game I was running. It is general enough it would work with any game just by changing a couple references around.

Good communication solves SOOOO MANY problems, and so many people, myself included, find it really hard to communicate well for one reason or another.
Shortstraw
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Jun 21 2014, 12:10 PM) *
Okay, you think you pay off your debt without paying the karma to get rid of the negative quality, so the loan shark you thought was paid off comes up with some simple reasons as to why you still owe money, like "There was a 55% processing fee with your last payment, so you still owe me money." or "I got your payment fifteen minutes late, so there's a late charge and compounded hourly interest, so you still owe me money."

Which, once again, has nothing to do with RAW.
toturi
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Jun 21 2014, 10:10 AM) *
Okay, you think you pay off your debt without paying the karma to get rid of the negative quality, so the loan shark you thought was paid off comes up with some simple reasons as to why you still owe money, like "There was a 55% processing fee with your last payment, so you still owe me money." or "I got your payment fifteen minutes late, so there's a late charge and compounded hourly interest, so you still owe me money."

"Oh no. There was a -200% processing fee with my last payment, so now you owe me money. And since you were fifteen minutes early, there is an early charge and compounded secondly interest, now you owe me money that I owed you. If you wish to dispute that, I can introduce you to Bubba and Mungo."

You do not get rid of the negative quality. You still have it. It just does nothing.
Jaid
aaaaaand here we have exactly why i pointed out in-debt as a problem. you get people trying to rules-lawyer their way out of it (and seriously, i hate that kind of behaviour, it gives rules-lawyers a bad name: it's possible to know the rules really well *without* trying to shamelessly abuse them, but nobody remembers the people who just know where to look for obscure rules in the book, they only know the people who try to twist every last word of text to their advantage).

in debt follows the standard rules for negative qualities. you cover the role-playing reason you get rid of the flaw, then you pay the karma cost for getting rid of the quality. the only difference is that in debt tells you what the appropriate role-playing reason for getting rid of the quality is; you paid the money you owe.
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (CaptRory @ Jun 20 2014, 07:15 PM) *
Rule 0: The GM can do whatever he wants.
Rule 0a: If the GM is too much of a jerk he won't have players anymore.

I wrote this Gentleman's Agreement up some time ago for a Pathfinder Game I was running. It is general enough it would work with any game just by changing a couple references around.

Good communication solves SOOOO MANY problems, and so many people, myself included, find it really hard to communicate well for one reason or another.


That's great and all but the real question is... is that a Mr. Saturn with a battle axe?
Shemhazai
Starting resources cost BP. If we were to house rule a negative quality that allows a few more BP in exchange for in-game nuyen (without paying back double in karma), what would be appropriate amounts? Double the BP for resources rate? Four times? Eight times? Payments in perpetuity? What amount of nuyen would be sufficient to prevent this from being seen as abusive? You could also throw in complications if the character can't pay on time.
Glyph
I could see it as a zero-point quality, as some have suggested. Get extra starting money, but you have to pay it back later with interest. I could also see it as a negative quality, giving you debt to pay off (but not the actual money) in exchange for build points. But if the negative quality gives you money and build points, you should need to pay off the interest (to balance the extra starting money) and karma (to balance getting build points).

To bring it back to optimization - if the GM is lenient and lets you pay the debt off without requiring karma as well to be rid of it, it is a no-brainer to take the flaw, unless it is a very cash-poor campaign where you will actually have problems making the payments. Otherwise, I would say it is worth it if you vitally need the extra money for your character concept, but is not worth the trouble otherwise. And if it is one of your GM's pet peeves, by all means avoid it. It falls in the category of flaws such as amnesia or day job, in that they can give good roleplaying hooks, but if the GM is vindictive, they offer plenty of ways to make the character's life unpleasant.
Shemhazai
Thanks. I'm thinking about something a little different: A negative flaw that gives some BP but stipulates that you have to pay back nuyen or else face consequenses. The amount of money to pay back would be substantial, and possibly be in the form of making payments for life.

