Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Hephaestus on <08-17-19/2346:35>

Title: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hephaestus on <08-17-19/2346:35>
So, I wanted to make a weapon specialist character focused on Exotic Weapons. Here's what I got:

Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist

Priority                  
A   Resources              450,000¥
B   Attributes              16
C   Skills                 20
D   Metatype              Human (4)
E   Magic/Resonance   Mundane

Attributes
BOD   4      
AGI   7 (11)
REA   3 (6)
STR   2
WIL   3
LOG   2
INT   2
CHA   2 (Max 3)      
EDG   5
ESS   0.9

Qualities               
Aptitude (Exotic Weapons)       -12
Exceptional Attribute (Agility)   -12
Impaired Attribute (Charisma 3)   +24
Incompetent (Cracking)      +10
Honor Bound (Pirates Code)   +10
Net                       +20

Skills                  
Athletics              1
Biotech         1
Close Combat      2
Con                 2
Electronics              1
Engineering      1
Exotic Weapons      7
- Specialization (Dart Weapons)
- Specialization (Whips)
- Specialization (Grenade Launchers)
- Specialization (Rocket Launchers)   
Firearms              2
Influence              1
Outdoors              1
Perception              3
Piloting         1
Stealth         2

Augments   
Wired Reflexes 3 (Used)
Muscle Toner 4
Cybereyes 2
- Smartlink   
- Flare Compensation
Datajack

Weapons   
Monofilament Whip
Parashield DART Pistol
- Smartgun System (Internal)
Parashield DART Rifle
- Smartgun System (Internal)
Armtech MGL-6
- Smartgun System (Internal)
Onotari Interceptor

Armor   
Full Body Armor
- Chemical Seal
- Cold Resistance 2
- Fire Resistance 2
- Sensor (Shoulder Mounted)
-- Ultrasound
w/ Helmet
- Low-Light Vision
- Thermographic Vision
- Ultrasound Link
- Vision Enhancement
- Vision Magnification

Fake SINs/Licenses
SIN (4, John Q. Public)
License (R5, Drug Possession)
License (R5, Armor)
Licence (R5, Smartgun System)

Ammo   
200 Narcoject Darts
100 Frag Grenades
10 Zen Grenades
10 Novacoke Grenades
20 Pepper Punch Grenades
20 Thermal Smoke Grenades
20 Flash-Paks
10 Rating 4 Guided Fragmentation Missiles
26 Assorted Spare Clips

Other
Lifestyle (Medium, 3 mo)
Transys Avalon (6)
Subvocal Mic (3)
Micro-Transceiver
Tag Eraser
Contacts (3)
- Image Link
- Low-Light Vision
- Thermographic Vision
Earbuds (3)
- Audio Enhancement
- Spatial Recognizer
Flashlight
Survival Kit
Gas Mask
20 Light Sticks
Biomonitor
Medkit (6)
- 10 Medkit Supplies
5 Antidote Patches
5 Stim Patches (6)
5 Trauma Patches
GMC Bulldog

Remaining   Money:   5000¥

He has a dice pool of 20 for all his attacks, since they all use the same skill. He has a stockpile of explosives large enough to level a city block, and some really fun toys to use for crowd control (or lack thereof, if using a novacoke grenade).

And, as an aside, the Impaired Attribute negative quality is a super exploit to get free karma. A character can lower the maximum limit of a lesser-used attribute by an average of 4 points (6 down to 2), and there is no verbiage stating it can only be taken once. An extreme example, a troll character could theoretically take 7 points off of their BOD maximum for 56 karma, then take up to 5 positive qualities totaling 36 karma, and still come out with +20 net karma.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: R Villiers on <08-18-19/1119:54>
I'm new here and don't have the core rulebook. Could you elaborate a bit on the impaired attribute quality? You set a maximum value for an attribute and then receive points equal to 8 x maximum attribute - set value?
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-18-19/1141:20>


Qualities               
Aptitude (Exotic Weapons)       -12
Exceptional Attribute (Agility)   -12
Impaired Attribute (Charisma 3)   +24
Incompetent (Cracking)      +10
Honor Bound (Pirates Code)   +10
Net                       +20


My current understanding is that you can only get 20 Bonus Karma from Negative Qualities.  Yes it's terribly worded, the Errata team is aware.

