[LordGrizzle]

Alright. I am reading so often that In Debt screws people over but I just don't see how it does that.

So I think I am doing something wrong with the money I provide my runners with. Let's look at the numbers:

A runner takes In Debt at 75000 that means he or she owes +50% that gives us 112500 in debt which leads to a monthly payment of 11250. Let's toss a medium lifestyle to that and we are at about 16k a month.

Ns look at an average run my players do: it usually involves at least opponents with a dice pool of 10 - 12 which gives us a +1 or +2 modifier. They are also always outnumbered so +1 more. Multiplying this with 3000 we are at 9k to 12k before negotiation tests.

Two runs a month (and they usually do at least two runs per month) and you have enough to pay everything.

So I wonder: are two runs per month too much. Should I give them lass runs or money a month?

[Namikaze]

Your math is not wrong.  Part of the issue is that on the off chance that a team doesn't get that second run, or something goes wrong to where they can't afford their monthly payments, the Indebted runner is hosed.  Also, while your math isn't wrong, it's not always the standard.  Many GMs like the runners to be a bit hungry.  This leads them tortaking more risks, which explains why they are running in the first place.  This is more common with newbish runners.  Additionally, there are GMs that encourage their players to diversify their skills, much like those skill choices used in Life Modules.  In these games, the players will likely be going up against opponents with dice pools closer to 8 - 10.  Finally, we come to the actual math-related reason: your character is losing 11000 a month.   That money could be spent on new gear, medical bills, or anything else.  But it can't, for the next 10 months.  So for 20ish runs, you'll be paying off that one-time loan.

As always, the danger of a quality depends on the table.  And any negative quality that does not negatively affect a character should not be allowed.

[Kincaid]

A big part of this comes down to how the GM handles the calendar.  The time/space wonkiness of Missions aside, most GMs try to keep players on a relatively coordinated timeline, so if people want to train (or heal), it's best to have everyone on team train at the same time.  Leaving two weeks for training in a month may or may not fly for some players--especially those who want to invest time in substantial improvements--and the In Debt character may be asked to accommodate from time to time.

From a purely mechanical standpoint, having 75,000 to spend on Availability 12 items is nice, but I have characters who'd rather have 40,000 to spend on higher Availability items shortly after chargen.  There are a lot of variables in play.

[Quatar]

Finally, we come to the actual math-related reason: your character is losing 11000 a month.   That money could be spent on new gear, medical bills, or anything else.  But it can't, for the next 10 months.  So for 20ish runs, you'll be paying off that one-time loan.

As always, the danger of a quality depends on the table.  And any negative quality that does not negatively affect a character should not be allowed.

I'm pretty sure those 10% are just the new interest for that month, it's not actually paying back the loan!
So if all you do is pay the 11,250 bucks, then you'll be in debt with your loan-shark for 112,500 nuyen forever.

So yes, it's pretty brutal, but you also got 75000 at character creation AND 15 karma for it. And nobody forced you to take it at rank 15.
Taking a rank 2 or 3 loan can make a huge difference for a Resource E character, and is still easily manageable.

[Namikaze]

Yeah I think taking it up to level 5 is very reasonable.  Especially for priority E resources characters, as you said.  Taking it at level 15 is dangerous as hell though.  At least, in my mind.

[LordGrizzle]

So yes, it's pretty brutal, but you also got 75000 at character creation AND 15 karma for it. And nobody forced you to take it at rank 15.

Well, this leads me back to a discussion I had about this where I asked if you actually GET the 15 Karma, because it's weirdly worded as if you had to spend the karma you get from this quality to actually get money... but people had different opinions on that.

Which leads me to another question: do you think is it more balanced if you get the karma?

[Malevolence]

I've played it as granting you the karma. It IS a negative quality. That being said, you do NOT have to spend the karma on nuyen, but can choose to spend up to X karma on nuyen for 5000 nuyen per point, where X is the number of points gained from In Debt. Basically, the NQ gives you the debt, not the nuyen. You simply have the option to get a better conversion ratio on your karma to nuyen buy for a limited amount of points.

