[All4BigGuns]

Again, no one is saying it shouldn't come into play at all. All I am saying is that it would be better to temper the effects the negative has depending on how much it actually makes the character "more powerful". For example, a -3 LP lifestyle negative shouldn't hurt the player as much as a -15 BP character negative.

[Crunch]

Again, no one is saying it shouldn't come into play at all. All I am saying is that it would be better to temper the effects the negative has depending on how much it actually makes the character "more powerful". For example, a -3 LP lifestyle negative shouldn't hurt the player as much as a -15 BP character negative.

Of course it should be proportionate, but lifestyle points will always be proportionately smaller because they can be resolved simply by walking away from the property. But if you took the set of qualities under discussion in my game, chances are at least one adventure would involve the Worse Neighbors exploiting the Lax Security to use the Ambushers Dream even if it wasn't against the PC. If that's not the commitment you're looking for you shouldn't take the traits.

Likewise if a player takes positive traits they should come into play to benefit them.

[emsquared]

I always use them myself and encourage my players to use them, because they're fun and reward you for putting just a tad bit more character into the game. Some negative lifestyle adjustments don't - and indeed can't and shouldn't - have much of a mechanical penalty applied at all. "Green Plan", "Poor Condition", "Defective CHN" are all things I tack on to just about every Lifestyle, especially at chargen, solely to cut back on costs and the only real negatives possible are 100% flavor. As GM, if I had a player that took those, I'd be fine with it and all I could do was if anytime they had someone over they'd notice the place is kind of run-down, big whoop that's probably 90% of places.

You don't have to spank players just for shaving off a few hundred bucks, if it has mechanics associated with it (Black Hole), absolutely apply them - though probably less than described (specifically thinking about Black Hole here), if it has a story element associated with it (Nosy Neighbors, Crash Pad), have it come up maybe once or twice while they still have the place with the "severity" of the issue relating to the discount, but it's meant to just add character not be a bane to the PCs existence. Mostly I'd just use the negs for comedic situations.

As for the thought that even though someone has already paid for the bonus dice in nuyen for a posi, you still need to punish them more with any negatives they might have, that's bull and an unhealthy way to approach the GM/player relationship.

[Crunch]

Roleplaying negative qualities that the player took voluntarily isn't "punishing" it's honoring the players choices. It would be disrespectful to ignore their choices. Why a player would expect free points for traits that wouldn't come into play is beyond me. A player who feels that Black Hole is too punitive shouldn't take it. There's no mandate that a player take negative qualities for their lifestyle.

Green plan has a very specific drawback (no electric charging for drones, vehicles etc) that could easily come into play, Defective CHN likewise specifically mentions that, for instance, the fire alarms don't work which could clearly be a factor in a story.

Qualities, especially those attached to lifestyle, are entirely optional. It is my opinion, and it could certainly be played differently, that positive qualities should come into play in advantageous circumstances and negative qualities should have a negative impact. Players should expect them to have an impact. Now, a GM who killed a character with a 1 point quality, like defective CHN, would be out of line in any but the harshest games.

Likewise I can't imagine voluntarily running a game twice for a player who whined about a negative quality coming into play in a reasonable and proportionate fashion.

[Nal0n]

We have a rule saying: At least 1/2 worth of positive qualitiesn to take as negative.

The negatives do not amount to much hassle most of the time, but they provide some all around fun to the players and the GM

[emsquared]

Roleplaying negative qualities that the player took voluntarily isn't "punishing" ...

Didn't say it was, it was implied earlier that neg traits should be enforced to "counteract" posi traits, when in fact the posi traits are already paid for with nuyen. That's their counteraction - money - not the implementation of neg traits.

A player who feels that Black Hole is too punitive shouldn't take it. There's no mandate that a player take negative qualities for their lifestyle.

LOL, right Crunch. Let's cut off the nose to spite the face. That's always the best approach. Orrr a GM could recognize that it's a cool and funny lifestyle trait but a literal implementation of it is too punitive (if he feels it is) and house-rule it to be dialed back. That's all I said.

