[CitizenJoe]

This is why it is important to have a non-cybered mundane that grew up in the hood having to fight off devil rats for any scrap of food he could get.  So when someone in the group complains about something not going quite their way, he can look at them with a disapproving stare and say "Seriously?"

[Dracain]

Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.

Shadowrun is actually the easiest system to fix bad things that have happened to a character that I've played. Cloned limb replacements and cheap available cybernetics make for few lasting "scars" on a character.

If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.

I don't disagree completely, and I understand what you mean, but I don't think that people are getting upset about their characters not being optimized.  I think they are upset because their stats are being adjusted.  Again, if a player screws up, then they should expect something of that sort, especially if they have a hard GM, but the original post asserted that if you have sensitive system you had to pay for it in some way or other (other than needing to pay double essence for your chrome), and the way the post was shown made it seem that they where either getting rewarded by an idiot, or having cyberware forced on them.  I think that was the essence of the conversation.  But again, if you say you are a hard GM, then they shouldn't expect to get off easy if they piss off the mob and don't cover their tracks.  All that said however, I do agree with All4BigGuns on his quote here. 

Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.

Shadowrun is actually the easiest system to fix bad things that have happened to a character that I've played. Cloned limb replacements and cheap available cybernetics make for few lasting "scars" on a character.

If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.

100% optimized is not something that most people care about, but you need to remember that just because someone wants their character to be very good at what the character is focused around does not make them a poor RPer nor does it make them automatically a "munchkinizing power player".

As to negative qualities coming into play, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if a particular negative quality is one dealing with physiology the character is born with (Sensitive System and Sensitive Neural Structure as the main examples here), it should be considered background and not be pulled out to screw with the character. Paraplegic and Quadriplegic are also negatives which by their nature are always on, and to actively do more with them is unnecessarily antagonistic.

Caring more about the feelings of the players does not, as you have put it several times, turn the game into "RainbowRun", and your constantly pulling out this particular argument has done little more than piss me (and I'm sure others) off to no end.

[Crash_00]

100% optimized is not something that most people care about, but you need to remember that just because someone wants their character to be very good at what the character is focused around does not make them a poor RPer nor does it make them automatically a "munchkinizing power player".

Never said there was anything wrong with characters being good at what they do. I said:

If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.

As to negative qualities coming into play, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if a particular negative quality is one dealing with physiology the character is born with (Sensitive System and Sensitive Neural Structure as the main examples here), it should be considered background and not be pulled out to screw with the character. Paraplegic and Quadriplegic are also negatives which by their nature are always on, and to actively do more with them is unnecessarily antagonistic.

So allergic characters shouldn't ever suffer problems (as long as they were born with it) and characters with a lost sense should never be inconvenienced (as long as they were born that way), gotcha. You keep saying this, but you have yet to show how actually bringing up the character's flaw is detrimental other than, "oh the player may cry because you touched his character wrong." If the player is that emotional, he's likely to not last through the first adventure when the group escapes with everyone one box from bleeding out. Your play style is different, gotcha, doesn't change anything that I've said. If your play style is less brutal, then my play style will not be compatible with yours. It doesn't mean my play style is antagonistic. It means that you would feel antagonized if you were a player in my game. Again, I tell people what they're in store for when I start a game, and to quote myself:

If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.

Caring more about the feelings of the players does not, as you have put it several times, turn the game into "RainbowRun", and your constantly pulling out this particular argument has done little more than piss me (and I'm sure others) off to no end.

Caring about players feelings to the point you're scared of...sorry...nice enough to not give them a challenge or hold them accountable for their actions in a realistic in game manner is. Then again if your player's feelings are delicate enough that they can't handle being held to a realistic level of accountability or response to their actions, then RainbowRun might be all they're suited for.

You went on about character attachment fading because the character isn't a perfect little snowflake, being scared to get attached to a character because it might suffer consequences of a flaw (that the player chose), and how certain negative qualities just shouldn't come up and it's antagonizing to bring them into the story. Whether through physical means (choosing to implant the character) or subtle means (placing the character in situations where the ware looks incredibly appealing), it's supposedly all horribly wrong. I don't buy it.

Take a look at the system. One point in an attribute is going to make a difference of 1/3 of a hit. Sure there may be other side effects, but it doesn't make a character bad at anything based on that attribute unless they were already using it as a dump stat. It just makes them not as good as they were before. Which, is something they can build back to.