EDIT: I missed that Glyph covered this possibiliy. I'd like to know what BP/nuyen amounts people think would be fair.
Shortstraw
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 21 2014, 01:03 PM) *
aaaaaand here we have exactly why i pointed out in-debt as a problem. you get people trying to rules-lawyer their way out of it (and seriously, i hate that kind of behaviour, it gives rules-lawyers a bad name: it's possible to know the rules really well *without* trying to shamelessly abuse them, but nobody remembers the people who just know where to look for obscure rules in the book, they only know the people who try to twist every last word of text to their advantage).

in debt follows the standard rules for negative qualities. you cover the role-playing reason you get rid of the flaw, then you pay the karma cost for getting rid of the quality. the only difference is that in debt tells you what the appropriate role-playing reason for getting rid of the quality is; you paid the money you owe.

Should a character get repeated concussions for taking Impaired Attribute (Logic) if they leave their logic at 2?
Elfenlied
Can we please stop all the derailing discussions and focus on the topic at hand, which is about optimizing characters?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Elfenlied @ Jun 21 2014, 04:17 AM) *
Can we please stop all the derailing discussions and focus on the topic at hand, which is about optimizing characters?


The Task at hand is optimization, and sadly (as you can see) some (maybe many) choose to optimize in the deep dark depths of rules lawyering (even when they know it is cheese monkey rules lawyering). It is sad, really.

Fortunately, many of the issues we see here (potentially ALL the issues) can be reconciled with Conversation before games commence to remove the ambiguity that the Rules Lawyers try to bring to the Table.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 21 2014, 11:26 PM) *
The Task at hand is optimization, and sadly (as you can see) some (maybe many) choose to optimize in the deep dark depths of rules lawyering (even when they know it is cheese monkey rules lawyering). It is sad, really.

Fortunately, many of the issues we see here (potentially ALL the issues) can be reconciled with Conversation before games commence to remove the ambiguity that the Rules Lawyers try to bring to the Table.

Sadly, Roleplayers try to bring ambiguity back to the table by pointing to "intent" and label other people who disagreed with them as cheese monkeys. Then turn around by saying that all such issues can be reconciled with "conversation" when what they really mean is to reconcile such issues their way and their interpretation.

Rules Lawyers remove ambiguity from the table. Rules and rules lawyers do not take sides. If the language of the rules is ambiguous, then Rule Lawyers will point it out; but if the phrasing is clear and unambiguous, then Rule Lawyers will say so as well. Rules Lawyers state facts and when multiple conclusions may be drawn, make clear distinction between the facts and their opinion, unlike Roleplayers.
psychophipps
To be honest, I see it as a bit of both. It's pretty obvious that the real cost of the negative merit can be summed up as "Vinny and Guido are here to collect". That said, they will be off your back for the most part once you pay them off. Of course, once they have done such a gracious favor for you as to give you an unsecured loan, you will be more than happy to return the favor within the limits of your skill set (hopefully) at a later date. It's only polite. This strong tendency for "favor swapping" is what is implied by the negative trait by my reading.

To be honest, I see it as a great character concept builder. Taking it "cause...y'know...money" is a great way to have a pissed off player when you put the screws to them later.
CaptRory
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Jun 21 2014, 01:37 AM) *
That's great and all but the real question is... is that a Mr. Saturn with a battle axe?


Yup! grinbig.gif
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 21 2014, 08:46 AM) *
Sadly, Roleplayers try to bring ambiguity back to the table by pointing to "intent" and label other people who disagreed with them as cheese monkeys. Then turn around by saying that all such issues can be reconciled with "conversation" when what they really mean is to reconcile such issues their way and their interpretation.

Rules Lawyers remove ambiguity from the table. Rules and rules lawyers do not take sides. If the language of the rules is ambiguous, then Rule Lawyers will point it out; but if the phrasing is clear and unambiguous, then Rule Lawyers will say so as well. Rules Lawyers state facts and when multiple conclusions may be drawn, make clear distinction between the facts and their opinion, unlike Roleplayers.


And at your table, I will be free to take NQ's that have absolutely no bite to them at all so as to insure maximum lethality and optimization. Just know at my table you will not be allowed to perform such shenanigans. *shrug*

While you may find such shenanigans fun and enjoyable, I find that they are tedious and tend to suck the life out of the game.
Also Notice - Not once did I say anything about Roleplaying trumping Optimization... That is your Hangup, not mine.

Here is what the Book says about the situation...

