[JustADude]

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.

[Crunch]

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."

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[Kat9]

I'm going to assume you're being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

Thus my sig.

[All4BigGuns]

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).

[ZombieAcePilot]

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!).

[Kat9]

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

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[Shadowjack]

@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]

@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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[Devil]

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.

[Kat9]

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.

[Devil]

  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