[Leevizer]

Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.

Or maybe you are the only one with enough resources/too much time on your hands/the one with the rulebooks and that's why you are the GM... Hell, that's the way how it is in our group. I buy the books, I know the rules, I lead the games. I never get to actually roleplay.

[All4BigGuns]

Saying they can "build back" to it is just a strawman excuse that while it may be possible, it isn't entirely feasible. Take the Sensitive System example. In order to restore that lost Magic that the player's character has been screwed out of, not only will they have to pay 35 karma (assuming starting at a 6 Magic here) to get the Magic point back, to buy up to an effective 7 before the lost point is taken into account, but also the cost for initiation would be required as well. It is ridiculous to expect your players to devote that much that should go into true advancement to get back what you have taken from them them because you want to "use every neg quality".

Allergies are a special case for the physiological qualities in that it would depend on the allergy. In this case, look at what the character is allergic to, as yes, some allergies would be intended as a background case. (Yes it is antagonistic to fill capsule rounds with strawberry syrup and shoot the character with severe allergy to strawberries with them.)  I suppose the crux of the matter on the issue is that the GM should be held to the same standard as the players on the issue of metagaming. Yes the GM--as himself--knows the negative qualities of the PCs, but the opponents do not, and without severe frag-ups on the part of the players are unlikely to ever know about them.

[Crash_00]

Most of the campaigns I ran I didn't have any of the books. I had to bum them from people in the group if I needed them for plot development or prepping. Considering that I was in high school taking extra courses and trying to maintain my GPA for my scholarship and valedictorian place, I'm pretty sure that wasn't it either.

Some people like a challenge. If you don't, that's cool. If your players don't, that's cool. (Not saying your personal preference, just that it's alright not to want a challenge). If a GM says he's going to be rough, he's probably going to create a challenge. Most GM's in this situation, are going to draw off of your characters for inspiration, and your flaws are a pretty important piece of the puzzle there. At it's core, the key of the debate is whether flaws are fair game or not to come up in play (subtly or physically) other than as passive concepts. My style is that they aren't just open season, but it's required of me to bring the points into the character's story. After all, they're important enough to be on his/her sheet.

Nicer and softer GM's don't feel so. That's fine, they run a nicer and softer game. Doesn't make it wrong to be done my way though, especially when fair warning is given before hand that I'm a rough GM. (Note: There is a big difference between a Die Hard GM and a Killer GM, and an even bigger one when compared to your run of the mill I'm a Giant Flaming Asshole GM that tends to crop up occasionally). I may butcher character's to death and bring them back to life to do it again (Firefly fans will remember Niska's bit on Mal), but I rarely just kill them off, and there is almost always chance for rescue and/or recovery through time and effort.

Saying they can "build back" to it is just a strawman excuse that while it may be possible, it isn't entirely feasible. Take the Sensitive System example. In order to restore that lost Magic that the player's character has been screwed out of, not only will they have to pay 35 karma (assuming starting at a 6 Magic here) to get the Magic point back, to buy up to an effective 7 before the lost point is taken into account, but also the cost for initiation would be required as well. It is ridiculous to expect your players to devote that much that should go into true advancement to get back what you have taken from them them because you want to "use every neg quality".

If the character has spent more than that 40 to 50 karma it takes, they still profit over a bullet to the brainpan. If what they did warrants death realistically, and I find a way for them to survive long enough to weasel out of it, it's not ridiculous in the least. I would call it generous even. And no, it's not a strawman excuse at all, I'm not constructing anything to hide the argument under. It's blatantly, they lose a point if you do it to a mage. It's just as blatant, they still have magic, still are good at magic, and still can improve magic. I have not taken away their magic.

What's been lost? Some experience. If I trash the Street Sams cyberarm, I'm not going to think twice about the nuyen he's going to pay getting it fixed. Where's the difference?

Allergies are a special case for the physiological qualities in that it would depend on the allergy. In this case, look at what the character is allergic to, as yes, some allergies would be intended as a background case. (Yes it is antagonistic to fill capsule rounds with strawberry syrup and shoot the character with severe allergy to strawberries with them.)  I suppose the crux of the matter on the issue is that the GM should be held to the same standard as the players on the issue of metagaming. Yes the GM--as himself--knows the negative qualities of the PCs, but the opponents do not, and without severe frag-ups on the part of the players are unlikely to ever know about them.