QUOTE (SR4 Anniversary Edition)
Negative Qualities

If the gamemaster approves, a character can work off a negative quality by undertaking severe changes as appropriate to the quality. For example, a character with an Addiction quality must work hard to kick the habit, resisting the temptation to relapse for a significant period (chosen by the gamemaster). If the gamemaster feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow that character to pay twice the quality’s BP cost to remove it.


So, If you want to be a Strict Rules Lawyer, you MUST admit that if the GM says you cannot resolve the NQ, then you DON'T GET TO RESOLVE IT. EVER!
The GM does not have to allow you to pay off your Debt... All that extra Money you think you are paying to resolve that debt is just a bonus to the organization you owe money to. They will never let you off the hook, if that is what the GM wants.
Jaid
QUOTE (Shortstraw @ Jun 21 2014, 05:00 AM) *
Should a character get repeated concussions for taking Impaired Attribute (Logic) if they leave their logic at 2?


no, for a couple of reasons:

1) they haven't removed the drawback. they're not suffering from it presently, and I personally as a GM wouldn't be particularly inclined to allow that NQ on a character with no compelling reason to ever raise their logic above 2, but the drawback (they can't raise their attribute beyond a certain point) is still present. if they were to try and justify that the penalty should be removed, *then* I would expect them to be willing to pay the karma to get rid of the quality.

2) I'm not advocating that rocks fall on a person who tries to pay off their debt without getting rid of the quality. I'm advocating that if they get rid of the quality, they have to pay the cost of getting rid of the quality.

if you take a negative quality and your plan from the get-go is to get rid of it, expect to pay the karma to get rid of it. if you're not willing to pay the karma to get rid of the quality, then don't expect the quality to go away.

I apply this to any negative quality. alternately, I would also be willing to offer a player the chance to pick up other negative qualities in place of their current ones, after they've done the required roleplaying. so, for example, you might be able pay off your debt, and then discover that the person hates you and the only reason they weren't actively trying to hurt or kill you is that it would mean they wouldn't get their money back... so now you've paid off the cash portion of the debt, you've got an enemy. or, perhaps you got rid of your debt by taking a day job. and so on. I would allow that in place of paying the appropriate karma amount, if the player wants.

but honestly, if I'm going to let someone just pay the quality off without paying karma, then I may as well just give some free BP to people that aren't harmed by a given quality, and not bother tracking the quality in the first place.

anyways, as far as qualities, one thing I've generally found is that negative qualities get worse at a much faster rate than their points value would suggest. generally speaking, a 30 point NQ is not nearly as forgiving as a pair of 15 point NQs, which in turn are not as forgiving as three 5 point NQs. just about anything above 15 points is likely to be extremely unpleasant. at 20 points, you're probably looking at a crippling flaw that will make your character incapable of accomplishing basic tasks unless they spend more BP than the NQ grants just to function below the most basic level of the task the NQ penalizes. the only exceptions are qualities that scale their costs, and even then it's pretty dubious... but at least maxed out gremlins isn't remotely as bad as taking, say, uneducated, even though it can be very nasty (for example, with gremlins 5, you're looking at a dice pool of 13 before you can roll a single 1 and not glitch... but if you roll the statistically likely number, you'll still glitch every time you use tech with 13 dice). from a min/max perspective, look for multiple small negative qualities to fill out your quota. there are exceptions, though (and whatever you do, don't be an aspected magician; if you want to be an aspected summoner, just take incompetence in all three spellcasting skills).

also, the flip side is generally also true; the most valuable positive qualities, point-for-point, are the low value ones. high value qualities are seldom worth the BP you pay to get them. for the most part, 10 points is about the cutoff in terms of where it's a good choice, with the exception of exceptional attribute. even then, most positive qualities are pretty lousy in general; from an optimization perspective, take as many low-value negative qualities as you can, and only take positive qualities at all if you expect to use them a lot, and even then consider carefully whether it's worth the cost.
CaptRory
If I had a player with a negative quality that wanted to be rid of it (Enemy, Debt, etc.) and they wanted to get rid of it I'd probably give them (and the party) the chance to run an adventure to do just that. Doesn't make much sense for say, Allergies, but you could easily have the players go put the boots to the guy you owe a debt to or setting out to kill the Enemy or Organization once and for all, and the player with the negative quality doesn't earn Karma for that adventure which is where the payoff comes from.
Glyph
Good advice, Jaid. Also, for negative qualities, it is usually better not to get a negative quality that will never come into play - that only draws GM ire. Instead, get negative qualities that rarely come up, or are mildly inconvenient (moderate allergy to silver, scorched, weak immune system, etc.). That, or lateral limiters for things that you won't max out or use at all anyways (impaired Attribute for a Logic of 2, sensitive system for an awakened character, etc.). Just be sure the GM is okay with lateral limiters, or it could annoy the GM the same way the it-will-never-come-up flaws do.


