Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Sacredsouless on <12-15-12/0434:08>
-
So I'm wondering just how negative do you consider this one to be? I'm drawing up a character who got pushed into shadowrunning due to excessive gambling debt, like enough that I actually considered just giving him the Borrowed Time quality instead. And in the How Much Per Job? (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=9475.15) thread it was sounding like average pay would take my dude only a few runs, or just one big one, to pull in all the money needed to pay off the In Debt quality, even at maximum (30,000 nuyen).
-
Well, you do have expenses in there, as well as interest that accrues monthly, so it'll still take a while to pay off entirely. Certainly long enough to be interesting.
Plus, many GMs will force you to pay Karma to actually be rid of all the complications.
-
Typically I assume that until you pay the Karma off the loathsome loanshark you owe the 30K to is still expecting you to pay. Otherwise, it wouldn't be balanced compared to other negative qualities. Think of this as the debt Han Solo owes Jabba. It's about more than just money.
-
Yeah, I can see that. Plus I'm thinking to make it so the debt was incurred getting some nice implants that would help the character when playing poker (and also "luckily" as a face), that way I owe not only money to the loaner but probably a bit "extra" for the effort of getting me good bioware. I'm gonna toss up the sheet here in a bit for perusal.
-
I generally assume JAD has it on the money (pun intended) for this one - or your GM simply replaces the karmic debt with new negative qualities as you pay off the debt in increments.
So on a 30k loan / 45k debt; by paying off 7500 (plus interest) nuyen, your GM now has 5bp they can put towards a new negative quality for your character.
-
I took this one recently for my latest spellslinger. 30k from the russian mob for his chinese junk (modded spitzen). I look forward to how the mob deals with him, as he has no intention of paying them back. Oh you can bet he's going to have watchers posted.
-
My ghoul adept is in debt with Tamanous, gives me an excuse to have the Infected Lifestyle.
-
I think in debt can be a roleplay fun getting the karma and cash.
My view is that in debt both need a cash as karma payment.
i agree with kat9 that it can be a background builder.
1.personal favorite with dependt 5 or 10 getting someone back
2.Bio or cyberware
3.Gambling needx a rule addiction and media junkie just don't makes it.
-
I don't know, I think Addiction pretty much covers it. You get a +1 notoriety for having the addiction, you have to gamble X hours a week. Like any drug there's a chance that it could get worse the more you do it.
-
Part of roleplaying is playing your negative qualities. If you are in debt, chances are you are in debt for a reason. You gamble, have a huge family, etc, etc. So when money comes in, chances are all you can afford is the interest, because you blew the rest on lifestyle, gear, etc. The only way to be able to pay off the principle is to pay the karma. Think about it this way: if your character had such great impulse control that he could live the low life while sending thousands of nuyen to someone else, would he be in this mess to begin with? The mob (or whoever else you owe the money to) is happy to collect interest every month till the end of time.
Of course there are ways to get out early. You could pick up quadriplegic after you don't pay and the mob breaks your back. There are all kinds of nasty things to replace the points. Heck, you could even pay them off in such a fashion (since they'll take it after they rough you up).
In short, most negative qualities aren't expected to go away over any short period of time. They are part of what makes the characters interesting and provide potential plot hooks to GM's. Try to change your focus off of eliminating qualities and onto playing them up.
-
A ganbling addiction can be covered that way.
I was just looking at the addiction qualitie in the rulebook only substances and btl are named there.
Two things keep nagging me.
Gambling and the overdose
and the winning and losing
GM's own rules on addiction apply,
This may keep me thinking about this for a while.
and maybe starting a topic on it some day.
-
While I see the logic for paying karma to remove the "In Debt" quality, I think it should only cost money, otherwise it makes no sense. Jacks owes Jim 30k and manages to pay him back after 4 months. That should be the end of it in my opinion. The GM can impose problems as he pleases. One example could be the concerned party asks for interest. But I don't think there should be interest in all cases.
Once again, I see the logic, but I'd make an exception for this quality only. You owe money, you pay it back... the end :P To be honest, while this is a fun quality I don't think it fits the Shadowrun system that well.
-
While I see the logic for paying karma to remove the "In Debt" quality, I think it should only cost money, otherwise it makes no sense. Jacks owes Jim 30k and manages to pay him back after 4 months. That should be the end of it in my opinion. The GM can impose problems as he pleases. One example could be the concerned party asks for interest. But I don't think there should be interest in all cases.
Once again, I see the logic, but I'd make an exception for this quality only. You owe money, you pay it back... the end :P To be honest, while this is a fun quality I don't think it fits the Shadowrun system that well.
unless the mafia demand that the runner start working for them as well as part of paying off the debt? :-)
-
While I see the logic for paying karma to remove the "In Debt" quality, I think it should only cost money, otherwise it makes no sense. Jacks owes Jim 30k and manages to pay him back after 4 months. That should be the end of it in my opinion. The GM can impose problems as he pleases. One example could be the concerned party asks for interest. But I don't think there should be interest in all cases.
Once again, I see the logic, but I'd make an exception for this quality only. You owe money, you pay it back... the end :P To be honest, while this is a fun quality I don't think it fits the Shadowrun system that well.
See that was my concern too. My image for this character is a dude so ridden by debt that he is forced to the shadows because he has lost everything else gambling and paying off those debts. Eventually takes out a big time loan (with a loan shard, mafioso, etc) so he can finally score the big one and pay everything off, but instead blows it and loses everything. Now he gets monitored by the loaner and has to work his tail off trying to raise the cash for a debt that he will never be able to pay off (without some monumental windfall happening at least). That was why I considered getting the Borrowed Time instead of In Debt because that would represent that he only has a few months to get the cash before the loaner gets sick of him and just offs the dude rather than trying to squeeze money out of him.
Oh, and the interest idea was one I didn't consider, don't know why....anyway, that will make it even harder to pay off my debts. Especially since the preferred way to earn money is, guess it, gambling.
-
While I see the logic for paying karma to remove the "In Debt" quality, I think it should only cost money, otherwise it makes no sense. Jacks owes Jim 30k and manages to pay him back after 4 months. That should be the end of it in my opinion. The GM can impose problems as he pleases. One example could be the concerned party asks for interest. But I don't think there should be interest in all cases.
Once again, I see the logic, but I'd make an exception for this quality only. You owe money, you pay it back... the end :P To be honest, while this is a fun quality I don't think it fits the Shadowrun system that well.
You know, every time I see a new player come in with In Debt I sort of laugh to myself. I know they took it thinking, "I just pay cash and this is like free points." Why should In Debt be free points for just paying off in game cash? I took Day Job at 40 hours a week. OK I quit my job! Free points, yey! I took Wanted, I bought a biosculpting, now they don't know what I look like. Free points, yey! I took Borrowed Time, that player is playing a vampire. He infected me. Free points, yey!
So by your logic, really a lot of major point negative qualities could be resolved without much effort. If they get a 'free pass' then why should anyone have to pay karma to 'pay off' the extra build points in chargen?
-
You know, every time I see a new player come in with In Debt I sort of laugh to myself. I know they took it thinking, "I just pay cash and this is like free points." Why should In Debt be free points for just paying off in game cash? I took Day Job at 40 hours a week. OK I quit my job! Free points, yey! I took Wanted, I bought a biosculpting, now they don't know what I look like. Free points, yey! I took Borrowed Time, that player is playing a vampire. He infected me. Free points, yey!
