[All4BigGuns]

  This is a bad houserule.  

This is what was being said, and it simply wasn't being sugar-coated.

Let them spend their points as they want. If they don't build a well-rounded team, start "hitting them where they ain't"...they should address their short-comings.

Characters will become more powerful. That is their reward. They will also gain a higher profile, allowing less room for error and more powerful enemies. If a high-power game isn't your end goal, you need to consider what you really want. Players want to improve their characters. Long-term games evolve. After a decade in-game, the PCs will be legendary heroes, or dead. Ultimately, you control the rate of advancement...but you can't, and shouldn't, try to slow it too much, or your players will rapidly lose interest.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

The first part of this, I disagree with fully. A good GM builds the campaign around the team's capabilities. If there is no hacker or Awakened character, then hacking and magical threats should be very, very rare occurrences.

The second part I do agree with in that without sufficient karma and monetary awards, advancement slows to a snails pace, and the players as a result WILL become frustrated. Many will eventually get to the point of "why bother showing up to the game", and then the game dies out and all work done on the campaign will have been wasted. A good rule of thumb, in my opinion is to provide 5 karma per session along with enough monetary award to account for double to triple what a Middle lifestyle (or equivalent under the advanced rules--which may be more than normal).

[JoeNapalm]

The first part of this, I disagree with fully. A good GM builds the campaign around the team's capabilities. If there is no hacker or Awakened character, then hacking and magical threats should be very, very rare occurrences.

Not what I meant at all...the poster was concerned about building balanced characters, not balanced teams.

In this case, "balanced" meaning not overly specialized.

I don't have a problem with specialized characters, but if a GM doesn't want overspecialization, playing against the character's weaknesses would encourage them to become more balanced over the course of a long-term campaign.

The thing about specialized characters is, they have to rely on teamwork. I enjoy that, and I enjoy high-power campaigns (as GM, you have a lot more options to throw at an elite team of Runners than you do vs a team of street thugs). But if you prefer characters who are more rounded, I would try to encourage it without forcing the player's hands - players are stubborn, if they catch on to being forced in a certain direction.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Falconer]

Joe:
The point is that the ages are in the RAW.   Any guidelines for handling them aren't.  They're also completely irrelevant to most games... as even short-lived races it's never an issue.  I'm repeating that, it's completely irrelevent to most games.  The lack of anything generally means what... things just kick along til what they're magically age 80 as spry as a 20 year old and kick the bucket for god knows what reason?  (makes for an easy to use system... but like I said I was after house ruling a bit more detail).   If you don't even add in that much... there's no point to including techs like leonization either.  Please read the next paragraph carefully to better understand why I'm leaning toward this....

I was brainstorming ways to handle adding aging  (yes house ruling an undefined area of the rules) to the game in a non-broken manner.  So far the best idea I've come up with is to use the cyborg/zombie rules as a guide and come up with a new bit of negative AND POSITIVE qualities that characters pick up as they get older.  The idea being to handle aging somewhat similar to surge... you get older... you slowly pick up negatives and offsetting positives.  The original impetus behind the goblinization idea is it's never covered in any actual rulebook and only hinted at in fluff and it struck me as a nicer answer. 


Onto other points...
I don't like the idea of specifically targeting holes in players skill sets intentionally.  That strikes me as being just as punitive as calling in GM fiat.   It's my preference generally that each player have some basic skills in a few different areas.   Lets face it, most all of us have SOME social skills... we can't always keep a spokesman (face) around at all times to talk for us and handle all interactions.   I think it's generally unhealthy to have characters so specialized they need to rely on one person (who may or may not be present at that time in-game, or in person due to RL events when you're playing).


I generally prefer to approach things from a different angle altogether.   We have a warehouse which specializes in say magical goods... what's the net value of assets... how much security will this warrant and of what type.  Then go from there...  as I see it the team will either take the job and have the right skills and plan accordingly or they won't.   I found that oftentimes a lot of the more fun RP happens when a run does go bad.   In science, there's a bias towards positive results (because that's what gets funding and published), disproving something is rarely as 'profitable'.  In GM'ing and runs I find there's a similar bias... towards success even when it's really not earned, many games never have a run which fails.  Once I have a plan in mind I don't alter it because the players come up with a good idea of their own... or because they don't.  I see it as a problem-solving exercise.

