[JackVII]

An interesting thread derailment occurred in the Character Creation and Critique forum concerning Negative Qualities. A poster advocated taking a Moderate Allergy to Seafood for 15 relatively cheap karma, believing it to be easily avoidable. After pointing out that, along with soy, seafood-based substitutes (krill, seaweed, etc) are heavily used to suplement the diets of most regular people in the Shadowrun future, the question turned to the targeting of Negative Qualities by GMs.

I think I have a good feel for the optimizer perspective, I wanted to know how GMs would handle it. This applies really to all NQs, but the topic surrounded the Allergy NQ in particular.

From my own perspective, I think NQs like Allergy require the GM to consider how the allergens fit into their game. It seems like this would be a requirement in the first place as the GM would need to determine whether a particular allergen was Common or Uncommon in their setting. Based on that determination, they would need to then determine how that prevalence impacts their game.

For Uncommon allergens, I think they should really only be introduced by the GM specifically to target the player and be used rather sparingly, once every few runs perhaps. They are supposed to be uncommon, after all.

For Common allergens, I like to tie things to existing rules, so I think I would sit down and come up with a way to determine if/when the reaction is triggered. Picking up a few of the Common Allergens listed, I'd go with something like the following:
Food-based Allergens (Seafood/Soy/Wheat): To normally avoid triggering the reaction, requires paying a premium on their lifestyle cost, probably something similar to how Symbiotes bioware is handled. High+ Lifestyle avoids the reaction entirely in normal circumstances. With that said, the GM should probably target it once in a while even if the above precautions are taken (as they can't be 100% fool-proof).
WIFI Sensitivity: The reaction is triggered whenever the character is in a Spam Zone with a rating of 2 or higher.

I could also see all of the above targeted through a daily Edge roll, possibly risking exposure on no hits.

Those are just a few ideas off the cuff. I'd love to know how other GMs felt about this and how they handle the targeting of NQs. The discussion isn't necessarily restricted to Allergen. I'd love to hear to what degree GMs feel they should target NQs (for instance, the rigger who never leaves the van taking Uncouth).

TIA!

[All4BigGuns]

The following is a quote of the absolute best way to handle it, bar none.

As a GM I play it cool with NQ, players who take them and forget about them are not targeted (my stories are based on maximized enjoyment of players) but those players who have NQ and work them into the game recieve a point of Karma.

[Michael Chandra]

Unfortunately even when I plan to target specific negative qualities, I keep forgetting to. ;_; I need to start writing them down in my exact mission plans.

Anyway, a GM should be careful not to overdo it. Even at 25 karma total, there's no need to constantly make it pop up. Either give something a regular low chance, or pull it out once in a while. So perhaps ~1/50 per karma point.

[ZeConster]

Last I checked, the whole point of Negative Qualities was an "I want extra chargen Karma" versus "this will be a disadvantage in some situations" consideration. Making NQs free Karma for people who ignore them, and a way for players to earn even more Karma if they 'use' their NQs, hardly seems like "the absolute best way to handle it". It'll work for some tables, sure, but that's all.

[Namikaze]

I had a friend who made a severely powerful Troll physical adept.  He was simply a beast.  Normally I don't like min/maxing in my game, but this player did a great job of not overdoing things to the point of making other players feel out of place.  In any event, part of the reason he could make such a powerful character was that he had an incredibly severe allergy to bee stings.  I never had a chance to use this against him, but it did become a running joke that he carried around about a dozen epipens as a result of being paranoid about bees.

Totally priceless - his ability to mix his negative quality into his character's personality and such just made the whole experience better.  I was going to make the group fight some insect shaman with bee spirits...  but he retired to work as a fighter in an underground fight club as it was generally safer than running the shadows.

[Insaniac99]

Last I checked, the whole point of Negative Qualities was an "I want extra chargen Karma" versus "this will be a disadvantage in some situations" consideration. Making NQs free Karma for people who ignore them, and a way for players to earn even more Karma if they 'use' their NQs, hardly seems like "the absolute best way to handle it". It'll work for some tables, sure, but that's all.

There are two main schools of thought regarding character negatives; the first is to give an upfront bonus to the player; the second is to give everyone the same karma; let them pick negatives that fit the character; then reward them when the negative comes into play.

I find the second style is better both for storytelling and for how fairly it treats the player.

[ZeConster]

The second school does sound interesting, but only because of the "give everyone the same karma" bit - otherwise it would feel like you're allowing players to doubledip.

[Tuoweit]

I see Negative Qualities as GM Plot Hooks which have been pre-selected by the player for their character.  That is, a player picks (or should be picking) a Negative Quality because he/she wants it to come into play (or at the least, doesn't mind if it does).  Some Negative Qualities are more likely to come up naturally through play (like Combat Paralysis, for example), others are more niche (like Uncommon Allergies).

That said, they're also worth points.  I follow the Hero System philosophy when it comes to character flaws worth points:  If a flaw never comes into play, it's not worth any points.  Thus, I feel that it's actually the GM's obligation to everyone at the table to ensure that each Negative Quality "earns its keep" fairly, so to speak.  So for many Negative Qualities, that means the GM needs to come up with situations where they might matter, That doesn't necessarily mean forcing a character into a situation where they have to confront that NQ, though.  Sometimes it's sufficient to remind the player in question of opportunities missed because of a NQ. 

Take your seafood example.  Say it's the group's Face that has the allergy.  The players are in a tight spot with the Yakuza, and they come up with a clever plan to impersonate one of the Yakuza lieutenants at an upcoming dinner in order to feed some false information to the local oyabun.  You could have the Face show up only to discover that the dinner is going to be sushi.

