NEWS

A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay

  • 85 Replies
  • 29967 Views

Wasabi

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 56
« Reply #45 on: <09-20-10/0039:22> »
It's not really that fair if my dumb as a stump ork sammy plays three missions with a tricked out Pornomancer and earns an extra 20K per adventure just because someone else happened to be able to throw 20+ exploding dice.

This is why I suggested a diminishing return after 5 net hits.
Missions Characters:
[SR4] Jax - Merc Technomancer
[SR5] Reece - Journalist TM

TranKirsaKali

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 148
« Reply #46 on: <09-20-10/0046:11> »
Honestly the non monetary rewards thing really would be easy to do.  As I think I said elsewhere, I have had GM's willing to work with that.  Giving us equipment to blow up the objective, a specialized tool that we returned when done, trips to the horizon clinic for free ect.  It is pretty easy to do on the fly even.  Especially if the face is able to role play it out and ask for the extras.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
« Reply #47 on: <09-20-10/0305:55> »
On the flip side, I think the Johnsons and Fixers need to be pimp this season.  I wanna watch when the GM gets to tell you... "ohhh... 10 hits, I'm sorry, I rolled 12. Wanna do it from the asking price?"  Then again, I have a pornomancer in a missions group I'm in, and she just serves as a dead weight.  So my opinion might be colored :D

I think your term of pornomancer lets us ,or at least me,know you do not have much use for face characters.  I am sorry you ran with a bad one but do not paint all of us with that brush.  I know I would not want to run a job with out a good face.  And just because you have a good dice pool doesn't mean you are a good face.  Role playing is a key part of it.  My Face does her job for the team in getting us money and information.  And in the fighting can keep up.  If you can not create a rounded character that is your problem.  No face I have ever played with or I have played expected an unlimited amount of money to be squeezed from a Johnson.  But rewarding a well built character is a good thing.  No matter what type of character it is.  And as for the GM's having to think. . .   I do not believe that a single GM I have run with has ever expected to not have to think.  You will always have to be able to go with the flow of the team you are dealing with as a GM.  They may throw decent curve balls at you.  I know the people I run with love to throw a good curve ball.  Creativity in my opinion is a must with a good GM.  

I am not sure if you frequent Dumpshock, but the pornomancer is a reference to a min-maxed monstrosity of a face with something like 40+dice, I think after 4A it got knocked down to like 36 dice.  I do not think bull was stating a problem with faces, but a simple detail that in a con style session a min-maxed negotiator will swing one group of PCs in the power scale more than missions really intends.  At a home game the GM is there to look at all the characters and adjust things, In a con with standardized runs and GMs with no real knowledge of your characters that does not happen.  And if you get a bunch more cash than intended for a few sessions in a row you may be throwing the balance of the missions off especially given the shakiness of the balance maintained by team or table rating. 

Wasabi

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 56
« Reply #48 on: <09-20-10/0608:22> »
Speaking for myself I'd be ok with a hard cap that allowed for somewhere between 5 hits and the 20 hits of the pornomancer with a 36 dicepool rerolling failures (12 hits then reroll 24 failures for 8 more hits gets the 20 hits total). I'm for full effect per hit up to 5 hits, then diminished return for hits 6-10 then hard cap at 10 hits. With 10 hits someone focused has benefit and with my diminished return example its 50% more *bonus* nuyen than the 5 hit success.

With added table rating the multiplier in bonus pay goes up but the johnson gets extra dice to counter the runners.

I'm not against limits -- I'm against limits that dont allow a dedicated face to shine and 10 hits is a lot of shine.

As for non-monetary awards versus diminished return awards, either is valid IMO... my motivation is to see faces able to do greater things than 5 hits without it being an extra 20k per mission.
Missions Characters:
[SR4] Jax - Merc Technomancer
[SR5] Reece - Journalist TM

Chance359

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 33
« Reply #49 on: <09-20-10/1308:54> »
I like the idea of the face's negotiations result being capped by TR x 1.5. 