Example: even in my high power game (I'm a player)... we got sent down south America to find some goon on very limited intel... well after realizing that mission was completely bolluxed and no way to extract the intel we needed we ended up pulling a complete 180 on the GM and took advantage of the change in setting to open up and have some fun making some money in side enterprises as mercs/guns for hire in a warzone.  A radical change from the more normal need to keep a low non-stop low profile elsewhere.  (actually ended up working for the guy we were supposed to catch... oh well... we made out, he made out... our first employer learned to give either A. better intel or B. much higher pay).


Onto XP and rewards....
I've been considering carrot ideas on how to accomplish that.   One of them is to award bonus karma that they can only spend on things outside their specialty.   Though I don't like earmarking like that...  maybe just let them know that the larger than normal karma awards will only keep coming if they don't overspecialize.

I was debating starting with about 500karma to start.   modified karmagen.   So tossing out 10-15 karma a session was my goal (as opposed to the anemic 5karma rate)... Speaking as a player, it makes things feel FAR more rewarding yeah you start farther in the hole and more limited but you really feel like you're making progress.  I suspect that's one reason why games like DnD still do well because people feel like they're advancing going from level 5->6 and the like...  even when they barely gain anything most 'levels'.  I can find an out to get more gear to the street sam as well especially if he's willing to accept corporate 'sponsorship' and get paid in 'ware.  By sticking to more of a 'barter' economy it's easier to keep large amounts of nuyen from becoming too much of an issue as they end up with kit they can use... but given the selling rules will have a harder time turning it into large amounts of certified cred to start.

One thing I haven't liked though again is I haven't thought of how to keep the mage in line short of calling in the old school magical loss rules (which strikes me as singularly punitive).  I can arrange things so a change in venue means that the street sam or rigger need to put their toys in storage and try to smuggle only a few small items here and there.   But the mage always has his skills and spells (and he knows the system well enough to use spells to make up for many skills).  And unfortunately unlike all the other players he's the most likely to resist any attempts at being anything but the biggest baddest mage on the planet.   (this isn't a problem in and of itself... so long as everyone else is playing the biggest and baddest whatever... but this isn't the case).

[Mirikon]

That is what happens when you try to knock down high level players. The types who advance primarily through nuyen and ware can be hampered, but the ones who advance primarily through karma (awakened and emerged) are almost completely unaffected.

[JoeNapalm]

Joe:
The point is that the ages are in the RAW.   Any guidelines for handling them aren't.  They're also completely irrelevant to most games... as even short-lived races it's never an issue.  I'm repeating that, it's completely irrelevent to most games.  The lack of anything generally means what... things just kick along til what they're magically age 80 as spry as a 20 year old and kick the bucket for god knows what reason?  (makes for an easy to use system... but like I said I was after house ruling a bit more detail). If you don't even add in that much... there's no point to including techs like leonization either. 

My point is that you don't need rules for aging. By the time your players are that old, they can likely afford leonization. If not, Mr. Johnson can offer it as a reward for that run they really would rather pass on.

You have to be very careful about telling a player "Hey! I appreciate you sticking with my game all his time, but I don't like Orks...so...you're dead!"

Please read the next paragraph carefully to better understand why I'm leaning toward this....

Wow. That's amazingly condescending. Don't assume that I haven't read what you have said, simply because I disagree with you. You posted here and asked for feedback. I am taking time out of my day to respond. You don't have to take my advice, but if you can't take criticism, don't invite it.