So by your logic, really a lot of major point negative qualities could be resolved without much effort. If they get a 'free pass' then why should anyone have to pay karma to 'pay off' the extra build points in chargen?
Go read Borrowed Time again. It says that it cannot be bought off with Karma. Period, and that if the player doesn't want the character to die, it requires the PC to burn his entire Edge attribute to survive... and even then that's at GM's Discretion.
Not to mention that, just because they've been Biosculpted, the bounty doesn't go away. If the GM can't find a way to make it stick even after the evasion tactics, they're not trying hard enough.
--- --- ---
Now, hyperbole aside, there are certain other Qualities that are capable of being "fixed" in game that specifically state that they must be paid off with Karma if they're corrected via roleplay... things such as High-Maintenance Implant if the implant is removed, or Nano-Intolerance if you get a Nanohive. Since there is a specific call-out on these qualities, but not on others such as In Debt, the logical conclusion is that Qualities without that call-out do not require Karma to be mitigated. The Quality would stay on the sheet, but there would be no actual effect unless future circumstances brought the Quality back into play.
Specifically, in the case of In Debt, we have the phrase "The amount owed increases 10% each month, as compound interest. If the character is unable to pay at least the interest amount each month..." which very strongly implies they can pay against the principle. There's also no mention of having to pay Karma to do so.
If they pay the principle down to 0 the Negative Quality stays on their sheet, but there's nothing left to compound... 10% of 0 being 0 and all... so they're essentially free and clear unless/until they go back to Vinnie The Shark and take out another loan.
--- --- ---
In short... yes. Unless otherwise stated, a character who can Roleplay their way out of a Negative Quality does, indeed, get those so-called "free points." If a GM doesn't like it, they should disallow the Qualities in question or house-rule in the Karma cost... but that's exactly what it is, a HR.
-
It would be a house rule if it weren't specifically stated on p 271 of the base book. Under the heading negative qualities.
"If the GM feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP cost to remove it."
-
It would be a house rule if it weren't specifically stated on p 271 of the base book. Under the heading negative qualities.
"If the GM feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP cost to remove it."
I don't see anything in that quote that explicitly requires a karma cost be paid. "Can Allow" does not mean an explicit requirement.
-
I'm going to assume you're being argumentative for the sake of arguing. Go read the entry. Its explicit that the optional part of the paragraph is whether the NQ can be worked off at all, not whether there's a karma cost to it when it is.
-
I'm going to assume you're being argumentative for the sake of arguing.
Thus my sig.
-
I'm going to assume you're being argumentative for the sake of arguing. Go read the entry. Its explicit that the optional part of the paragraph is whether the NQ can be worked off at all, not whether there's a karma cost to it when it is.
The quoted statement did not say that the karma cost is required, as noted below.
"If the GM feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP cost to remove it."
It can be read that the Negative Quality can be removed with only the effort to solve the problem it poses without paying a single point of karma if the GM allows (which it takes such 'GM discretion' to remove them at all).
-
Anyone else think that if a player wants to argue that per the rules it should cost no karma that the GM should simply turn around and do things like sell their loan to another person who wants even more money in interest (to the point where the player can't pay)? Being a dick is a two way street. Having amnesia so bad that you don't get to see your own character sheet is worth 25 points. So you think you should have a 30bp quality that you can pay off and waggle your fingers at to make disappear? That's just bad role playing. I know I've said it before, but if you took out a huge loan, chances are your personality is one that likes to spend nuyen. Thus it should be a struggle to get interest payments together (c'mon, you can't expect me to eat that soy crap all the time!).
-
Anyone else think that if a player wants to argue that per the rules it should cost no karma that the GM should simply turn around and do things like sell their loan to another person who wants even more money in interest (to the point where the player can't pay)? Being a dick is a two way street. Having amnesia so bad that you don't get to see your own character sheet is worth 25 points. So you think you should have a 30bp quality that you can pay off and waggle your fingers at to make disappear? That's just bad role playing. I know I've said it before, but if you took out a huge loan, chances are your personality is one that likes to spend nuyen. Thus it should be a struggle to get interest payments together (c'mon, you can't expect me to eat that soy crap all the time!).
+1
-
Anyone else think that if a player wants to argue that per the rules it should cost no karma that the GM should simply turn around and do things like sell their loan to another person who wants even more money in interest (to the point where the player can't pay)? Being a dick is a two way street. Having amnesia so bad that you don't get to see your own character sheet is worth 25 points. So you think you should have a 30bp quality that you can pay off and waggle your fingers at to make disappear? That's just bad role playing. I know I've said it before, but if you took out a huge loan, chances are your personality is one that likes to spend nuyen. Thus it should be a struggle to get interest payments together (c'mon, you can't expect me to eat that soy crap all the time!).
Honestly, this contributes nothing but causing problems. Going by the statement which was quoted, the GM can charge karma, or he can just let the Negative be removed with only the effort put into it (paying off the debt for the quality in question). No one was saying that it shouldn't cost karma if that's the 'discretion' ruling. Both are perfectly valid readings of the statement.
-
@Kat9, so you think logic should be thrown to the wind? Why would a person need to pay Karma to remove a negative quality that solely involves paying off a debt with physical currency? That makes absolutely no sense. What about all those people that take negative qualities like Incompetent First Aid, even though they never plan to use that skill. There are tons of cheesy negative qualities in this game that don't affect your character at all and you don't have to pay any Karma to remove those. In other words, In Debt has a negative impact on your character, more so than many other negative qualities, so I feel that paying off the debt should be sufficient. Once again, the GM can do whatever he wants and I wouldn't question it.
The primary difference between In Debt and most other negative qualities is it is not something that's physically part of your character. It makes a lot of sense that you'd have to pay Karma to remove Incompetent First Aid, but it makes no sense(as written) that you'd need to pay Karma to remove In Debt.
Lastly, I don't appreciate your sarcasm you bring from thread to thread. Also, posting offensive pictures when people disagree with you is very childish.
-
@Kat9, so you think logic should be thrown to the wind? Why would a person need to pay Karma to remove a negative quality that solely involves paying off a debt with physical currency? That makes absolutely no sense. What about all those people that take negative qualities like Incompetent First Aid, even though they never plan to use that skill. There are tons of cheesy negative qualities in this game that don't affect your character at all and you don't have to pay any Karma to remove those. In other words, In Debt has a negative impact on your character, more so than many other negative qualities, so I feel that paying off the debt should be sufficient. Once again, the GM can do whatever he wants and I wouldn't question it.
The primary difference between In Debt and most other negative qualities is it is not something that's physically part of your character. It makes a lot of sense that you'd have to pay Karma to remove Incompetent First Aid, but it makes no sense(as written) that you'd need to pay Karma to remove In Debt.
Lastly, I don't appreciate your sarcasm you bring from thread to thread. Also, posting offensive pictures when people disagree with you is very childish.
So why should someone get a pass for free BP and others should not? In Debt is just a money thing, sure but its also a "make your character have more stuff in chargen thing". Incompetent can be removed via roleplay, Day Job as well. Why should anyone have to pay karma to remove such things? Because it's not fair to others otherwise.