TranKirsaKali

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 148
« Reply #50 on: <09-20-10/1527:17> »
On the flip side, I think the Johnsons and Fixers need to be pimp this season.  I wanna watch when the GM gets to tell you... "ohhh... 10 hits, I'm sorry, I rolled 12. Wanna do it from the asking price?"  Then again, I have a pornomancer in a missions group I'm in, and she just serves as a dead weight.  So my opinion might be colored :D

I think your term of pornomancer lets us ,or at least me,know you do not have much use for face characters.  I am sorry you ran with a bad one but do not paint all of us with that brush.  I know I would not want to run a job with out a good face.  And just because you have a good dice pool doesn't mean you are a good face.  Role playing is a key part of it.  My Face does her job for the team in getting us money and information.  And in the fighting can keep up.  If you can not create a rounded character that is your problem.  No face I have ever played with or I have played expected an unlimited amount of money to be squeezed from a Johnson.  But rewarding a well built character is a good thing.  No matter what type of character it is.  And as for the GM's having to think. . .   I do not believe that a single GM I have run with has ever expected to not have to think.  You will always have to be able to go with the flow of the team you are dealing with as a GM.  They may throw decent curve balls at you.  I know the people I run with love to throw a good curve ball.  Creativity in my opinion is a must with a good GM.  

I am not sure if you frequent Dumpshock, but the pornomancer is a reference to a min-maxed monstrosity of a face with something like 40+dice, I think after 4A it got knocked down to like 36 dice.  I do not think bull was stating a problem with faces, but a simple detail that in a con style session a min-maxed negotiator will swing one group of PCs in the power scale more than missions really intends.  At a home game the GM is there to look at all the characters and adjust things, In a con with standardized runs and GMs with no real knowledge of your characters that does not happen.  And if you get a bunch more cash than intended for a few sessions in a row you may be throwing the balance of the missions off especially given the shakiness of the balance maintained by team or table rating. 

Yes I am on Dumpshock with the same handle.  I had never seen the term before.  Honestly to me it comes across very slanderous.  And secondly I was not responding to Bull, I was responding to Cain Hazen.  Bull has always come across as very fair and even handed.  Cain is not coming across that way.  I do not ever like seeing people decide a group is bad because of one bad apple. 

Wasabi

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 56
« Reply #51 on: <09-20-10/1827:03> »
I like the idea of the face's negotiations result being capped by TR x 1.5. 

I'm not sure I myself (a lowly player) like x1.5 as much as x2 but I certainly think it a clean mechanic!
Missions Characters:
[SR4] Jax - Merc Technomancer
[SR5] Reece - Journalist TM

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
« Reply #52 on: <09-20-10/1959:10> »
On the flip side, I think the Johnsons and Fixers need to be pimp this season.  I wanna watch when the GM gets to tell you... "ohhh... 10 hits, I'm sorry, I rolled 12. Wanna do it from the asking price?"  Then again, I have a pornomancer in a missions group I'm in, and she just serves as a dead weight.  So my opinion might be colored :D

I think your term of pornomancer lets us ,or at least me,know you do not have much use for face characters.  I am sorry you ran with a bad one but do not paint all of us with that brush.  I know I would not want to run a job with out a good face.  And just because you have a good dice pool doesn't mean you are a good face.  Role playing is a key part of it.  My Face does her job for the team in getting us money and information.  And in the fighting can keep up.  If you can not create a rounded character that is your problem.  No face I have ever played with or I have played expected an unlimited amount of money to be squeezed from a Johnson.  But rewarding a well built character is a good thing.  No matter what type of character it is.  And as for the GM's having to think. . .   I do not believe that a single GM I have run with has ever expected to not have to think.  You will always have to be able to go with the flow of the team you are dealing with as a GM.  They may throw decent curve balls at you.  I know the people I run with love to throw a good curve ball.  Creativity in my opinion is a must with a good GM.  

I am not sure if you frequent Dumpshock, but the pornomancer is a reference to a min-maxed monstrosity of a face with something like 40+dice, I think after 4A it got knocked down to like 36 dice.  I do not think bull was stating a problem with faces, but a simple detail that in a con style session a min-maxed negotiator will swing one group of PCs in the power scale more than missions really intends.  At a home game the GM is there to look at all the characters and adjust things, In a con with standardized runs and GMs with no real knowledge of your characters that does not happen.  And if you get a bunch more cash than intended for a few sessions in a row you may be throwing the balance of the missions off especially given the shakiness of the balance maintained by team or table rating. 

Yes I am on Dumpshock with the same handle.  I had never seen the term before.  Honestly to me it comes across very slanderous.  And secondly I was not responding to Bull, I was responding to Cain Hazen.  Bull has always come across as very fair and even handed.  Cain is not coming across that way.  I do not ever like seeing people decide a group is bad because of one bad apple. 