I was brainstorming ways to handle adding aging  (yes house ruling an undefined area of the rules) to the game in a non-broken manner.  So far the best idea I've come up with is to use the cyborg/zombie rules as a guide and come up with a new bit of negative AND POSITIVE qualities that characters pick up as they get older.  The idea being to handle aging somewhat similar to surge... you get older... you slowly pick up negatives and offsetting positives.  The original impetus behind the goblinization idea is it's never covered in any actual rulebook and only hinted at in fluff and it struck me as a nicer answer. 

Okay, but the only Quality you posted is a 10BP one for Goblinization, which you based on your insistence that Goblinization isn't covered in "any rulebook".

It is covered on SR4A 71, as I stated previously.

Goblinization does not grant a normal life span. If anything, it shortens it. Now, if you wanted to create an optional Positive Quality for shorter-lived Metahumans to have the life span of a normal a human, that is okay. The houserule you suggested, though, is backwards in relation to RAW...and I still say imposing a debilitating aging system is a bad idea.

Onto other points...
I don't like the idea of specifically targeting holes in players skill sets intentionally.  That strikes me as being just as punitive as calling in GM fiat.   It's my preference generally that each player have some basic skills in a few different areas.   Lets face it, most all of us have SOME social skills... we can't always keep a spokesman (face) around at all times to talk for us and handle all interactions.   I think it's generally unhealthy to have characters so specialized they need to rely on one person (who may or may not be present at that time in-game, or in person due to RL events when you're playing).

How is putting them in a situation where they need Social skills without a Face present not targeting holes in their skill set?

In science, there's a bias towards positive results (because that's what gets funding and published), disproving something is rarely as 'profitable'.

Actually, that isn't how science works at all. How can you fund only positive results when you need to do fund it to get the result? Disproving any theory of significance would make you famous.

  In GM'ing and runs I find there's a similar bias... towards success even when it's really not earned, many games never have a run which fails.  Once I have a plan in mind I don't alter it because the players come up with a good idea of their own... or because they don't.  I see it as a problem-solving exercise.

It is interactive storytelling. If you can't adapt to what your players are doing to tell a better story, you should learn how. The players don't need to always win - and they should NEVER believe they will always win.

But if you refuse to adjust your plans when they have a good idea, you're not being the best GM you can be - just because you're the GM doesn't mean you are the only one who can have ideas.

The flip side is, if you let them walk into a TPK because you're inflexible...don't waste so many cycles on those aging rules. You won be needing them.

Onto XP and rewards....
I've been considering carrot ideas on how to accomplish that.   One of them is to award bonus karma that they can only spend on things outside their specialty.   Though I don't like earmarking like that...  maybe just let them know that the larger than normal karma awards will only keep coming if they don't overspecialize.

RAW discourages over specialization. You don't need special rules. There is a diminishing return on investing in things you are already good at...do the math on raising skills and attributes. It rapidly becomes inviting to be "good enough" at most things.

One thing I haven't liked though again is I haven't thought of how to keep the mage in line short of calling in the old school magical loss rules (which strikes me as singularly punitive).  I can arrange things so a change in venue means that the street sam or rigger need to put their toys in storage and try to smuggle only a few small items here and there.   But the mage always has his skills and spells (and he knows the system well enough to use spells to make up for many skills).  And unfortunately unlike all the other players he's the most likely to resist any attempts at being anything but the biggest baddest mage on the planet.   (this isn't a problem in and of itself... so long as everyone else is playing the biggest and baddest whatever... but this isn't the case).

Why isn't it the case? After a decade or two, they should be pretty badass.

Yes, Mages are always dangerous. But, just as a Street Samurai pays in Essence for their ever-present abilities, a Mage pays in Karma.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Falconer]

Goblinization does not grant a normal life span. If anything, it shortens it. Now, if you wanted to create an optional Positive Quality for shorter-lived Metahumans to have the life span of a normal a human, that is okay. The houserule you suggested, though, is backwards in relation to RAW...and I still say imposing a debilitating aging system is a bad idea.

I thought that was 100% evident?!  That's exactly what I was trying to do.  The phrase I've always heard is they 'goblinized' as a teenager or whatnot... so I always took it to be synonymous with mutated into... as opposed to born into.