As for the personal note, mister faceless person on the internet. If you think I am being sarcastic with what I am posting, its what you're reading into it. As for the pictures, they're meant to be funny, if you don't find them funny then that's fine too. As for your opinion of me, it doesn't really matter to me what you think of me, mister faceless person on the internet.
-
So why should someone get a pass for free BP and others should not? In Debt is just a money thing, sure but its also a "make your character have more stuff in chargen thing". Incompetent can be removed via roleplay, Day Job as well. Why should anyone have to pay karma to remove such things? Because it's not fair to others otherwise.
Which is why I was just saying that it's a perfectly reasonable reading for the GM to either require the karma or not.
As for the personal note, mister faceless person on the internet. If you think I am being sarcastic with what I am posting, its what you're reading into it. As for the pictures, they're meant to be funny, if you don't find them funny then that's fine too. As for your opinion of me, it doesn't really matter to me what you think of me, mister faceless person on the internet.
This line is chock full of sarcasm, and it isn't "reading things into it". As to your pictures, no most of them are not funny, and yes most of them are highly offensive in the context you have been posting them in. Try not insulting people for a change.
-
It seems to me like characters advance in two ways: Karma and Nuyen. Some qualities are bought off with karma, some with nuyen, and some cannot be bought off at all. And such buy-offs are always at the GM's discretion. Arguing over something that is is so heavily reliant on the GM's personal opinion is silly.
Second of all, getting along in this forum is not optional, and If you showed eachother slightly more respect then you wouldn't be having a personal argument on public forums right now.
-
Second of all, getting along in this forum is not optional, and If you showed eachother slightly more respect then you wouldn't be having a personal argument on public forums right now.
Well said, so I deleted my reply to A4BG.
-
;D Glad to hear. And thank you.
I've been guilty of thinking of In Debt as free money and points at times, but the roleplayer in me almost always either deletes it or comes up with a good reason for it by the time I finish my character. I think that only inexperienced roleplayers and (usually) minmaxers will abuse the quality, but I could be wrong. If such abuse occurs, the rules are written in such a way that the GM can deal with it as he or she sees fit.
Also, on the original subject, I think that 30,000 is a lot, especially to factor into the delicate balance of chargen. If you have several runs and no serious expenses during that time, then you are doing better than you should be, perhaps. The essence of drama is conflict and that's what makes a mission entertaining; those obstacles that you come against. Rent money, gear for missions, medical bills and gear/ware damage... not to mention sometimes not getting paid for whatever reason. Go watch the first five episodes of Cowboy Bebop, then you'll get what I'm saying. Or read some of the short stories in the SR4A. If things always go your way at all times then it's not quite Shadowrun ;)
-
My experiences with 4e have been limited to two campaigns. In each one I have seen people take In Debt maxed out and say to the GM, "I'm going to pay off my debt now." Its like, "Really? Can you be more munchkin?"
-
My experiences with 4e have been limited to two campaigns. In each one I have seen people take In Debt maxed out and say to the GM, "I'm going to pay off my debt now." Its like, "Really? Can you be more munchkin?"
In that case i would talk to that GM and express my opinion in a way that doesn't question their authority. I would explain that such an abuse is bad roleplay, in my personal opinion, and that if it's used that way then there's no reason everyone shouldn't take it at chargen.
-
My experiences with 4e have been limited to two campaigns. In each one I have seen people take In Debt maxed out and say to the GM, "I'm going to pay off my debt now." Its like, "Really? Can you be more munchkin?"
In that case i would talk to that GM and express my opinion in a way that doesn't question their authority. I would explain that such an abuse is bad roleplay, in my personal opinion, and that if it's used that way then there's no reason everyone shouldn't take it at chargen.
My GMs require the BP buy offs, they can buy it off with cash, but then they need to either take another set of qualities to the sum of what they paid off, or pay the karma too.
-
My experiences with 4e have been limited to two campaigns. In each one I have seen people take In Debt maxed out and say to the GM, "I'm going to pay off my debt now." Its like, "Really? Can you be more munchkin?"
In that case i would talk to that GM and express my opinion in a way that doesn't question their authority. I would explain that such an abuse is bad roleplay, in my personal opinion, and that if it's used that way then there's no reason everyone shouldn't take it at chargen.
My GMs require the BP buy offs, they can buy it off with cash, but then they need to either take another set of qualities to the sum of what they paid off, or pay the karma too.
I guess I think that story should play a factor in it and that it shouldn't be as simple as " I pay it off" and the response "Okay."
-
In response to some earlier posts... I go by a rule from another game system that I think should apply to all games. Any disadvantage that isn't disadvantageous, is worth no points. So if you have no hands, but are the worlds best telekinetic... boo hoo. No points for your missing hands because you frankly don't need them at all. As for people who take negative qualities for things they never intend to use: the game itself has tried to curb such munchkinism in qualities like codeblock. I either would not allow you to take a quality that you never would see the bad side of, or I'd make sure the situation came up where you needed first aid, etc.
As far as being confrontational I will say this. I don't accept that any game can be played out of the box with no GM involvement (such as saying no to people trying to get away with bull crap like negative qualities which won't impact them). One major pet peave of GM's is players trying to pull one over on them. If you are going to cheat or game the system (blatantly at that), expect to shot with a disproportionally large gun or blown up in some heinous manner (if they don't just kick you out of the group to begin with).
Now I'm sure there is a community that acts as enablers for the munchkins out there. There are even games designed for them (hackmaster). I will not however be a part of that. I'm not saying its not possible to pay off the in debt quality with just nuyen (it may even be appropriate given certain circumstances), what I am saying is that should not be expected and players should not count on it (even the munchkins out there may realize that they just may not make enough money to pay off a 30,000 nuyen debt. Its a lot of money).
-
I don't want to derail this thread so I won't say much more on this, Kat9. But look, you are causing trouble again by being a jerk. I might be nameless and faceless but I at least try to hold myself to a certain standard even in an anonymous environment. When you post those "funny" pictures, your real intent is to annoy people. I don't think anyone appreciates those pictures except for you. Facts are facts, I stated my thoughts on the negative quality and you acted with no class. If you disagree with someone, you don't always need to be insulting. If there is one thing we can all learn from these forums is that is never a consensus opinion on anything in this game. RPG's are meant to be adjusted to suit the play style of the players and groups, not hard and fast rules that everyone has no choice but to follow. I think it is fairly clear that the negative quality in question is open to interpretation, as can be seen by the difference in opinion voiced by several people on either side.
Once again, feel free to address In Debt in any way you and your group(s) please. Just keep in mind that the person you're indebted to probably shouldn't be Suzy the baker. It's more likely to be Vinny the Mafia goon who will try to "acquire" the money from you one way or another. In my opinion, this quality should never be like a bank loan, it should have an element of risk. Your character could be robbed, beaten or even killed as a result of taking In Debt. To me, that means it isn't free.
On the topic of taking harmless negative qualities to rack up build points/ karma, I would never do that personally, nor would I allow anyone in games I run to do it. Negative qualities should always be a real detriment to your character and they should come into play during a campaign. Negative qualities for me are one of the really nice elements of 4e and I like to use them to flesh out my character.
