[CitizenJoe]

There is that, but there is one problem there. The GMs who do that for some reason think it's "overpowered" to give more money than what they do offer, and a lot of them believe that there should be almost no time when you're not scraping the bottom of the barrel and losing lifestyle aspects every month. (That and they don't want you to ever be able to upgrade your 'ware or equipment.)

Why would you want to play under that kind of GM?  Players have the ultimate veto power. It's called a TPK.  Go down with a blaze of glory and then catch a movie... leave the GM to pay for the pizza bill.

[Zilfer]

xD horrible. ^

[All4BigGuns]

There is that, but there is one problem there. The GMs who do that for some reason think it's "overpowered" to give more money than what they do offer, and a lot of them believe that there should be almost no time when you're not scraping the bottom of the barrel and losing lifestyle aspects every month. (That and they don't want you to ever be able to upgrade your 'ware or equipment.)

Why would you want to play under that kind of GM?  Players have the ultimate veto power. It's called a TPK.  Go down with a blaze of glory and then catch a movie... leave the GM to pay for the pizza bill.

Umm...I was just saying that there are GMs like that. Though, doing what you suggest is a good way to do nothing but destroy friendships.

[Mirikon]

Just because someone's a bad DM, doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. Just don't come back to the game while he's DMing.

[All4BigGuns]

Just because someone's a bad DM, doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. Just don't come back to the game while he's DMing.

Much better way to handle things (and more mature).

[CanRay]

Just because someone's a bad DM, doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. Just don't come back to the game while he's DMing.

Much better way to handle things (and more mature).

Duct tape?

[CitizenJoe]

That's like leaving a class children in the hands of an abusive teacher.  Sure, you're out, but what about the people left behind. 

[JustADude]

There is that, but there is one problem there. The GMs who do that for some reason think it's "overpowered" to give more money than what they do offer, and a lot of them believe that there should be almost no time when you're not scraping the bottom of the barrel and losing lifestyle aspects every month. (That and they don't want you to ever be able to upgrade your 'ware or equipment.)

And that's when you and the group start walking out, in-character and out-of-character.

Then, when he's all "What the hell?" you explain exactly what your problem is.

[Mason]

All of the nuyen!

Sorry, saw the name of this thread, couldn't resist.

[Crimsondude]

All of the nuyen!

I already said that a week ago.

[tzizimine]

Personally, I price out the runs using the following formula


Get a base price for the general kind of run, from 1,000 Y (Courier) to 20,000 Y (Extraction / Kidnapping). If a run involves multiple points, add the base prices together.


Add +(Total Street Rep x 5)%.


Subtract -(Total Notoriety x 15)%


Add or subtract other modifiers based on location, difficulty and prep work (between -50% to +100%)


This is the total maximum price the Mr. Johnson is willing to pay.


Start Negotiations at 50% of that with each net hit on a Negotiation test changing +/- 5%.




This method enforces the idea of a runner's reputation getting the higher paying jobs as well as screwing up costing in the long run (Street Rep vs. Notoriety).

[JustADude]

Personally, I price out the runs using the following formula

*SNIPPED FOR SPACE*

Nice formula. Complex enough to be flexible, but still simple enough someone could probably code up an app for it PDQ if they were so inclined.

[Murphy01]

On a site called Shadowrun Pub, there's a stickied post called Dogberry's Payment Formula. It takes the runners lifestyles, employers ability to pay, runners reps, and notority into account to come up with a figure then you pay 80% of that cause everyone lowballs.