So you can drop (for example) Impaired Attribute since it's not getting you any Karma, and the net cost is 4 Karma.  Leaves you 16 Karma short.

But, yes Impaired Attribute is essentially a free 16 Karma.  Or 20 if you're okay with a 3 Max in an Attribute.

Impaired Strength 3 for most characters.  Impaired Logic or Charisma for the Unarmed Combat Characters.  And you can stop thinking about Negative Qualities if you'd like. 
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: markelphoenix on <08-18-19/1147:12>


Qualities               
Aptitude (Exotic Weapons)       -12
Exceptional Attribute (Agility)   -12
Impaired Attribute (Charisma 3)   +24
Incompetent (Cracking)      +10
Honor Bound (Pirates Code)   +10
Net                       +20


My current understanding is that you can only get 20 Bonus Karma from Negative Qualities.  Yes it's terribly worded, the Errata team is aware.

So you can drop (for example) Impaired Attribute since it's not getting you any Karma, and the net cost is 4 Karma.  Leaves you 16 Karma short.

But, yes Impaired Attribute is essentially a free 16 Karma.  Or 20 if you're okay with a 3 Max in an Attribute.

Impaired Strength 3 for most characters.  Impaired Logic or Charisma for the Unarmed Combat Characters.  And you can stop thinking about Negative Qualities if you'd like.

I think there was a discussion about 'Net 20' causing a belief that PQ - NQ = +20 Karma == valid. So, if you took -56 Karma in NQ, then took +36 PQ, it would be Net 20 Karma for expenditures on stats and skills, thus valid.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-18-19/1148:34>
You can get 20 net Bonus Karma. So -24 + 44 is perfectly legal as it only gives you 20 extra karma, which is exactly the limit.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hephaestus on <08-18-19/1317:54>
I'm new here and don't have the core rulebook. Could you elaborate a bit on the impaired attribute quality? You set a maximum value for an attribute and then receive points equal to 8 x maximum attribute - set value?

Every race has a fixed maximum for each ability score (i.e. Humans cap at 6 for everything except Edge, which caps at 7). The Impaired Attribute negative quality drops the cap of a given ability by 1 point for each rank taken, to a minimum attribute rating maximum of 2.

For example, the character I made is not very charismatic. The human racial maximum for Charisma is 6. I took Impaired Attribute (Charisma) 3, which drops my maximum Charisma stat from 6 down to 3. So even if I accumulate karma during gameplay, I can never raise my Charisma stat above 3 without augmentations. The trade-off is that 3 ranks x 8 bonus karma per rank = 24 bonus karma. I could have increased to rank 4 (making my maximum 2, and giving me 32 bonus karma), but not rank 5, as it would have made my maximum 1.

Note that for the moment, you can take this quality multiple times, once for each stat you want to drop the maximum rating for. You could, in theory, make a troll character, and reduce Body from 9 to 6 and Strength from 9 to 6, using up 2 of your 6 starting qualities, and giving you +48 karma. You would have to take positive qualities to drop the total bonus to +20 karma, but that's 28 karma worth of positive qualities before reducing the bonus karma below 20.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: markelphoenix on <08-18-19/1346:14>
I'm new here and don't have the core rulebook. Could you elaborate a bit on the impaired attribute quality? You set a maximum value for an attribute and then receive points equal to 8 x maximum attribute - set value?

Every race has a fixed maximum for each ability score (i.e. Humans cap at 6 for everything except Edge, which caps at 7). The Impaired Attribute negative quality drops the cap of a given ability by 1 point for each rank taken, to a minimum attribute rating maximum of 2.

For example, the character I made is not very charismatic. The human racial maximum for Charisma is 6. I took Impaired Attribute (Charisma) 3, which drops my maximum Charisma stat from 6 down to 3. So even if I accumulate karma during gameplay, I can never raise my Charisma stat above 3 without augmentations. The trade-off is that 3 ranks x 8 bonus karma per rank = 24 bonus karma. I could have increased to rank 4 (making my maximum 2, and giving me 32 bonus karma), but not rank 5, as it would have made my maximum 1.