Another thing about optimization: look at opportunity costs, not just flat costs. Things that are cheaper to get with karma can still be worth it, to start out with a strong character. Specializations are one thing. Sure, you can get them cheaper with karma, but you can say that for anything up to a skill of 2 with a specialization, and even a skill of 3 is not that different. Specializations at character creation are something I would recommend for two things: first, to get two extra dice for you primary specialty, and secondly, to get a cheap bonus to a peripheral but important skill. An example of the second: getting pilot ground vehicle: 1 with a specialization in wheeled for your high-Reaction street samurai. Six build points give you four more dice than you would have from defaulting.

Some things in the game are exorbitantly expensive. Starting out with a skill of 7, for example, costs 10 points for the quality and 14 points to raise the skill from 6 to 7. One point of improvement is hardly worth 24 build points! Even if you are playing the best gunman in the world, usually those points would be better spent raising Body or Reaction (I am assuming Agility would already be at least soft-maxed), or skills supporting your main specialty such as running, dodging, infiltration, or perception.
Jaid
speaking of specializations... not all specializations are exactly equal.

for example, every single pilot skill has a "remote operation" specialization. the general consensus is that this specialization is used when you operate a vehicle via a command program. for a rigger type that almost exclusively plans on using drones with the control device matrix action (which uses the command program), specializing in remote operation is basically the same as getting +2 to your skill for everything.

other good choices include the aforementioned wheeled specialization for groundcraft (for most characters), gunnery (ballistic), pistols (semiautomatics). there is also the contested software(threading) specialization, which is not one in the standard lists but could arguably be, dodge(vehicle or ranged), infiltration (vehicle or urban), computer (matrix perception), and so on;

basically, there are a lot of specializations that essentially boil down to being a +2 bonus almost every time you roll. there are also a lot of specializations that are not quite so good, and which can easily wait until later (or never).
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 22 2014, 02:44 AM) *
Also Notice - Not once did I say anything about Roleplaying trumping Optimization... That is your Hangup, not mine.

So, If you want to be a Strict Rules Lawyer, you MUST admit that if the GM says you cannot resolve the NQ, then you DON'T GET TO RESOLVE IT. EVER!
The GM does not have to allow you to pay off your Debt... All that extra Money you think you are paying to resolve that debt is just a bonus to the organization you owe money to. They will never let you off the hook, if that is what the GM wants.

I did not accuse you of saying Roleplaying trumping Optimization either. I was simply correcting your incorrect and inaccurate view of Rules Lawyers and Roleplayers. If correcting someone who I think is wrong is a hangup, then so be it.

By a strict reading of the RAW, I agree that if the GM says you cannot remove the Negative Quality, then you don't get to remove it with karma. It is true that the GM does not have to allow you to pay off your Debt with karma. It says nothing about paying off the In Debt quality via the mechanisms stated within the specifics of In Debt.
Shortstraw
Also no one ever said in debt was a well designed quality.
Jaid
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 21 2014, 08:53 PM) *
I did not accuse you of saying Roleplaying trumping Optimization either. I was simply correcting your incorrect and inaccurate view of Rules Lawyers and Roleplayers. If correcting someone who I think is wrong is a hangup, then so be it.

By a strict reading of the RAW, I agree that if the GM says you cannot remove the Negative Quality, then you don't get to remove it with karma. It is true that the GM does not have to allow you to pay off your Debt with karma. It says nothing about paying off the In Debt quality via the mechanisms stated within the specifics of In Debt.


"If the gamemaster approves, a character can work off a negative quality by undertaking severe changes as appropriate to the quality."