I actually already mentioned allergies way back and ways to bring them up in game without resorting to the contrived and stupid, I shoot you with DMSO'd mushrooms of allergenic doom method.

You call it metagaming, I call it bringing up the flaws they chose to be part of their story. It's not metagaming if the NPC has a logical reason for doing it. There is no logical reason to load capsule rounds with mushroom spores. Lead does the same job just as well. There are logical reasons behind the situations I've put forth.

[All4BigGuns]

There's a difference between a challenge and going that far.  A challenge is fine, but going that far is not.

No, there is not a "big difference" between those two types, there is a very fine line that is exceptionally easy to accidentally cross.

As to the mention of the cyberarm, well, you should think twice there as well.

The last part, yes it is metagaming, since--as stated--it is highly unlikely that without a serious fubar on the part of the player that any opponent would ever be able to learn about said flaws without delving into GM metagaming, and if the GM metagames, he has lost all rights to punish the players for doing so.

[Dracain]

While you both make good points, some flaws already have a constant passive effect, and thus, are always providing negative modifiers. Sensitive system has its effect at the start of the game, when the player doesn't have cyber because of it, it take effect when the player loses or has difficulty due to a lack of cyber and it takes effect when the character sees good piece of cyber but can't use it (you had an example like it, but the example relied on a stupid Johnsen). Sensitive system does not need to mean that cyber needs to be forced on the character. As I have stated before, punishing the character for stupidity and punishing the character because the player chose a flaw are two different things. Also, acting condescending isn't helping your case so much.

[CitizenJoe]

You don't HAVE to take any qualities, negative or positive.  If you DO take one, you are saying to the GM, "I find this aspect interesting and would like to explore it more."  Or you're saying "I am a munchkin and I only took these negative qualities so that I could get more build points."  Pick one.  In either case, I have no pity for self inflicted wounds.

[Dracain]

Or you are saying "my character's system is sensitive to cyberware", also, why is that the way to explore what being sensitive to chrome is like? And what is so wrong with a little munchkining?

[Crash_00]

There's a difference between a challenge and going that far.  A challenge is fine, but going that far is not.

How? Give some support to your claims.

No, there is not a "big difference" between those two types, there is a very fine line that is exceptionally easy to accidentally cross.

Hmm...well can't be a killer GM if you don't, you know, kill lots of PCs. If your players keep coming back for game after game to the point that you never get to play because you're always running, probably not a Giant Flaming Asshole GM, because players run like the dickens from those. Again, you could actually support the claim instead of just using it as a point with nothing to back it up. How are they very close? Why's the line accidentally easy cross?

As to the mention of the cyberarm, well, you should think twice there as well.

Why? The PCs are Shadowrunners. They go on cover ops missions against corporations with vast resources, illegally. Unless they're stealing puppies and kittens from the local pound, the target corp is probably able to pull out enough stops to seriously frag up a character if he messes up. The character is better off damaged than dead. End of story. Why should I think twice? Again, support.

The last part, yes it is metagaming, since--as stated--it is highly unlikely that without a serious fubar on the part of the player that any opponent would ever be able to learn about said flaws without delving into GM metagaming, and if the GM metagames, he has lost all rights to punish the players for doing so.

So the NPC needs to know that the character has sensitive system to implant him with Moleware^TM? That rescue ship of foreign smugglers has to know about the random person on the island's allergy to be offering them a cup of warm soup and a mug of pick me up goodness? Johnson's have to know the biometrics of every character when offering access to what they have on hand as a bonus for a job well done?

That's just absurd. The NPCs don't know. They are not metagaming at all. The GM is bringing the flaw that the character took into the game in each circumstance. If that is Metagaming, well hell we might as well yank out all contacts, guns, response plans, and every offer bit of the game that can be used against the player. After all, running an adventure is metagaming. The GM knows what is going to happen before hand.

Sensitive system does not need to mean that cyber needs to be forced on the character.

I never said it does need that. I said it's one valid option of bringing it up in play, making it part of the characters story.

you had an example like it, but the example relied on a stupid Johnsen

So giving the runners a bonus from what he has access to is stupid? I fail to comprehend that.

Or you are saying "my character's system is sensitive to cyberware", also, why is that the way to explore what being sensitive to chrome is like? And what is so wrong with a little munchkining?

