[Crunch]

How so. When have I ever said anything other than "at my table" or "in my opinion" when arguing against a rule or for a house rule?

[All4BigGuns]

How so. When have I ever said anything other than "at my table" or "in my opinion" when arguing against a rule or for a house rule?

If I use "in my opinion" it's still somehow telling people what to do, at least according to any who disagree. So, why should it matter if you use those words?

[Crunch]

How so. When have I ever said anything other than "at my table" or "in my opinion" when arguing against a rule or for a house rule?

If I use "in my opinion" it's still somehow telling people what to do, at least according to any who disagree. So, why should it matter if you use those words?

Because when having a conversation, words matter.

[Maddoux1]

Now, see, here I was just defending you and you have to make a play like that.

In what way do PBN characters hit their ceiling that PBK don't?

[All4BigGuns]

In what way do PBN characters hit their ceiling that PBK don't?

Characters relying on tech only have so much Essence, and the ratings on gear only go so high.

The Karma-oriented characters can keep on going up as long as the game keeps going.

Using the Decker/Technomancer as an example:

The Decker manages getting hold of that Fairlight Excalibur putting him at the pinnacle of decks, whereas the Technomancer can keep on submerging and getting better and better.

How so. When have I ever said anything other than "at my table" or "in my opinion" when arguing against a rule or for a house rule?

If I use "in my opinion" it's still somehow telling people what to do, at least according to any who disagree. So, why should it matter if you use those words?

Because when having a conversation, words matter.

Apparently only when I'm not the one using that phrase. Been too many times when I've made something clear as to be an opinion and still been accused of calling it fact, but others get assumed to be giving their opinion at most times.

[Crunch]

It should be noted that the lines between Nuyen and Karma classes aren't as clear as they used to be. A samurai who can take his combat skills to 12 will find a LOT of uses for karma, and will find himself pulling ahead in skills compared to an adept or mage who focuses on initiation for much of their power boost. Likewise with more viable enchanting and alchemy and Qi foci mages and adepts have a better use for karma.

Samurai are really really good in this edition.

Why do you think they need more money?

[All4BigGuns]

It's like taking away a steak and handing them a hamburger. The one million would be giving the baked potato and salad to go with the steak.

[Crunch]

While picturesque, that doesn't actually say anything.

I like my 5E Samurai who depend more on the man than the metal, you can differ but my way ain't hamburger.

[All4BigGuns]

While picturesque, that doesn't actually say anything.

I like my 5E Samurai who depend more on the man than the metal, you can differ but my way ain't hamburger.

And because you're satisfied, those who aren't should just shut up and live with being unsatisfied? Remember, it's easier to talk a GM into going down from standard, if that's really what you want, then it is to talk one into going up from standard.

[Maddoux1]

While its much easier to talk the GM into giving you less finances, its much harder to convince the other players to agree to it.

[Crunch]

And because you're satisfied, those who aren't should just shut up and live with being unsatisfied? Remember, it's easier to talk a GM into going down from standard, if that's really what you want, then it is to talk one into going up from standard.

No because the rules are reasonable you should start figuring out how to play with them or accept that you don't like them and house rule. This isn't an issue where you're right and I'm wrong. It's an issue where you want a different play style than the base rules and  you should figure out how to get there if you can't adapt. It's fertile ground for house rule.

And I've never seen a situation where it was easier to take away than to give more, but YMMV.

[All4BigGuns]

Two set-ups created, the lower is optional and the higher is standard. It will be easier to get a GM to go down to the optional lower one than it would be to get the GM to move up to the higher one if the lower was standard. (If your fellow players don't want to go lower, then apparently you didn't want the same things.)

[Crunch]

Two set-ups created, the lower is optional and the higher is standard. It will be easier to get a GM to go down to the optional lower one than it would be to get the GM to move up to the higher one if the lower was standard. (If your fellow players don't want to go lower, then apparently you didn't want the same things.)

That's not my experience.

But ask yourself, if you're rule is so unpopular that you doubt you can get your home group to play it, why should it then be law of the land?

[All4BigGuns]

Two set-ups created, the lower is optional and the higher is standard. It will be easier to get a GM to go down to the optional lower one than it would be to get the GM to move up to the higher one if the lower was standard. (If your fellow players don't want to go lower, then apparently you didn't want the same things.)

That's not my experience.

But ask yourself, if you're rule is so unpopular that you doubt you can get your home group to play it, why should it then be law of the land?

From experience, most GMs are more willing to reduce than increase, but are more willing to stick with the base than either.

[Maddoux1]

Actually, there are three set-ups created.  Street, Standard, and Prime.  Your layout moved Standard to Street (which is a foolish move and defeats the purpose of Street) and then inflates everything else.

And from my experience, players are more willing to use stricter optional rules from the book than ones created by the GM.  They are even less willing to accept more strict rules created by another player.