*if* the gamemaster approves, you can work off a negative quality. the procedure for doing this is then indicated, and culminates in the GM giving you permission to buy off the negative quality with karma once you've undertook the appropriate changes. it begins with the GM allowing you to try and do the work to get rid of the negative quality at all.

per RAW, you can't even attempt to pay off your debt until the GM approves, at which point you can start making those changes, and when the changes have been made, only then may you get rid of the quality by paying the cost in karma. not by just roleplaying the quality into nonexistence, either. there is no provision made for working off a negative quality outside of this procedure, though obviously individual GMs can do whatever they want in their own games.

you want to pay off your debt? you get GM approval first, and when you've made those changes (ie paid off the nuyen cost), you are then able to get rid of the quality if you spend the karma to do so.

the severe changes (ie paying off however many thousands of nuyen you are in debt for) are certainly much more straightforward, especially for characters that are not reliant on nuyen for character improvement, than the severe changes required for other negative qualities. but they still only constitute the first part of getting rid of the quality, just like the rules for getting rid of an addiction don't allow you to lose the addiction negative quality separate from paying the karma to get rid of your addiction negative quality.
psychophipps
QUOTE (Shortstraw @ Jun 21 2014, 08:19 PM) *
Also no one ever said in debt was a well designed quality.


^^^ this. I would add that it is very poorly written for several reasons. It's not described well enough, you don't get enough money for it, and it doesn't go the heart of the situation as it stands in the way that the underworld actually uses loan sharking. Loan Sharking and Gambling Debt is the most basic level of how criminal organizations get their meat hooks into non-criminal types. You get their ass in the hole and the loan sharks/gambling house "forgive" a part of the debt if the victim give them an "in" of some sort. They "forget" about your debt while they work with you, you think you're cool, and then they basically puts the screws to your ass to where you get to choose between going far enough to potentially get tossed in prison or getting dead because they've been remembering the compounded interest you've been thinking was getting taken care of...oops?

5 points means you will very likely eventually get out and they'll send some leg breakers if you fuck around. 10 points means that they'll be pretty damn serious about the whole thing and you're probably screwed unless you are a real mover and shaker. 15+ points means it's pretty much your ass. Some idiot player goes for the gusto with me at 30 points and their character is fucked. The sharks have some serious leverage on the character and the character has the cold hard knowledge that the sharks have the character's balls in a vise and the sharks hold the crank. They call, you haul. No questions...EVER.
toturi
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 22 2014, 10:22 AM) *
per RAW, you can't even attempt to pay off your debt until the GM approves, at which point you can start making those changes, and when the changes have been made, only then may you get rid of the quality by paying the cost in karma.
...
there is no provision made for working off a negative quality outside of this procedure, though obviously individual GMs can do whatever they want in their own games.

No, he cannot pay off the debt until the GM approves if he is using that rule to buy the NQ off.

But if he is not going to buy the NQ off, In Debt makes the provision of reducing the amount of money owed, as long as he does not buy the NQ off.

I can see how someone can conflate both the general rule of working off an NQ and the specifics of paying off the capital owed from In-Debt.

Per RAW, I see 3 options to characters with In-Debt

1) They pay off the capital owed, but they still have the NQ on their character sheet albeit with a capital owed of 0. (using the RAW from In-Debt, and since they are not buying the NQ off the quoted rule from above does not apply)

2i) They pay off In-Debt with karma. As per RAW, how the GM chooses to allow the character to work off his Debt is up to him, it does not have to be with cash.

2ii) They pay off In-Debt with karma and cash.
Glyph
It is generally option #1 that most people would take exception to, partly because if it is allowed, it breaks down the entire mechanism for buying off flaws. If a flaw is reduced to nothing but a notation on your sheet, then why would any player bother getting the GM's permission to buy off the flaw, and spending Karma to be rid of it? Similarly, the character could simply stop showing up at his Day Job, or shoot his Dependent in the head, and so on.

Most GMs would either have consequences occur (like psychophipps said, maybe the money is paid off, but you still owe "favors" to the nice underworld types who gave you that loan), replace the flaw with one of equal value (technically RAW, since by RAW GMs can give players negative qualities whenever the hell they feel like it), or simply deduct the cost of removing the flaw prior to giving out Karma, until it is paid off.


To bring it back to optimization: shenanigans like this are usually a bad idea. Any transitory advantage you might gain will usually be offset by the wrath of the offended GM. Metagaming has its place, especially during character creation (avoiding trap options or poor choices such as the adrenal pump), but trying to get around the rules will rarely end well for any of the parties involved.
KarmaInferno
Generally, if a player did not want to pay off the karma for the negative quality, and the quality is having no mechanical effect any longer, I would have the NQ change to a different one of the same value. I might even let the player have input on what the new NQ will be.