You are right I misread who you were quoting, still the idea still stands.  Overly abusive negotiator builds can skew the long term balance of a missions environment with unlimited successes allowed.  Cons just work differently since the GM is not acclimating to a weekly groups characters.  Still my concern is more on the low end of the scale, if you are missing your face for a few runs how much are you short money.  A lot of builds are money intensive, losing 20K as opposed to getting 20K extra every session for 3 or 4 sessions really hurts street sams, riggers etc.  Meanwhile the more karma intensive builds like mages and adepts truck along like nothing bad happened. 

TranKirsaKali

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 148
« Reply #53 on: <09-20-10/2011:08> »
On the flip side, I think the Johnsons and Fixers need to be pimp this season.  I wanna watch when the GM gets to tell you... "ohhh... 10 hits, I'm sorry, I rolled 12. Wanna do it from the asking price?"  Then again, I have a pornomancer in a missions group I'm in, and she just serves as a dead weight.  So my opinion might be colored :D

I think your term of pornomancer lets us ,or at least me,know you do not have much use for face characters.  I am sorry you ran with a bad one but do not paint all of us with that brush.  I know I would not want to run a job with out a good face.  And just because you have a good dice pool doesn't mean you are a good face.  Role playing is a key part of it.  My Face does her job for the team in getting us money and information.  And in the fighting can keep up.  If you can not create a rounded character that is your problem.  No face I have ever played with or I have played expected an unlimited amount of money to be squeezed from a Johnson.  But rewarding a well built character is a good thing.  No matter what type of character it is.  And as for the GM's having to think. . .   I do not believe that a single GM I have run with has ever expected to not have to think.  You will always have to be able to go with the flow of the team you are dealing with as a GM.  They may throw decent curve balls at you.  I know the people I run with love to throw a good curve ball.  Creativity in my opinion is a must with a good GM.  

I am not sure if you frequent Dumpshock, but the pornomancer is a reference to a min-maxed monstrosity of a face with something like 40+dice, I think after 4A it got knocked down to like 36 dice.  I do not think bull was stating a problem with faces, but a simple detail that in a con style session a min-maxed negotiator will swing one group of PCs in the power scale more than missions really intends.  At a home game the GM is there to look at all the characters and adjust things, In a con with standardized runs and GMs with no real knowledge of your characters that does not happen.  And if you get a bunch more cash than intended for a few sessions in a row you may be throwing the balance of the missions off especially given the shakiness of the balance maintained by team or table rating. 

Yes I am on Dumpshock with the same handle.  I had never seen the term before.  Honestly to me it comes across very slanderous.  And secondly I was not responding to Bull, I was responding to Cain Hazen.  Bull has always come across as very fair and even handed.  Cain is not coming across that way.  I do not ever like seeing people decide a group is bad because of one bad apple. 

You are right I misread who you were quoting, still the idea still stands.  Overly abusive negotiator builds can skew the long term balance of a missions environment with unlimited successes allowed.  Cons just work differently since the GM is not acclimating to a weekly groups characters.  Still my concern is more on the low end of the scale, if you are missing your face for a few runs how much are you short money.  A lot of builds are money intensive, losing 20K as opposed to getting 20K extra every session for 3 or 4 sessions really hurts street sams, riggers etc.  Meanwhile the more karma intensive builds like mages and adepts truck along like nothing bad happened. 

Anything overly abusive can do that.  A hacker that is done to extremes can steal lots of pay data.  A technomacer done to extremes can steal vehicles, drones, ect and cause an imbalance.  Street Sams done up overboard can wipe out the opposition quickly.  And a caster done to the nth degree can wipe out masses quietly and quickly.  Anything done to extremes can be over balancing.  Anything.  So where are the caps on that?  I never anywhere said Faces should be able to get all the money they wanted.  I have however said that they are useful and that other forms of compensation would be wonderful instead of money.  And that those could be easily done in game.  Everything extra we got this con season due to my face rolling well we also got due to good role playing.  When the Johnson couldn't give us more money I would negotiate for other things. Not by making the GM come up with them but by asking for specific things.  Good role play should always be a factor in the game.  There are people out there who enjoy seeing what they can create with in the rules and how powerful that character can be.  I do not believe most of them travel to far with their min maxed out characters.  And I know they create more balanced characters for their home games.  But sometimes it is fun to see what you can do with 0 karma characters at table rating 6.  I am not saying pay me as much as my dice say you should.  I am saying pay me the max you can and if I can role play out some other benefits see if it will work in the game.  And there will always be disparities in the game. Some people are better role players than others.  Some people know the rules better than others.  And some people are just learning.  No one should be punished for any of this.  You should succeed or fail on your own merits and no one should be held back because someone else is still learning.