Once again, I don't have any interest in getting into a forum feud with you, Kat9. I like some of your posts and I don't think you come here with bad intentions, but I do think your sarcasm is really uncalled for and has no place in these forums as no one is going to enjoy speaking with someone who treats them in a condescending tone. I've been guilty of it in the past myself, I'm not trying to pretend I'm perfect. I would just ask that you try to be more civil and I would really appreciate that.
Also @Kat9, I agree that negative qualities should not be freebies and I agree that they definitely do get abused. I would agree with you on many other negative qualities but In Debt I think is fine as is. Yes, if you crunch the numbers it is superior over many other negative qualities but keep these two things in mind,
1. You could suffer harsh consequences that could outweigh the benefit of having extra points during character creation
2. During the game you usually have better access to elite gear and having to potentially pay that debt off can keep you from getting the really cool stuff as fast as you could, which could result in more consequences, including death. Think about it like this: Money attained during play is better than money during character creation because you can get more powerful things with it.
And yes, some players may choose not to pay off the debt and that can be both fun and dangerous :)
-
Well thank goodness that's over.
Feel better?
-
I see you can't control yourself.
-
I see you can't control yourself.
Well seeing you went out of your way to chew me out in a long post, I figured I'd check and see if you got it all off your chest. Has nothing to do with lack of control, I just didn't feel like going into a line by line rebuttal with someone who's been a forum troublemaker in the past. So see what you want, read into my posts what you want until I get a warning from staff, I'll assume things are okay and the only people that are upset are the ones looking to be upset.
When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the hurt one barks.
-
All right. I guess I'll have to quote the whole paragraph.
p271 SR4 under the heading 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 a gamemaster feels that character has made the neccessary [sic] changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP cost to remove it.
The wording is unambiguous. The "if" and "may" refer to the entire process of voiding a negative quality being at the GMs discretion. If you're GM chooses to be kinder than that it's a reasonable house rule, but the wording as written is that in addition to the RP factors paying off the negative quality is required. Note that the part that is identified as optional is getting rid of the negative quality at all.
-
All right. I guess I'll have to quote the whole paragraph.
p271 SR4 under the heading 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 a gamemaster feels that character has made the neccessary [sic] changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow the character to pay twice the quality's BP cost to remove it.
The wording is unambiguous. The "if" and "may" refer to the entire process of voiding a negative quality being at the GMs discretion. If you're GM chooses to be kinder than that it's a reasonable house rule, but the wording as written is that in addition to the RP factors paying off the negative quality is required. Note that the part that is identified as optional is getting rid of the negative quality at all.
The thing is, it's all optional, and a GM can choose to let the players get rid of the Negatives in any way he sees fit whether it be just paying karma, putting in IC effort and paying karma or just putting in the IC effort. None of the three are wrong. My problem with your argument is that it seems like you're throwing a tantrum like a little kid. "No! No! No! This is right because this is what I think! Everything else is BadWrongFun!" Sorry, but that's how it's starting to sound.
-
The thing is, it's all optional, and a GM can choose to let the players get rid of the Negatives in any way he sees fit whether it be just paying karma, putting in IC effort and paying karma or just putting in the IC effort. None of the three are wrong. My problem with your argument is that it seems like you're throwing a tantrum like a little kid. "No! No! No! This is right because this is what I think! Everything else is BadWrongFun!" Sorry, but that's how it's starting to sound.
I'm quoting the relevant rules from the base book. I even specifically said that if you wanted to house rule it and it worked at your table that was fine. If anyone is "throwing a tantrum" or insisting that "my way is the only way" it is in fact you.
-
The thing is, it's all optional, and a GM can choose to let the players get rid of the Negatives in any way he sees fit whether it be just paying karma, putting in IC effort and paying karma or just putting in the IC effort. None of the three are wrong. My problem with your argument is that it seems like you're throwing a tantrum like a little kid. "No! No! No! This is right because this is what I think! Everything else is BadWrongFun!" Sorry, but that's how it's starting to sound.
I'm quoting the relevant rules from the base book. I even specifically said that if you wanted to house rule it and it worked at your table that was fine. If anyone is "throwing a tantrum" or insisting that "my way is the only way" it is in fact you.
Doesn't change the fact that the entire thing is GM discretion, which by very nature makes anything dealing with it technically a "house rule" whether it's your interpretation or not (being your interpretation does not make it the "rule as written").
-
Doesn't change the fact that the entire thing is GM discretion, which by very nature makes anything dealing with it technically a "house rule" whether it's your interpretation or not (being your interpretation does not make it the "rule as written").
The rule as written indicates that it is at the GM's discretion whether or not a negative quality can be bought off. The rule then states that if the quality can be bought off it costs two times the BP in Karma. That's RAW, from the base book, on p 271.
Allowing the quality to go away for free would be a house rule. The RAW indicating that the exercise of the rule is at the GMs discretion does not make it a house rule. What part of the RAW are you not understanding?
-
Doesn't change the fact that the entire thing is GM discretion, which by very nature makes anything dealing with it technically a "house rule" whether it's your interpretation or not (being your interpretation does not make it the "rule as written").
The rule as written indicates that it is at the GM's discretion whether or not a negative quality can be bought off. The rule then states that if the quality can be bought off it costs two times the BP in Karma. That's RAW, from the base book, on p 271.
Allowing the quality to go away for free would be a house rule. The RAW indicating that the exercise of the rule is at the GMs discretion does not make it a house rule. What part of the RAW are you not understanding?
No. Allowing it to go away at all is a house rule by virtue of it being "GM discretion", and as such anything attached to it is by very nature a 'house rule' as well. If it were just another rule, it wouldn't say 'GM discretion'.
-
"G'night folks!" - Yakko Warner.
-
Doesn't change the fact that the entire thing is GM discretion, which by very nature makes anything dealing with it technically a "house rule" whether it's your interpretation or not (being your interpretation does not make it the "rule as written").
The rule as written indicates that it is at the GM's discretion whether or not a negative quality can be bought off. The rule then states that if the quality can be bought off it costs two times the BP in Karma. That's RAW, from the base book, on p 271.
Allowing the quality to go away for free would be a house rule. The RAW indicating that the exercise of the rule is at the GMs discretion does not make it a house rule. What part of the RAW are you not understanding?
No. Allowing it to go away at all is a house rule by virtue of it being "GM discretion", and as such anything attached to it is by very nature a 'house rule' as well. If it were just another rule, it wouldn't say 'GM discretion'.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/house+rule?s=t
house rule
noun
a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players.
A base rule that activates at the GMs discretion is not a house rule. In this case it is not even presented as an optional rule. It is in fact the base RAW. If your table wants to change it then THAT would be a house rule. By the rules as written the way that a character can get rid of a negative quality is to get the GMs permission for roleplay justification and then pay twice the BP in Karma.
-
I'm going to put my 2 nuyen in here. I am of the opinion the quality is very overpriced for the amount of cash the character receives. The idea of buying it off with karma seems a bit silly, as after paying off the total debt, there is no more interest to accrue. It is a lot of points for very little difficulty.
Role playing wise, ya I get the "in debt" bit. It's a great plot hook. But with so little cash on the line, even the biggest debt is worth only a session or two.