NQs should always have some negative effect unless paid off in karma.

Many loan sharks can come up with all sorts of reasons why a particular loan isn't REALLY paid off, in any case. A paid off loan represents a loss of income, after all.


-k
Shortstraw
Well I tried to end it... So how 'bout that rain forest carbine?
Jaid
QUOTE (toturi @ Jun 21 2014, 10:06 PM) *
No, he cannot pay off the debt until the GM approves if he is using that rule to buy the NQ off.

But if he is not going to buy the NQ off, In Debt makes the provision of reducing the amount of money owed, as long as he does not buy the NQ off.

I can see how someone can conflate both the general rule of working off an NQ and the specifics of paying off the capital owed from In-Debt.

Per RAW, I see 3 options to characters with In-Debt

1) They pay off the capital owed, but they still have the NQ on their character sheet albeit with a capital owed of 0. (using the RAW from In-Debt, and since they are not buying the NQ off the quoted rule from above does not apply)

2i) They pay off In-Debt with karma. As per RAW, how the GM chooses to allow the character to work off his Debt is up to him, it does not have to be with cash.

2ii) They pay off In-Debt with karma and cash.


that's funny, I don't remember the quality saying "by the way, this completely bypasses the usual rules for getting rid of a negative quality" anywhere in the description.

the quality tells you what the "severe change" you need to make is. that is the only difference between it and, say, gremlins.
CaptRory
One funny thing I noticed, moving from untrained to having one rank in a skill actually gives you +2 dice. An untrained check just uses your stat and penalizes your dice pool, while having one rank erases the penalty and gives you a die for a rank. Moving from -1 to +1 is a difference of two dice.
psychophipps
To be honest, I'm several magnitudes more excited about an interesting character than I am about an optimized character. I'm at the gaming table to tell a collective story with my friends, not to "win". Optimization ( ie finding little loopholes in the system to become more "powerful') is often found in characters with a "win" focus and this, in my own overbearing, opinionated wanker ™ experience, most often leads to rather uninteresting characters or players that turn into whiny bitches when the negative traits they have taken turn out to be real negatives rather than just another stepping stone for more kicking proverbial ass in the character's chosen gimmick.
CaptRory
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 22 2014, 01:23 PM) *
To be honest, I'm several magnitudes more excited about an interesting character than I am about an optimized character. I'm at the gaming table to tell a collective story with my friends, not to "win". Optimization ( ie finding little loopholes in the system to become more "powerful') is often found in characters with a "win" focus and this, in my own overbearing, opinionated wanker ™ experience, most often leads to rather uninteresting characters or players that turn into whiny bitches when the negative traits they have taken turn out to be real negatives rather than just another stepping stone for more kicking proverbial ass in the character's chosen gimmick.


Not entirely.

As I pointed out in the original post, anything can be optimized. A great character concept executed poorly isn't going to be any fun.

Let me use a system I'm more familiar in for an example,

You could take a weaker class and weaker concept like a Ranger dual wielding a quarterstaff, which in an ordinary game would mostly result in getting your arse kicked, and then find the best way to execute the concept so you're not a drain on the party and can fulfill your role.


Optimization: Taking a concept and executing it in the strongest way possible.

Min/Maxing is more or less the same thing, though often with more emphasis on overall strength in a system than a given concept but again anything can be min/maxed.

Munchkin: A trollish gamer who aims to "win" at all costs and often takes perverse joy in ruining the fun of others. He is not above cheating to achieve his goals.

Optimizers and Min/Maxers enjoy making strong characters or simply don't want to play an underpowered character (I don't like playing an underpowered character because I don't want to be a drain on the party) but we don't by default want to ruin the fun of other players, wreck games, or lie and cheat. Munchkins can be Min/Maxers and Optimizers but most Min/Maxers and Optimizers are not Munchkins.

Example, in my Magical Girl Game, the Big Eyes Small Mouth 2e system is so easy to break you can do it by accident. Wendy and I are very careful to pick effective choices for our characters but only things in character. We work with the GM to make sure everything makes sense for our characters and the setting and won't break the game. I'm trying to make the best character I can within the narrow restrictions I have set for myself even before the group more or less agreed to do that.


