[cryptoknight]

Just a quick question here.

Season 4 bans a number of qualities.

It then later says

SINCE YOU USE THE NEW ERRATA, DO I HAVE TO
GO BACK AND FIX (FILL IN THE BLANK)?
We do not “retcon” characters. If you have already spent karma or
nuyen and the transaction is dated before the errata date it stays, for
better or worse. Adepts that suddenly  nd themselves with extra Power
Points may spend those points on new adept powers immediately.

Does this include characters transferred from NYC to Seattle who had say "In-Debt"?

[Bull]

Good question.  Technically, yes, that includes this.  Legacy Characters with In Debt should work to pay that off ASAP though, I'd say.  I'll have to see about doing something up for that in the future.

Bull

[cryptoknight]

Please don't put it down as should.

If it's a should... why would anybody bother?  You need to put in the FAQ, that if a character has a newly banned quality or flaw, that they must make karma payments to get rid of it.

I.e. 1 karma in 4 or something.

else... it's even worse than before the flaw was banned.

GM: "You know, you're supposed to pay off that flaw with your karma, right?"
Player: "Yah, but you don't have time to enforce things in game about it, so I'll just ignore that should"

Sorry, but I see this all the time in living campaigns. 

[Wasabi]

Missions are supposed to be quick and fun so having a 5pt negative formerly-legal quality sold back for 10 karma seems pretty punishing. After all, the player is being forced to sell back something that was formerly perfectly legal. If your goal is to make the quality not be in PC's hands then replacement with a legal flaw is the easiest answer. In the case of In Debt have replacement also cost repayment of the Nuyen and allow the character to go to negative if they lack all of the Nuyen. 

That way in one swoop its gone and the character isn't getting anything for free.

[cryptoknight]

Missions are supposed to be quick and fun so having a 5pt negative formerly-legal quality sold back for 10 karma seems pretty punishing. After all, the player is being forced to sell back something that was formerly perfectly legal. If your goal is to make the quality not be in PC's hands then replacement with a legal flaw is the easiest answer. In the case of In Debt have replacement also cost repayment of the Nuyen and allow the character to go to negative if they lack all of the Nuyen. 

That way in one swoop its gone and the character isn't getting anything for free.

Yes, but it's not a 5 point flaw... it's a 5 - 30 point flaw in increments of 5...

I don't see much problem with having players swap out... but phrasing it as "If you have any of the banned flaws on a legal missions character you *Should* pay the flaw off" just means that people will choose to ignore that sage advice and continue to carry it...

Honestly, if In Debt had a Karmic cost, it would be flaw.  i.e. While you're paying off the Karmic cost of the flaw and the money owned on it, you also pay 10% of your karma gained each month (rolling fractions forward) towards interest on working off the debt.  Then it would feel like a flaw instead of cheap points.

[Wasabi]

Its banned because its cheap points, and at a 30pt flaw denying 60 karma to the character is far beyonf punitive.

[KarmaInferno]

Personally, I'd have player just remake their characters as if they never had the In Debt flaw. Tell them to try to keep the rest of your character as close to the same as possible, and please not cheese this as an excuse to change things.


-k

[Bull]

Actually...  Replacing it is a good idea.

I really do need to do a new version of the FAQ...  if nothing else, War!, Attitude, and now Spy Gamnes are bringing new things to the table that need addressed.  My problem right now is finding the time.  Oi.

Bull