As to the GM adding new negative qualities after the debt is paid off but not bought off with Karma, exactly what new negatives could a GM justify, story-wise? What would fit in place of the moneys paid back? At 30 BP, that is a lot of new disadvantages to call in. A cruel GM could slap physical negative qualities onto the character. A sadistic one could slap a 30BP enemy on him (if that didn't make you taste bile, you weren't thinking about it hard enough).
While it would depend upon what happened at the table, the In Debt quality is not equivalent to any other quality in the book. (See above regarding the 30BP enemy.) I had originally thought it gave you points equal to what BPs normally bought. This is not the case, obviously. However, if the quality did grant that amount of cash, then it would provide a serious advantage to the player in the short term, and be a recurring nightmare for the long term.
What would you, as a GM, replace the quality with, if the PC had paid off the monetary value of the debt but not the Karmic value?
-
Some qualities make sense to be able to be rid of them through cash or whatever other means, while some wouldn't make sense through anything other than a karma expenditure. Personally, I think the means to get rid of one should be on a quality-by-quality basis (and I do believe I will start ruling accordingly when I run). The quality in question for this thread, I can see being removed just from paying off the debt and with Sensitive Neural Structure, Scorched and the like, I can see having neural surgery removing it. For ones that I can see requiring karma, there's the Incompetent qualities which someone mentioned before along with Codeblock and some others.
If someone wants to hold to the 'karma for all of them', fine, but saying that someone is running/playing "Happy Pony Adventure" because they don't want to do it that way is unnecessarily hostile and antagonistic.
Note: Due to this silliness creating controversy on the quality, I don't take In Debt personally.
-
The thing is, it's all optional, and a GM can choose to let the players get rid of the Negatives in any way he sees fit whether it be just paying karma, putting in IC effort and paying karma or just putting in the IC effort. None of the three are wrong. My problem with your argument is that it seems like you're throwing a tantrum like a little kid. "No! No! No! This is right because this is what I think! Everything else is BadWrongFun!" Sorry, but that's how it's starting to sound.
You're trolling at this point. Plain and simple.
-
The thing is, it's all optional, and a GM can choose to let the players get rid of the Negatives in any way he sees fit whether it be just paying karma, putting in IC effort and paying karma or just putting in the IC effort. None of the three are wrong. My problem with your argument is that it seems like you're throwing a tantrum like a little kid. "No! No! No! This is right because this is what I think! Everything else is BadWrongFun!" Sorry, but that's how it's starting to sound.
You're trolling at this point. Plain and simple.
Not so much, but Crunch is seriously starting to piss me off.
Edit: Not to mention Kat9's comments which add nothing to either side. Such as the one at the top of this page.
-
Let's let that part go for a minute.
While I don't agree with paying karma to get rid of the quality, I understand that some GM's want to do it that way. So I'm asking:
What would be a good replacement? While specifics depend upon the table, one should be able to state some broad guidelines. Give me some ideas here, please.
-
If someone wants to hold to the 'karma for all of them', fine, but saying that someone is running/playing "Happy Pony Adventure" because they don't want to do it that way is unnecessarily hostile and antagonistic.
And at this point you need to reread the thread because you're confusing your temper tantrums.
I mentioned Happy Pony Adventures
A) In the Waving byebye to karma thread, in response to the now deleted post in which you asserted that firing on the riggers van was out of control GM power tripping because the rigger paid BP for it.
And
B) In the Drakes and Marital Arts thread when you asserted that designing challenging encounters was a form of GM abuse of players.
That phrase has never been used in this thread except by you. In fact I've said several times that allowing players to pay off in debt with cash, while not something I do at my table, is a reasonable house rule. The RAW however is otherwise as I've quoted here.
Slipped
I'm sorry if my quoting of the rules and not allowing you to bully me into silence is annoying you Guns.
-
Crunch, Guns, let it go, please. It's not contributing at this point. I want to discuss the quality, and what ideas other have about it. I do not wish to see a bunch of posts with a bunch of insults. If you want to hash it out amongst yourselves, I am asking that it be done in private messages, please.
-
Crunch, Guns, let it go, please. It's not contributing at this point. I want to discuss the quality, and what ideas other have about it. I do not wish to see a bunch of posts with a bunch of insults. If you want to hash it out amongst yourselves, I am asking that it be done in private messages, please.
Seconded.
-
Thirded.... and would like to remind both ppl that it gets as simple as this... if you have different understandings or opinions on something, its ok to voice them and if you dont agree well thats fine, respect your own and the other persons opinion and simply leave it at that
-
I think that In Debt would be better served as just a chargen option, separate from karma entirely. If your character concept requires you to spend more money than is available to you at chargen, then you should be able to take a loan pre-game. Higher amounts earn higher interest rates. If you fail to pay, you will face consequences. No "free money and free BP". Seriously, this is how In Debt seems to me as-is: http://www.youtu.be/m4BKvNlnPQM#t=00m41s (http://www.youtu.be/m4BKvNlnPQM#t=00m41s)
-
What if the player doesn't pay Karma to remove the negative quality over a 10 year period? How would you explain that? It simply does not make sense to me.
-
My opinion is that In Debt needs to be treated the same as any other negative quality, for the sake of fairness, however the GM normally does this in a particular campain. In other words, if roleplaying and taking appropriate actions can get rid of other flaw, then players should be able to do the same with In Debt. If you need to spend karma to get rid of other flaws, then In Debt should not be an exception - you get the money and build points for taking the flaw.
I say this because, quite frankly, there are a lot of negative qualities that would be simple to ditch if they did not have to be bought off. Day job? Hey, I quit - I was going to get a new fake SIN after the old one got compromised, anyways. Dependent? Hey, I needed some beer money, so I sold gramps to Tamanous. Extravagant eyes? I got rid of my freaky purple natural eyes and got some normal-looking cybereyes.
-
What would you, as a GM, replace the quality with, if the PC had paid off the monetary value of the debt but not the Karmic value?
OK, serious and mature question, so here comes my serious answer.
Let's assume they didn't go the full monty and get 30 points, lets just go with say 10 points.
-5 Dependent and a level 5 enemy: Because now you are debt free a slacker brother comes by occasion to mooch off your good fortune. The enemy, someone who liked the idea of keeping you under the thumb of X outfit. You were supposed to be their ace in the hole when they needed it, planning to use your debt as leverage. You cashed out and they're pissed. They got other things to work on, but you're in the back of their mind. The reasoning at a level 10 the flaws you get shouldn't be crippling and because you made an effort, ideally, to roleplay your way out of a roleplay generator I feel that those would generate potential plots same as In debt would have.
-10 point addiction: Like the upset enemy before, only in this case they took a more active role in getting you back in their pocket. Paid a bartender to slip you a Mickey, some custom drug that you need to come to them for, or find a way to reverse engineer.
-5 Bad reputation, -5 point dependent: You paid off your debt when they were planning to milk you for cash over time. That sort of put a kink in their plans so they started to smear your reputation subtle. Congratulations because of your new "badboy' image you got a few girls that just want to be around you and they show up at awkward times.
