[Kat9]

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?"

[Devil]

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.

[Kat9]

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.

[Devil]

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."

[ZombieAcePilot]

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).

[Shadowjack]

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

[Kat9]

Well thank goodness that's over.

Feel better?

[Shadowjack]

I see you can't control yourself.

[Kat9]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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").

[Crunch]

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?

[All4BigGuns]

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'.