Caine Hazen

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Omae
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Dumpshocker Emeritus
    • My lair
« Reply #54 on: <09-21-10/0953:41> »
Sorry to have offended your "face" sensablilities; but Shinobi is on the right track with this.  The face we have in one of our Mission goups is a poromancer, and also a pacifist to boot (cause those extra points were worth it for more negotiation).  In fact the combo of beingthe negotiator and the pacifist has caused more than a few problems with trying to take runs. 

Really its not so much a slander of the "face" archtype as it is of this player, and how the min/maxing effects the game.  I run another group, in which the face for the group is a really good player, and has probably done a lot of good in moving the storyline.  I would almost term him a pornomancer as well (using enhancd att CHA before most meets), but he has 1 combat spell too, and does more work than our Missions face. ::)
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat~DNA
SRGC 0.3: SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4++ h b+++ B--- D++ UB++ IE+ RN-- fnord DSF++++ W++++ hk+ ri++ m gm++ M--(+) P FP+

TranKirsaKali

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 148
« Reply #55 on: <09-21-10/1254:44> »
Sorry to have offended your "face" sensablilities; but Shinobi is on the right track with this.  The face we have in one of our Mission goups is a poromancer, and also a pacifist to boot (cause those extra points were worth it for more negotiation).  In fact the combo of beingthe negotiator and the pacifist has caused more than a few problems with trying to take runs. 

Really its not so much a slander of the "face" archtype as it is of this player, and how the min/maxing effects the game.  I run another group, in which the face for the group is a really good player, and has probably done a lot of good in moving the storyline.  I would almost term him a pornomancer as well (using enhancd att CHA before most meets), but he has 1 combat spell too, and does more work than our Missions face. ::)

Actually I just don't like the imagery the term pornomancer calls forth. It has nothing to do with my secondary character type.  Just me personally.  I wouldn't have liked the term before I played one either.  My main is a Wolf Shaman that just kills things.  My main issue was with people painting all faces as useless because of one bad one that they had dealt with.  There are more good ones than bad.  And I have to say, if they needed pacifist to get enough dice then they were doing things a bit oddly.  I currently have 26 dice to throw and I still have skills in guns, infiltration, perception ect.  Balancing a character is a challenge but a worth while one.

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6193
  • Kids these days...
« Reply #56 on: <09-21-10/1352:59> »
Not too mention pacifism just fits a face. They should see every obstacle as one that can be talked out of.

Caine Hazen

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Omae
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Dumpshocker Emeritus
    • My lair
« Reply #57 on: <09-21-10/1520:45> »
Yeah, until the see every mission as a chance to kill someone and stop doing their damn job.  There are certain types of roleplaying that dn't mesh well with certain styles of play... and when you're spending more time trying to talk your grup out of taking a mission cause it sounds like wetwork, you're just causing problems with the flow of things.  On the otheside, it helped me plan a much better character for after Lynx retires.

Better than the "pacifist" Phys Ad we had show up for 1 mission... but I'll tell that story in the gaming horror stories sometime
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat~DNA
SRGC 0.3: SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4++ h b+++ B--- D++ UB++ IE+ RN-- fnord DSF++++ W++++ hk+ ri++ m gm++ M--(+) P FP+

DWC

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
« Reply #58 on: <09-21-10/1529:03> »
Why should a proficient negotiator be a pacifist?  If anything, I'd argue that it actually hurts you in many cases.  Violence is just one of many ways of resolving interpersonal conflict, and taking the option off the table only serves to tie your hands.

It's been my experience that being ready, willing, and able to kill everyone you're negotiating with can come in very handy, especially when dealing with bullies, thugs, and gangers.  You have to dial it down, or shut that off completely with some people, but I'd never give up being able to turn it back on.

Oh, and I love gaming horror stories.  What's this pacifist adept trainwreck tale of woe?

TranKirsaKali

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 148
« Reply #59 on: <09-21-10/1532:12> »
We have a person in our home game that created a face because he wanted to try that out for a change.  He is ticking off the team and just being a pain.  So I can understand your pain.  But for missions you can just say to the player we don't want to play with that character any more.  You are doing more harm than good.  I know the group I normally play with spent a good bit of time through emails trying to work out what kind of characters we were going to play and how to do it.  If you know you are going to play with the same people it may be a good idea to do that.  I hope things get better for you.