Now to end the post I add to this: This is just my personal opinion on how I would trade out In Debt where the person clearly took it with the intent to just pay cash and have free BPs in chargen. This is not a statement telling other people how to run their campaign, nor my attempting to be "the man trying to keep a playa down". They might not even make especially logical sense, the idea is basically to give the player other roleplaying situations while not giving them a free lunch for having taken In Debt. So there we go.
-
Alright, some good ideas and thoughts have come up, but the majority of the last two pages has been fighting. If another post involving insults or bickering comes along I'm locking the topic.
Now, as for replacing the old negative with new ones, Kat, the idea of them slipping the char a drug or messing with him because they wanted to use him is a great idea. Heck, thats even part of my characters back story (they want to use him part). As for whether to replace the old, pay off with karma, or pay with nuyen, its probably six of one, half dozen of the other. I can't say, and frankly since I'm more about actual roleplay, I doubt that my character will get messed up for any reason beyond making a good story.
-
One example of continuing in debt is in the Seatle 2072 sourcebook. One of the restaurants down town has an owner who is continually pressured to do favors for the organized crime organization he used to owe despite having payed off the debt.
-
Doesn't change the fact that the entire thing is GM discretion, which by very nature makes anything dealing with it technically a "house rule" whether it's your interpretation or not (being your interpretation does not make it the "rule as written").
The rule as written indicates that it is at the GM's discretion whether or not a negative quality can be bought off. The rule then states that if the quality can be bought off it costs two times the BP in Karma. That's RAW, from the base book, on p 271.
Allowing the quality to go away for free would be a house rule. The RAW indicating that the exercise of the rule is at the GMs discretion does not make it a house rule. What part of the RAW are you not understanding?
Except, Crunch, that the rules say the GM "may allow" the player to buy off a Negative Quality. The rule says nothing about the GM being able to FORCE a player to buy off a NQ, or declaring that one NQ is being swapped out for other NQs. Either of those options is a House Rule.
Thus, a player can pay the principle of the debt down to nothing and then keep the In Debt quality on their sheet, tell the GM "No thanks, I'm fine" when the GM makes them the pay-off offer, and keep making monthly interest payments of a whopping 0¥ for the rest of eternity.
Once again, The Negative Quality "In Debt" is still on the character sheet, and is still ticking away its mechanical effect every month like clockwork. The effect, however, has been rendered moot because 10% of 0¥ is nothing.
--- --- ---
Mind you, I'm not saying it's not broken and in bad need of a House Rule to fix that loophole, but by strict RAW there's nothing that can be done to prevent that scenario.
-
Okay, reading through this thread, I just want to post a warning to A) keep things on topic and B) make sure not to get personal.
-
Except, Crunch, that the rules say the GM "may allow" the player to buy off a Negative Quality. The rule says nothing about the GM being able to FORCE a player to buy off a NQ, or declaring that one NQ is being swapped out for other NQs. Either of those options is a House Rule.
Thus, a player can pay the principle of the debt down to nothing and then keep the In Debt quality on their sheet, tell the GM "No thanks, I'm fine" when the GM makes them the pay-off offer, and keep making monthly interest payments of a whopping 0¥ for the rest of eternity.
Once again, The Negative Quality "In Debt" is still on the character sheet, and is still ticking away its mechanical effect every month like clockwork. The effect, however, has been rendered moot because 10% of 0¥ is nothing.
If it's still on the sheet, it can still have an affect. What's that, you didn't pay off that 3,000¥ interest rate this month because you paid your debt in full last month? Hmm...must be an issue with our books, guess Mickey isn't that reliable these days, which kneecap do you favor. Heck, errors happen all the time in completely legal businesses today, why wouldn't they in 2070. Likely worse if it's not a legal debt.
To be more technical, if you owe 0¥ how do you pay it? Because if you don't pay it, they may send someone looking for you. This isn't to mention the entire hassle of issues that could crop up just from being associated with whoever you had the debt with personally and the debt becoming favors for silence on the matter.
If the player doesn't want the Quality to affect him, he needs to buy it off which would remove it from his character sheet. An addict that has roleplayed recovery still has to check for addiction till he buys it off, other negative qualities wouldn't be any different. If the player wants to have his debt removed, he needs to buy it off. If he doesn't want it removed, and pays it off, the GM should be able to still make it stick.
-Debtor sold the claim, but took the last payment and bolted, character is still on the hook.
-Debtor "lost" record of last payment, character is still on the hook.
-Error causes characters debt to have been more than it originally was, character is still on the hook.
A few examples of numerous ways it can still pop up if it isn't bought off. Now, you could claim that it's a "house rule" to keep the quality in play, but I'd like to point out that it never states you can actually remove the debt or pay it completely off without getting rid of the quality.
What would be a good replacement? While specifics depend upon the table, one should be able to state some broad guidelines. Give me some ideas here, please.
Personally I treat in debt like the Poverty hindrance from Deadlands. The character, despite his best efforts, always winds up in Poverty with that flaw. A character with In Debt, that doesn't buy of the quality, quickly finds himself back in/still in debt. Either through an error, lender sleaze, or stupid bad luck. Maybe he dives for cover in that nice restaurant during a firefight and shatters a 30,000¥ glass sculpture, maybe that traffic cam caught a spoof chipped vehicle sliding into that Westwind that matches his registered vehicle's legal registration, maybe an old Johnson has decided it's the perfect time to blackmail him, or maybe...just maybe...he's suddenly having to pay back child support.
-
What would you, as a GM, replace the quality with, if the PC had paid off the monetary value of the debt but not the Karmic value?
OK, serious and mature question, so here comes my serious answer.
Let's assume they didn't go the full monty and get 30 points, lets just go with say 10 points.
-5 Dependent and a level 5 enemy: Because now you are debt free a slacker brother comes by occasion to mooch off your good fortune. The enemy, someone who liked the idea of keeping you under the thumb of X outfit. You were supposed to be their ace in the hole when they needed it, planning to use your debt as leverage. You cashed out and they're pissed. They got other things to work on, but you're in the back of their mind. The reasoning at a level 10 the flaws you get shouldn't be crippling and because you made an effort, ideally, to roleplay your way out of a roleplay generator I feel that those would generate potential plots same as In debt would have.
-10 point addiction: Like the upset enemy before, only in this case they took a more active role in getting you back in their pocket. Paid a bartender to slip you a Mickey, some custom drug that you need to come to them for, or find a way to reverse engineer.
-5 Bad reputation, -5 point dependent: You paid off your debt when they were planning to milk you for cash over time. That sort of put a kink in their plans so they started to smear your reputation subtle. Congratulations because of your new "badboy' image you got a few girls that just want to be around you and they show up at awkward times.
Now to end the post I add to this: This is just my personal opinion on how I would trade out In Debt where the person clearly took it with the intent to just pay cash and have free BPs in chargen. This is not a statement telling other people how to run their campaign, nor my attempting to be "the man trying to keep a playa down". They might not even make especially logical sense, the idea is basically to give the player other roleplaying situations while not giving them a free lunch for having taken In Debt. So there we go.
I like your take on the subject.
-
who says that they're happy that you paid the debt off? Also, there's the minor fact that they suddenly know that you have money.
-
My 2 cents:
In Debt (Example using the 10BP version):
Gain:
+ 10 BP to spend.