[Quatar]

I kinda assumed you'd just say "I take it at rank 5" and you get 5 Karma and 25k nuyen. It is a negative quality and that's how they usually work. You GET karma.
I mean to pay it back you also have to have the karma AND nuyen, so it be just fair, wouldn't it?

Anyway that's how I would see and use it in my game.

But I see what you mean, it talks about "spending karma to be In Debt", which doesn't fit with negative qualities at all. You don't spend karma on them you get karma for it!

Is it possible that whoever wrote it, thought it would be a positive quality and worded it like that? Doubt it kinda, but maybe it's just a case of bad wording. It would be cool if we could somehow get an official word on this.
Anybody knows how it was worded in 4th and how people used it then?

[LordGrizzle]

I kinda assumed you'd just say "I take it at rank 5" and you get 5 Karma and 25k nuyen. It is a negative quality and that's how they usually work. You GET karma.
I mean to pay it back you also have to have the karma AND nuyen, so it be just fair, wouldn't it?

Anyway that's how I would see and use it in my game.

But I see what you mean, it talks about "spending karma to be In Debt", which doesn't fit with negative qualities at all. You don't spend karma on them you get karma for it!

Is it possible that whoever wrote it, thought it would be a positive quality and worded it like that? Doubt it kinda, but maybe it's just a case of bad wording. It would be cool if we could somehow get an official word on this.
Anybody knows how it was worded in 4th and how people used it then?

Well, as I understand it maybe you take In Debt, you get the disadvantage of having a debt and some karma. And you are allowed to spend that karma to get money.
If you read the quality to it's entirety it also says you spend that karma now INSTEAD of the usual you would use to get additional money which means for me you lose the ability to trade 1 karma for 2k

[Lucean]

You get 5,000 ¥ for every point in In Debt ("... the character gets 5,000 nuyen to spend during character creation"). So yes, you get karma and ¥, that's why you have to spend at least 50% more ¥ than you got and +100% of the karma to get rid of the quality.

[Leevizer]

I don't like what SR5 did with Vendetta, In Debt and several other qualities, though. I liked that before you could take these negative qualities and they'd basically add as storyhooks for the gamemaster or additional obstacles for the player/players to face. Now they just have silly limitations to force the players to pay back the karma. I mean, what the hell? If I pay back my debt, that's going to negatively affect me anyway so why do I need to pay the karma back, too? Or oh, I had this blood feud going on with a local gang which meant we got attacked by them and so on. Now that our group killed all the gangers another group is going to get pissed off at me because I didn't pay the karma back.

I mean, come on. It shouldn't be left to the rules to stop abusing negative qualities but to gamemasters.

[Lucean]

Vendetta already required you to buy it off, even if you neutralize the original target, it's the same with Wanted.
Only In Debt didn't explicitely state this, although this would seem to be more of an oversight rather than intent regarding the mentioned qualities.

So I think your claim is not only (partially) unfounded, but also a bit unfair.

[Novocrane]

Now they just have silly limitations to force the players to pay back the karma.

It's not actually a new thing. The difference is, now they tell you in the quality, rather than assuming you read the CRB. If anything, 5e In Debt is a better quality in the sense that you can now trade in for another quality when you pay it off.

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.

[Leevizer]

Granted, it has been a while since I read the SR4 rulebooks, I just didn't remember it having those rules... Could be that I remember wrognly, sorry. I just feel it kind of dumb.

[LordGrizzle]

Granted, it has been a while since I read the SR4 rulebooks, I just didn't remember it having those rules... Could be that I remember wrognly, sorry. I just feel it kind of dumb.

Well it prevents people from cheesing free karma and then disposing of a negative quality quickly.

Also from inside the setting karma represents you getting forward with your life, I'd guess if you don't have the necessary karma to buy off the negative quality you haven't moved on with your life so you are still suffering the same amount through other means or something

Imagine as if fate has not yet found that you deserve to be free of something then you can squirm as much as you like, you are not going to solve the problem (no matter if you believe in fate in the real world). Fate exists in the world of Shadowrun and is expressed through Edge and Karma.