A.) You don't have to have Sensitive System to be sensitive to chrome. You can simply decide your character is sensitive to chrome and have a nice day. Just like you don't have to take Poor Self Control to play a character that is a thrill seeker, but if you do take it, the GM should bring it up whenever the situation crops up.

B.) I believe Munchkining in this sense is the "I want the points but not the drawbacks, whaaaaaaa," attitude. There is nothing wrong with building a solid character. There is something wrong with exploiting rules, or taking things you don't want for you character just for the points and bitching later when it crops up during play.

C.) I've offered several ways to bring up sensitive system, none of them were ever stated to be mandatory, only fair. Taking Sensitive System and ignoring it isn't saying "I'm a little sensitive to ware", it's saying " ". That's right, it's saying nothing. At the very least, the character should occasionally be facing some hard choices based on the flaw he's taken.

[Glyph]

Forcibly implanting cyberware into a character with sensitive system is not a question of hard vs. soft GMing; it is a play style.  A lot of "hard" GMs would probably be fine with that flaw being purely a lateral limiter.  But what you're doing right is letting players know how your game is going to be run ahead of time.  If I sat down to a game, and my character with sensitive system was singled out to be forcibly implanted with something by the bad(er) guys, I would be pissed.  But if it was a game where the GM said, before we made characters, that he would treat flaws that way, I would not be pissed.  Although I would also be far less likely to take the flaw in the first place...

I am more relaxed about flaws, because they are essentially a BRIBE to give your character a few weaknesses.  And it's less "Here are some free points", and more "If you don't take some flaws, you will have 35 less build points than the other players".  That pretty much encourages a cynical kind of attitude about negative qualities.  If you really want to discourage that, introduce a new negative quality, called "answered the 20 questions and gave me some genuine weaknesses to exploit and plot elements to introduce", worth 35 points.

[All4BigGuns]

The whole point is that negative qualities such as Enemy, Wanted and others of that nature are the ones the GM should be having pop up. The others have clear and delineated effects such as dice pool penalties or being restricted--even if not completely cut off--from certain things like implants or skills or whatever.

[Crash_00]

The whole point is that negative qualities such as Enemy, Wanted and others of that nature are the ones the GM should be having pop up. The others have clear and delineated effects such as dice pool penalties or being restricted--even if not completely cut off--from certain things like implants or skills or whatever.

Those should pop up too. The entire point is that the character should have to take great efforts to overcome his weaknesses. That may be hiding from Enemies, slumming it to stay under the police radar, or the internal struggle to resist the urge of those sparkly new cybereyes because they'll put you on medication for the rest of you life to not reject. I fail to see the difference between I want Sensitive System to come up as part of my story and I want my enemy to come up as part of my story. Both cases are a character taking a flaw to become part of his story.

If you really want to discourage that, introduce a new negative quality, called "answered the 20 questions and gave me some genuine weaknesses to exploit and plot elements to introduce", worth 35 points.

I usually use karma gen (German version) for home games, but I almost always toss out an extra 5-50 karma for: 20 questions, detailed backgrounds, and 3x3x3s if the players are willing to take the time to develop them.

But if it was a game where the GM said, before we made characters, that he would treat flaws that way, I would not be pissed.  Although I would also be far less likely to take the flaw in the first place...

It tends to make people really think about their flaws before they take them, but in the end it tends to create a better story because the players will pick the things they want to come up in play.

My views probably come from 7th Seas, where the "flaws" were bought. When they came up, the character got extra experience. The whole point was to choose the ones that were part of your story. You also could take a fatal flaw, which the GM could activate to cause all sorts of havoc, and would in the end be the death of you if the story played out right. Then again, it's a game where figuring out how you die is just as much a part of the story as the adventures you play through.

[CitizenJoe]

A.) You don't have to have Sensitive System to be sensitive to chrome. You can simply decide your character is sensitive to chrome and have a nice day. Just like you don't have to take Poor Self Control to play a character that is a thrill seeker, but if you do take it, the GM should bring it up whenever the situation crops up.

I'm actually playing a character that rolls around in a wheelchair or has those forearm crutches and leg braces when he moves about.  He's a polio victim, but that is only an explanation for his low physical attributes.  I never actually took paraplegic.  One of these days, after I improve my physical stats, he's gonna jump out of the wheelchair and run off when faced with danger...