It is my opinion, and it could certainly be played differently, that positive qualities should come into play in advantageous circumstances and negative qualities should have a negative impact. Players should expect them to have an impact.

Yes, opinions. That's what the OP asked for and that's what I gave him. Nevermind that I didn't say anything contrary to your general feelings. That you feel the need to come in and try to counter everything someone says that wasn't even addressed to you, kind of indicates you feel you have the less popular opinion.

[Crunch]

Or simply that I felt that some clarification and discussion could be helpful.

I'm not sure why you felt that merited a personal attack..

[ZeConster]

Roleplaying negative qualities that the player took voluntarily isn't "punishing" ...

Didn't say it was, it was implied earlier that neg traits should be enforced to "counteract" posi traits, when in fact the posi traits are already paid for with nuyen. That's their counteraction - money - not the implementation of neg traits.

The two are typically connected, actually - typically, if you have both positive and negative qualities, the negative qualities are there to compensate for the price increase from the positive qualities and lower the cost to an acceptable level, which means the negative qualities are basically there to pay for the positive qualities.

[emsquared]

Or simply that I felt that some clarification and discussion could be helpful.

Here's the thing though, you can't clarify my opinion. For you to try and do so is no less an attack.

Ramble off what the neg traits do, fine, that's discussion, clarify yourself, please do, but don't try and pretend like there's 1 right answer when there's not.

The two are typically connected, actually - typically, if you have both positive and negative qualities, the negative qualities are there to compensate for the price increase from the positive qualities and lower the cost to an acceptable level, which means the negative qualities are basically there to pay for the positive qualities.

Actually, I've never taken a posi at chargen - only negs. Then when I can afford it, I generally only take posi's. And that's what's typical at our table.

And the fact that you can take posi's without negs (and vice versa) tells us that the negs most definitely are not there to counteract the posi's. They are an option to defray the cost, sure, but their purpose is not to balance out the posi's. That's what you pay more for. The neg effects are there to balance out paying less for the lifestyle. Perhaps a fine delineation, but an important one. Because one approach to them is punitive, the other is not.

[Crunch]

Here's the thing though, you can't clarify my opinion. For you to try and do so is no less an attack.

Ramble off what the neg traits do, fine, that's discussion, clarify yourself, please do, but don't try and pretend like there's 1 right answer when there's not.

Given that I specified, even in the portion that you quoted, that I was simply giving my opinion I think you're going to be hard pressed to see an attack there. Two people going point and counterpoint on an issue is discussion not attack. Given that the point of this thread is to discuss whether and how to play with the advanced lifestyle qualities I think you're pretty far out of line to start attacking me for discussing advanced lifestyles.

[ZeConster]

The two are typically connected, actually - typically, if you have both positive and negative qualities, the negative qualities are there to compensate for the price increase from the positive qualities and lower the cost to an acceptable level, which means the negative qualities are basically there to pay for the positive qualities.

Actually, I've never taken a posi at chargen - only negs. Then when I can afford it, I generally only take posi's. And that's what's typical at our table.

And the fact that you can take posi's without negs (and vice versa) tells us that the negs most definitely are not there to counteract the posi's. They are an option to defray the cost, sure, but their purpose is not to balance out the posi's. That's what you pay more for. The neg effects are there to balance out paying less for the lifestyle. Perhaps a fine delineation, but an important one. Because one approach to them is punitive, the other is not.

But if someone does take negatives to compensate for the cost increase the positives give, there's nothing wrong with the GM recognizing that. And even if you're solely taking negatives, then you're still using them to compensate for something (namely the extra points in the base 5 properties that you don't feel you could otherwise afford). If the only consequence you get for negative Lifestyle qualities is "you can't bring dates over", that's an awful lot like taking Sensitive System on a character that'll never, ever get any ware ever - min-maxing. Roleplaying actual consequences to your choices isn't being punitive, it's being fair.

[Michael Chandra]

I'm saving that post of yours as evidence, so I can always hold it against you.