I wanted to give someone who wanted to play an orc a low cost positive quality to avoid the aging problem altogether.


Onto the rest Joe...

I don't think it's a stretch to expect each character to have SOME etiquette.    Just because a social test is called for doesn't mean that only a face can handle it or is even present.   Why can't someone approach your favorite street sam in a bar... and inquire about services?  Or to avoid making enemies when temporarily on some gangs turf or even find a creative use for the gangers with a little bit of payola.

Even things like negotiation... it doesn't change the job... only changes the payout... (they might not get as much as if the face negotiated but they'll still get paid reasonably).

In battletech, there used to be a joke about all the munchkins who'd make up these clan characters in the old mechwarrior systems... they always looked identical, every stat point optimally placed for combat.  They were pretty much hopeless if you ever took them out of a cockpit.  You might as well just have permanently wired them into the mech with a IV food drip.... that's what I immediately think of when I read your comment about tossing any kind of  social encounter at a player without a face present.


On the science bit... slightly OT:
http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2241774/
http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod15-2.htm

In a nutshell it works like this... Professor M publishes a positive result... he then applies for further funding to further investigate subject.  More funding comes... work continues.   Professor S disproves M's original assertion, no further funding is available to Prof S as this line of inquiry is now disproved.  Outside of some professional Kudo's 'Prof S' needs to find a new job and a new line of inquiry to keep the research grants coming in.  Worse Prof S has now made an enemy of Prof M as his funding is now drying up which tends to bring out long knives when it comes to things like peer review.

I see the same thing in many RPG's... it's anathema to actually have the player bollux things up.  It's up to the GM to help things along and if you don't adjust for the sake of the story then you're a bad GM.  Case in point, one of the guys I games with to this day takes flak because despite repeated warnings... his players kicked the door... then stood arguing loudly silhouetted in a doorway.  Then complained badly when some of them got killed when minutes later a machine gun opened up on them from inside the dark structure on them still loudly arguing in the light doorway.  GM is forced to stay his hand, merely for the sake of players stupidity?   I've told him numerous times I'd love to see him run a game again!

Maybe it's part of my mindset of time to have fun with this character... and if there's no real threat to the character... then it's not really fun.  And if the character doesn't make it... then it's a chance to make and play something entirely new!

Part of that is... okay we have the troll tank.   In order to deal with the tank by mundane means... there's some serious heavy firepower... once troll is neutralized... what does this portend for the rest of the group?  (assuming lets say it's a Johnson intentionally screwing the runners and knows to plan in advance for the ambush).  What good reason is there for the GM not to turn it on the next unhammered nail except that he's staying his hand out of mercy and not letting the situation play out.



As far as the last bit with the mage... here's the problem.

I'm intending to give out higher than normal karma awards.  Mages absolutely thrive on karma.  They really don't need much in terms of $$$$.  I'm worried that mages in general will advance far faster than the others because of this.  And then more importantly that this mage player in particular will revel in it... as he's addicted to high level play (everyone else would enjoy low power to start).  It's a thorny problem, I don't want to single him out... but I know he'll cause problems otherwise.  Maybe point him at latent awakening... so he doesn't start as a mage, but grows into it....  I'll have to think about that one more.

As others have said the nature of the system... sams/riggers/face effectively run out of things to spend their karma on... once you have a 6 in the relevent skill(s) and capped out the attribute.  It's mostly just a question of how much dosh do you have to keep buying augments or upgrade augments once essence gets short.  Other than that it's mostly the cool toy budget.

I haven't really found techno's a problem... they start so far behind the 8ball compared to a decker/rigger that it hasn't really been much of a hassle with them.  (I think it's because the cost of their CF's keeps going up... echoes and resonance to raise, AND they need to bring up their mental stats as well to keep their bionode up to par.   Mages on the other hand... after a certain point it's more a matter of damn the torpedoes... just keep pumping available karma into intiations and raw magical power.  Since almost everything is a Magic + X roll).