Munchkins really tarnish the image of optimizers in general. We don't want to sit at the table bored at best or at worst dragging all the other players down with us as they have to spend resources bailing our lame arses out. For me, I have a deep seated need to do things "the right way", I can balm it by at least avoiding the more obvious traps in a game system, if I can do that then I don't need to go crazy making something game breaking because I know my character will at least be competent.

We like digging into the nuts and bolts of the rules. That's half the fun for us. That doesn't mean we don't want to roleplay or making interesting characters or what have you.
Mantis
QUOTE (CaptRory @ Jun 22 2014, 10:22 AM) *
One funny thing I noticed, moving from untrained to having one rank in a skill actually gives you +2 dice. An untrained check just uses your stat and penalizes your dice pool, while having one rank erases the penalty and gives you a die for a rank. Moving from -1 to +1 is a difference of two dice.

I think this is good as it shows what a difference some actual training can make over just raw talent (high attribute defaulting). It also encourages you to get 1 rank in a skill you may otherwise just default on since it gives not 1 but 2 dice.
CaptRory
QUOTE (Mantis @ Jun 22 2014, 02:01 PM) *
I think this is good as it shows what a difference some actual training can make over just raw talent (high attribute defaulting). It also encourages you to get 1 rank in a skill you may otherwise just default on since it gives not 1 but 2 dice.


That's a good point. I've been putting together a character a I've been learning the system. I've grabbed a number of skills at one rank because it makes sense for him to have been trained (even if he's let those skills lapse) or because they'd be likely to come up with ome regularity and having the extra two dice might be important.
Glyph
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 22 2014, 10:23 AM) *
To be honest, I'm several magnitudes more excited about an interesting character than I am about an optimized character. I'm at the gaming table to tell a collective story with my friends, not to "win". Optimization ( ie finding little loopholes in the system to become more "powerful') is often found in characters with a "win" focus and this, in my own overbearing, opinionated wanker ™ experience, most often leads to rather uninteresting characters or players that turn into whiny bitches when the negative traits they have taken turn out to be real negatives rather than just another stepping stone for more kicking proverbial ass in the character's chosen gimmick.

Optimization really isn't "finding little loopholes in the system". A lot of us have been advocating against rules-wankery in this thread. To me, getting a ranged skill at 6, a specialization, a smartlink, and a reflex recorder is simply making logical choices for someone who is a sharpshooter by trade. Stuff like trying to argue that a skill of 7 with the aptitude quality still means you can take two skills at 5, because the rules only say one at 6 or two at 5, and don't mention 7's; or trying to stack two sets of FFBA; or trying to get gel packs on each piece of PPP - that is trying to exploit (or make) loopholes, and is not optimization, but poor gaming.
psychophipps
QUOTE (Glyph @ Jun 22 2014, 01:40 PM) *
Optimization really isn't "finding little loopholes in the system". A lot of us have been advocating against rules-wankery in this thread. To me, getting a ranged skill at 6, a specialization, a smartlink, and a reflex recorder is simply making logical choices for someone who is a sharpshooter by trade. Stuff like trying to argue that a skill of 7 with the aptitude quality still means you can take two skills at 5, because the rules only say one at 6 or two at 5, and don't mention 7's; or trying to stack two sets of FFBA; or trying to get gel packs on each piece of PPP - that is trying to exploit (or make) loopholes, and is not optimization, but poor gaming.


This is another place where I disconnect from many SR players. I see dicepools of 10+ without gear (talking about 4th Ed scales here) as suddenly changing to the question to "What in the hell is your character doing Shadowrunning?" We're getting into some serious regional/world class skillsets here. These guys would be very well paid to train other people or be on retainers as troubleshooters for major corporations or governmental agencies. For weapons skills, we're talking Tier 1 Spec-Ops and professional shooting competitors (with the 1,000+ rounds a week to maintain their skills). For athletics we're at professional athletes. Drivers are professional drivers on the NASCAR circuit at this phase as well. Professional skills are regional experts, top-notch practioners that consult for ridiculous fees.

Where does risking your ass daily for peanuts doing illegal activities come into the equation when you can do it legitimately for more money and less risk?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012