On the other hand, you could give that information to the characters beforehand.  This puts the ball firmly in the players' court.  Do they grit their teeth and go through with their plan, hoping the Face can handle his allergic symptoms without giving himself away?  Do they come up with a different plan because of the Face's NQ?  Do they come up with elaborate deceptions to fake eating the sushi (with ensuing hilarity)?  The NQ becomes a new challenge for the players to overcome, rather than an arbitrary smack upside the head at random intervals for being greedy at chargen.

[Kanly]

"Typical" seafood allergy is for prawn etc, not fish. Very few people are allergic to fish.
 

[Insaniac99]

The issue I have with the Champs mindset is that a third of the negatives just come from defining how your character acts (psychological disadvantages); a third comes from creating your history (the hunted disadvantages, dependants, etc); and a third from the real stuff (weaknesses and so forth).  That's 2/3rds of your points just for having a character with an actually personality and background -- something every character should have in the first place!  it isn't really disadvantageous.  The last bit comes from the real disadvantages but even so, there isn't a way to guarantee that they will come up in the game until after the game starts, and you play.  that means the GM either needs everything planned out before characters are done  in order to disallow a ton or he has to write it all up only after the characters are created and if they go somewhere that makes the disadvantages meaningless what do you do then?  It practically bribes the player to put more work on the GM and try to make worthless or easily avoidable disadvantages.

The M&M mindset to rewarding as a disadvantage comes up means players have an upfront expectation to create a meaningful character with a history and know how they will act; they aren't rewarded for doing it.  Then they take some real complications however many they want, and the fact that they get rewarded when it comes up means if it is something they want and you can't manage to work it into your campaign or the players bring it up then they get rewarded.  This means that a player is encouraged from the start to explore the negative aspects of their character and help the GM come up with interesting angles to the character.

[Mithlas]

In any event, part of the reason he could make such a powerful character was that he had an incredibly severe allergy to bee stings.  I never had a chance to use this against him, but it did become a running joke that he carried around about a dozen epipens as a result of being paranoid about bees.

Totally priceless - his ability to mix his negative quality into his character's personality and such just made the whole experience better.  I was going to make the group fight some insect shaman with bee spirits...  but he retired to work as a fighter in an underground fight club as it was generally safer than running the shadows.

I think this is the right way to handle it. Before I started running Shadowrun, I was trying to convince my meatspace group to play GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds (they didn't go for it). In M&M, their equivalents of "negative qualities" are things that don't really grant points in character creation but during play - the up-stepped light blindness issue of an albino would give points when that character (player) stepped into the challenge and struggled through it...or they could spend a point to skip over that complication and go express for the mission objective.

It's that "reward for a challenge faced" that I think should be the focus. Negative qualities can be "easy points", particularly in a fast and loose game, but they're also a great possibility for character exploration and story telling. I think that's where games get really fun and interesting, and hence when players play to their character (negative qualities and all) I reward that with additional karma. It's the same idea as some D&D tables giving extra XP to the MVP after a fight session.

If a player just wants points, I think that playing through the game should be the only route - the allergy or negative quality should be something that they will run into at some point. One of my players wanted Sensitive System as a mage and admitted outright that he did not have and planned to never get 'ware of any kind. I said 'no, a quality positive or negative is something your character should have at some point in your character's past and future'.

I follow the Hero System philosophy when it comes to character flaws worth points:  If a flaw never comes into play, it's not worth any points.

On the other hand, you could give that information to the characters beforehand.  This puts the ball firmly in the players' court.  Do they grit their teeth and go through with their plan, hoping the Face can handle his allergic symptoms without giving himself away?  Do they come up with a different plan because of the Face's NQ?  Do they come up with elaborate deceptions to fake eating the sushi (with ensuing hilarity)?  The NQ becomes a new challenge for the players to overcome, rather than an arbitrary smack upside the head at random intervals for being greedy at chargen.

[All4BigGuns]

This is not Hero System, Mutants and Masterminds or Champions. Take all ideas you acquired through those games and throw them out the window whenever you play any other game.

[Novocrane]

One of my players wanted Sensitive System as a mage and admitted outright that he did not have and planned to never get 'ware of any kind.

I'd politely inform them that they've met all the requirements for buying off Sensitive System in 4th.
5th SS is a bit different, and doesn't rely on the character taking 'ware to have an effect, but there are rules for the process in both editions.

If the gamemaster feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow that character to pay twice the quality’s BP cost to remove it.

if a character wishes to get rid of a Negative quality, has met any stipulated requirements, and the gamemaster has given the player permission, the player may do so at a rate of listed Karma x 2.

These are pretty easy going rulings, but I think the GM has right to differentiate between the player & character if the player isn't keeping it on the level and talking it over hasn't brought new perspective.

[All4BigGuns]

One of my players wanted Sensitive System as a mage and admitted outright that he did not have and planned to never get 'ware of any kind.

I'd politely inform them that they've met all the requirements for buying off Sensitive System in 4th.
5th SS is a bit different, and doesn't rely on the character taking 'ware to have an effect, but there are rules for the process in both editions.

If the gamemaster feels that a character has made the necessary changes to shrug off a negative quality, he can allow that character to pay twice the quality’s BP cost to remove it.

if a character wishes to get rid of a Negative quality, has met any stipulated requirements, and the gamemaster has given the player permission, the player may do so at a rate of listed Karma x 2.

These are pretty easy going rulings, but I think the GM has right to differentiate between the player & character if the player isn't keeping it on the level and talking it over hasn't brought new perspective.

Key words in the text you quoted. These are "he can allow". No where does it say "he may immediately force".

[RHat]

Key words in the text you quoted. These are "he can allow". No where does it say "he may immediately force".

Yes, but when a negative quality is basically just free points from the outset because the player ALREADY didn't plan to trigger it, the GM is well within his rights to do something about the free points problem.