+ 10.000 nuyen.
Loss:
- 15.000 nuyen.
Net:
You lose 5.000 nuyen and gain 10BPs.
Since normally 1 BP = 5.000 nuyen, to me it seems pretty logical there's a hidden cost somewhere else.
In Debt's supposed to be a Negative Quality.
If a GM allows it to be paid off quickly with no other consequences, losing 1BP worth of nuyen to gain 10BP's worth of <whatever you want> does not seem negative to me. Far from it.
That being said, flat out replacing the gained BPs with other negative qualities for the same amount when the debt's paid sounds pretty silly too.
Imo, whatever your game table rules, at least you should know of it ahead of time. Now let's say that you knew ahead of time that when you paid off your 10k debt (paying 15k), your GM would slap you with Bad Rep and a 5BP enemy.
Why not just make your character with Bad Rep and Enemy? It'll save you 5k (+ interest) in the end...
So a GM has to be creative and find something that's fun and fitting.
Isn't that what being a GM is all about?
-
Imo, whatever your game table rules, at least you should know of it ahead of time. Now let's say that you knew ahead of time that when you paid off your 10k debt (paying 15k), your GM would slap you with Bad Rep and a 5BP enemy.
Why not just make your character with Bad Rep and Enemy? It'll save you 5k (+ interest) in the end...
Maybe you want / need that 10k before the game starts? There's also the possibility that you like the story, or that the GM won't use the exact same negs for every situation.
-
^ Yeah. While writing, I figured that out too.
-
@Glyph That's an interesting point... from a rules perspective it is balanced. But from a role playing perspective I still dislike the idea of paying Karma to remove the debt. Perhaps a good solution would be to owe an amount of money equivalent to the build points you gained from the negative quality. On top of that, there could be weekly interest. So you would be coming out behind in most cases, thus justifying the extra build points. Also, it would make sense from a role playing perspective.
-
@JustADude: Have you ever told your GM, "No thanks, I don't want to do what you just told me to do"? Are you also going to argue that you shouldn't have an enemy because you didn't pick it out at character generation? So you pissed off the mob, but not to worry! You can just tell your GM to stuff it, you are fine with what you took at character gen? Not to be personal (but I'm about to be), but are you daft? Your concept is basically to tell the GM how to run his game. I don't know if this is how you play, or if you are just on here to cause problems, but that wouldn't be accepted at any table i've ever sat at.
After the game starts you can still receive negative qualities (addiction rules anyone?). You don't get jack squat for it either. The GM doesn't even have to be fair about it. He can give you an enemy bigger then your debt for paying it off too soon. And he can do it because he is this thing called the GM that runs the freaking game.
-
Oh god, that's just talking right into the "GM's are player hating facists" issue he already seems to have...
Oh, darned. Was thinking about someone else.
-
Oh god, that's just talking right into the "GM's are player hating facists" issue he already seems to have...
At first I was like "..."
But then I lol'd.
-
Kat9, your answer was made of gold. Great stuff.
Any other ideas? I may need to do something like this soon, going to start up a new Shadowrun game.
-
Kat9, your answer was made of gold. Great stuff.
Any other ideas? I may need to do something like this soon, going to start up a new Shadowrun game.
I sent you a PM.
-
@Glyph That's an interesting point... from a rules perspective it is balanced. But from a role playing perspective I still dislike the idea of paying Karma to remove the debt. Perhaps a good solution would be to owe an amount of money equivalent to the build points you gained from the negative quality. On top of that, there could be weekly interest. So you would be coming out behind in most cases, thus justifying the extra build points. Also, it would make sense from a role playing perspective.
From a roleplaying perspective, I see it like the example of the restaurant guy who is always being pressured to do favors for the underworld syndicate that gave him a loan once. It's not getting rid of the debt per se; the money does that. What it represents is delicately attempting to extricate yourself from under the thumb of the shady characters who loaned you the money because they wanted leverage on you.
Another option might be to allow the cash for Karma rule specifically for buying off the flaw. Or you could use what seems to be a fairly common house rule; In Debt as a zero-point quality, where you just get the money, and only have to pay the money (plus interest) back to get out of the debt.
-
@JustADude: Have you ever told your GM, "No thanks, I don't want to do what you just told me to do"? Are you also going to argue that you shouldn't have an enemy because you didn't pick it out at character generation? So you pissed off the mob, but not to worry! You can just tell your GM to stuff it, you are fine with what you took at character gen? Not to be personal (but I'm about to be), but are you daft? Your concept is basically to tell the GM how to run his game. I don't know if this is how you play, or if you are just on here to cause problems, but that wouldn't be accepted at any table i've ever sat at.
After the game starts you can still receive negative qualities (addiction rules anyone?). You don't get jack squat for it either. The GM doesn't even have to be fair about it. He can give you an enemy bigger then your debt for paying it off too soon. And he can do it because he is this thing called the GM that runs the freaking game.
First off, if I were you I wouldn't go insulting people's intelligence, then go on to make a reply that has nothing to do in any way, shape, or form to the content of the post I was insulting them over. That is, of course, because I hate doing things that are "ironic." You may be different.
Go back and read what I said again. You'll see that I never said that the GM can't add qualities as he/she sees fit, which means your facetious examples have exactly jack shit to do with what I'm talking about. I'm simply saying that ACCORDING TO THE RULES FOR REMOVING NEGATIVE QUALITIES, the GM can GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY to buy off the quality. The rule does not say they can FORCE YOU to spend the Karma do so.
It's written like this because in 99% of the situations, it's things like a player deciding they want their character to still be struggling with Alcoholism even though they've been managing to do a good job of keeping clean and sober. The abuse of In Debt is an ugly side-effect of that phrasing.
Oh, and down at the bottom you'll noticed I even said that the hole needs to be patched by the GM, which any person paying half a lick of attention should take to mean that I am NOT of the belief that this loophole should remain open.
Now, how about an apology?
A few examples of numerous ways it can still pop up if it isn't bought off. Now, you could claim that it's a "house rule" to keep the quality in play, but I'd like to point out that it never states you can actually remove the debt or pay it completely off without getting rid of the quality.
The phrase "at least" when talking about making your monthly payment very clearly means you are allowed to pay more than the maintenance payment of interest. As anyone who have ever had any sort of credit-card or other loan should know, anything beyond the interest payment goes against the principle of the loan unless you're assuming, rather disingenuously, that the extra is just a gift to the person that counts for nothing.
The things you mentioned are less House Rule and more in the realm of "The GM screwing with a player that deserves it for abusing a loophole until he coughs up the Karma."
I'd actually just be considering more along the lines of a House Rule making it just "a thing" rather than a Negative Quality. Players can get the money and debt like normal, but no BP changes hands. I like your idea better, though.
-
The phrase "at least" when talking about making your monthly payment very clearly means you are allowed to pay more than the maintenance payment of interest. As anyone who have ever had any sort of credit-card or other loan should know, anything beyond the interest payment goes against the principle of the loan unless you're assuming, rather disingenuously, that the extra is just a gift to the person that counts for nothing.