[emsquared]

Actually your entire first paragraph in your response (and it was a response, not an independent thought - that is the first indicator) was just putting words in my mouth combined with an absolute, contrarian statement on a matter of my opinion. That's not a characteristic of an open, helpful discussion. And while I'm not the type to start bandying about accusations of personal attacks, it didn't contribute to the post at large either. Not to mention you've posted twice now without a bit of on-topic discussion to your post. If you're no longer contributing, then what are you doing?

But if someone does take negatives to compensate for the cost increase the positives give, there's nothing wrong with the GM recognizing that. And even if you're solely taking negatives, then you're still using them to compensate for something (namely the extra points in the base 5 properties that you don't feel you could otherwise afford).

Yeah, exactly. And I said NLQs should come into play too. But I think it should only be as is appropriate for a 200Y/mo. inconvenience (or whatever they cost), where as others have indicated they think it should be as is appropriate to counter-act the posi's taken. That they're purchased independently means they should be enacted independently.

If the only consequence you get for negative Lifestyle qualities is "you can't bring dates over", that's an awful lot like taking Sensitive System on a character that'll never, ever get any ware ever - min-maxing. Roleplaying actual consequences to your choices isn't being punitive, it's being fair.

I forgot about the can't charge EC things (never played a big-time rigger that needed to worry about that), but otherwise, there truly isn't that much more to those NLQs and there's nothing wrong with that. Green Plan you can't have a higher than Medium Entertainment or Comforts I believe too (but it does preclude those Lifestyle options), and CHN isn't necessarily your fire-alarm (could be your thermostat is on the fritz, or your vac-bot, or your alarm clock, point is vast majority of it's effects are not mechanical), Poor Condition is truly "it just gets warmer when it's hot and cooler it's cold, plus there's leaks", no mechanical effect at all. It adds to the flavor though, so what's wrong with that? I love messing with LQs, it adds character to the setting and provide good ways to liven up the story, but these aren't supposed to be as big a deal as PC NQs. That's really the main point for me.

Now regarding your philosophy on Sensitive System, this is a topic that has been discussed at length elsewhere, but the short of it is, if it eliminates a possible legitimate path from your PCs development, it "should" be allowed. In that there's no logical reason to not allow it. A Hermetic mage can benefit from 'ware, just like anyone else, that your PC Herm has no intentions of taking 'ware shouldn't factor into the value of the Quality, or give you logical reason to disallow taking it, it still eliminates a viable path so it should still be worth something. Same thing with NLQs, their value isn't always in "how can I screw over my player here", sometimes the value is simply in the Quality itself.

[Crunch]

Actually your entire first paragraph in your response (and it was a response, not an independent thought - that is the first indicator) was just putting words in my mouth combined with an absolute, contrarian statement on a matter of my opinion. That's not a characteristic of an open, helpful discussion. And while I'm not the type to start bandying about accusations of personal attacks, it didn't contribute to the post at large either. Not to mention you've posted twice now without a bit of on-topic discussion to your post. If you're no longer contributing, then what are you doing?

It was a response. That's how conversation happens.

 And I reserve the right to respond when attacked. All in all I've been a damn sight more polite than you have been here. My chief sin seems to be not having totally agreed with you.

[All4BigGuns]

Actually your entire first paragraph in your response (and it was a response, not an independent thought - that is the first indicator) was just putting words in my mouth combined with an absolute, contrarian statement on a matter of my opinion. That's not a characteristic of an open, helpful discussion. And while I'm not the type to start bandying about accusations of personal attacks, it didn't contribute to the post at large either. Not to mention you've posted twice now without a bit of on-topic discussion to your post. If you're no longer contributing, then what are you doing?

It was a response. That's how conversation happens.

 And I reserve the right to respond when attacked. All in all I've been a damn sight more polite than you have been here. My chief sin seems to be not having totally agreed with you.

More polite? Hahahaha! That's great. I needed that after my day at work.

Neither he nor I are the ones putting words into another person's mouth and claiming that the other person is saying that negatives shouldn't come into play at all.