Modern day, yes, but who knows what banking or underworld standards are in the 2070s? Can you even pay off the principle from In Debt? Nothing says that you can. It says you have to pay the interest owed at least. Extra could just as easily go toward next months interest, leaving the character always in debt until certain terms allow him to pay off the principle (such as him having paid karma on the quality...oh my). Now, you can disagree with what I've said, but let's just take a gander before we go down that road.
The things you mentioned are less House Rule and more in the realm of "The GM screwing with a player that deserves it for abusing a loophole until he coughs up the Karma."
Qualities are, by definition, an innate part of the character. Keeping a quality relevant to the character is not GM Screwery, it's merely following what the rules state. A character that owes 0¥ is not In Debt. Debt, and being in it, is in know way an innate part of the character any longer.
Now, let's look further into what the books say:
SR4A, pg. 271
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.
First sentence, making severe changes appropriate to the quality (such as paying off the principle of a debt) is subject to gamemaster approval before it can even be undertaken. If the gamemaster does not approve of the "working off" being taken, he doesn't have to approve it.
Runner's Companion, pg. 102
NEGATIVE QUALITIES
As with Positive qualities, Negative qualities can be chosen at the start of play. With the gamemaster’s approval, Negative qualities
may be bought o with Karma per the rules on p. 271, SR4A. If the character does not possess the requisite Karma, she may
have to wait. Also note that this expenditure does not encompass the Costs of any associated augmentations, medical treatments, schooling, etc. that the gamemaster may require. Additionally, the gamemaster may decide that certain qualities can only be removed after roleplaying through their resolution (such as removal of a dependent or curing a mental illness).
The underlined portion shows that the qualities in RC (such as In Debt) still require karma to buy off and follow the rules from pg. 271 of SR4A (the first quote). The italicized portion makes it clear that other costs (such as paying off the principle) are in addition to the karma cost required. In other words, paying off the principle is part of buying off the negative quality, it's an additional cost. If the player chooses to not pay of the principle as part of buying off the quality, then the gamemaster is free to, and should, make sure the quality has not been bought off. After all, that's what the character is wanting.
None of my proposals were instances of the GM screwing the player, they are instances that show the method you proposed is flawed at it's core. If the player chooses to pay off the principle to get rid of the quality (which requires karma and nuyen expenditure), the GM has to approve, and the player has to wait until he has the requisite karma (blatantly stated in the rules). If the character is choosing to pay off the principle and not get rid of the quality, he isn't taking all the steps to get rid of the quality.
This is no different than an addict going through rehab, not buying off the quality, and relapsing as soon as he hits the street. Too bad, so sad, here's your next fix. It's no different than the brain surgery not working for TLE-x when karma is not paid. It's no different than the Uncouth guys etiquette training, not taking when karma isn't paid. The fix only works, if it's the full fix, which requires karma plain and simple.
I'm simply saying that ACCORDING TO THE RULES FOR REMOVING NEGATIVE QUALITIES, the GM can GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY to buy off the quality. The rule does not say they can FORCE YOU to spend the Karma do so.
It's not a case of the GM forcing the player to buy off a quality. That's implying that the GM forced the player to pay off the principle. It's a matter of the GM forcing the player to either A.)buy off the quality or B.)not buy off the quality instead of trying to use a flawed loop hole to get stuck in the middle. The bottom line here is that the changes to buy off the quality (paying off the principle) are only available with GM approval. The player can only do it when the GM agrees, and, by the rules, if he has the karma required to buy off the hindrance. The GM sure does have the right to say, you can only pay off the principle if you buy off the quality, and force the player to do both at the same time. It's completely within the rules, as is not getting rid of the quality if only one portion is done.
-
[lot of words, lot of quotes, lot of notations]
Awesome breakdown and great post. +1 to you sir and or madam.
-
Perhaps you shouldn't argue the case of things you don't believe in. If I were, for example, to make a page of racist comments and then add a note at the bottom that I am really not a racist... which are you going to believe? You didn't start with a warning that you were playing devils advocate. You argued for the cheapest crap I have ever heard of. In line with the above I will not be issuing an apology.
-
Perhaps you shouldn't argue the case of things you don't believe in. If I were, for example, to make a page of racist comments and then add a note at the bottom that I am really not a racist... which are you going to believe? You didn't start with a warning that you were playing devils advocate. You argued for the cheapest crap I have ever heard of. In line with the above I will not be issuing an apology.
*sigh* Once more with the insults and the totally off-base, inflammatory "examples" that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I mean, seriously, by your "logic" a police officer that disagrees with a law shouldn't enforce the law even though it is, in fact, the law.
*BLAH*BLAH*BLAH*
Wells, dude, if you're going to assume that features of the world in the 2070s are just massively and randomly different in ways that make absolutely no sense based on extrapolation of current financial practices, then what the hell is the point?
As for the rest of it... I really don't give enough of a crap about the issue to waste my time banging my head against a wall again in another futile attempt at having anthing resembling a proper debate with you.
-
Basically what it boils down to is the fact that since it's GM discretion, the GM doesn't HAVE to charge the karma if he doesn't want to. If he wants, he can drop any character's Negatives with just the effort put into it or--if he really wants to, though even I wouldn't--just drop them with nothing done.
-
Basically what it boils down to is the fact that since it's GM discretion, the GM doesn't HAVE to charge the karma if he doesn't want to. If he wants, he can drop any character's Negatives with just the effort put into it or--if he really wants to, though even I wouldn't--just drop them with nothing done.
Right and that would be a reasonable, albeit very generous, house rule. By the RAW however removing a negative quality requires paying the Karma and doing the Roleplay with GM approval.
-
Basically what it boils down to is the fact that since it's GM discretion, the GM doesn't HAVE to charge the karma if he doesn't want to. If he wants, he can drop any character's Negatives with just the effort put into it or--if he really wants to, though even I wouldn't--just drop them with nothing done.
Right and that would be a reasonable, albeit very generous, house rule. By the RAW however removing a negative quality requires paying the Karma and doing the Roleplay with GM approval.
The whole point is that being GM discretion it is a house rule to do it at all (or being generous with it, an optional rule like you called it). Technically by "RAW" you can't get rid of them at all.
-
Basically what it boils down to is the fact that since it's GM discretion, the GM doesn't HAVE to charge the karma if he doesn't want to. If he wants, he can drop any character's Negatives with just the effort put into it or--if he really wants to, though even I wouldn't--just drop them with nothing done.
Right and that would be a reasonable, albeit very generous, house rule. By the RAW however removing a negative quality requires paying the Karma and doing the Roleplay with GM approval.
The whole point is that being GM discretion it is a house rule to do it at all (or being generous with it, an optional rule like you called it). Technically by "RAW" you can't get rid of them at all.
Page 271 of SR4A would seem to disagree with you. It is in fact the RAW answer to the question.
1) Get GM Approval
2) Roleplay
3) Pay 2x Karma
It's very simple, not at all optional and in no way a house rule. There are a dozen house or optional rules you could use instead, but the RAW is pretty clear. I'm really not understanding your objection to the RAW on p 271.
-
Okay, I think we ran to the conclusion of this. Probably did long ago. Frankly from what I can tell, its all GM discretion. They MAY chose any option of, or combination of, having the player roleplay it out, spending Karma, or spending nuyen. So your group can roll as it likes on this one it seems. I'm just gonna have fun and watch it all play out.