Note that for the moment, you can take this quality multiple times, once for each stat you want to drop the maximum rating for. You could, in theory, make a troll character, and reduce Body from 9 to 6 and Strength from 9 to 6, using up 2 of your 6 starting qualities, and giving you +48 karma. You would have to take positive qualities to drop the total bonus to +20 karma, but that's 28 karma worth of positive qualities before reducing the bonus karma below 20.

Hmmm, so is there a limit to how many times someone can take Focused Concentration? Could see this opening a wide door for a mage if not.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: R Villiers on <08-18-19/1354:45>
Thank you very much.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-18-19/1406:50>
Impaired definitely needs some GM-restricting.

Focused Concentration is capped at 3 spells, and cannot handle Drain Values of 7+. In other words, it cannot support Increase Reflexes with 3+ kept hits, though Increase Attribute it can support at 4 kept hits.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-18-19/1657:35>
You can get 20 net Bonus Karma. So -24 + 44 is perfectly legal as it only gives you 20 extra karma, which is exactly the limit.

*Sigh*

My current understanding has been updated back to my original understanding of "Take as much Impaired Attribute as you need".  Thank you.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-18-19/1700:55>
Yeah Impaired is like Corporate SINner and Uncouth were in SR5: Requiring extreme prejudice as GM.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <08-19-19/1049:28>
You can get 20 net Bonus Karma. So -24 + 44 is perfectly legal as it only gives you 20 extra karma, which is exactly the limit.

*Sigh*

My current understanding has been updated back to my original understanding of "Take as much Impaired Attribute as you need".  Thank you.

Yeah it's a mess.  But it'll be sorted out. :]
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hephaestus on <08-19-19/1403:28>
Impaired definitely needs some GM-restricting.

No, it needs to be rewritten by CGL. Make it one ability only, and cap the loss at -3. That would put it inline with other positive and negative qualities.

And personal gripe: I am getting really sick of people trying to shovel all these poorly written rules and busted mechanics on the GMs to fix. Scrub the book. Fix the broken rules/loopholes/exploits/bad examples/questionable wording and update the print and the PDF. It is not the job of GMs to edit rules because CGL didn't do their job editing the rules.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-19-19/1450:34>
It IS the GM's job to curate the players and decide what they're willing to allow.  That never changed. I'm out.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Typhus on <08-19-19/1552:23>
Technically there's nothing in the Impaired entry to stop you from having an Impairment with Magic or Resonance.  It's just "Attribute".
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: FastJack on <08-19-19/1612:42>
Technically there's nothing in the Impaired entry to stop you from having an Impairment with Magic or Resonance.  It's just "Attribute".
That is true. But as a GM, I wouldn't allow it unless they chose magic/resonance to start with.

In regards to Hephaestus, remember that not all role-playing systems are supposed to be black and white rules. Many rules are in place to allow players and their GMs to see if something works for their group or not. Saying a quality or another part of the rules is a hard stop at X can limit the creativity of some gamers, pushing them away from the game instead of putting rules out there that are more "gray" and saying it's up to the individual groups/GMs to decide if this works in their games.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <08-19-19/1759:24>
Saying a quality or another part of the rules is a hard stop at X can limit the creativity of some gamers, pushing them away from the game instead of putting rules out there that are more "gray" and saying it's up to the individual groups/GMs to decide if this works in their games.

"They gotta leave things vague, so that individual tables know they can adjust the rules to suit their table...  It isn't like they (individual tables) could do that if they (CGL) made solid rules in the first place."

Uh-huh.

Even if that was an acceptable response, it falls flat for any game that is actively supporting a Living Game (such as Missions).
As long as Missions exists as a thing that CGL isn't divorcing themselves from, they at least need to pay lip service to the endeavor and try to make rules clear and concise.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Typhus on <08-19-19/1914:44>
Quote
That is true. But as a GM, I wouldn't allow it unless they chose magic/resonance to start with.

Oh of course.  No reasonable GM would.  Just saying, it could use clarification.  Incompetent, right below it, does have such a notation.  Consistency is good.  Players love to argue that omission is permission.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hephaestus on <08-19-19/1948:03>
Quote
That is true. But as a GM, I wouldn't allow it unless they chose magic/resonance to start with.

Oh of course.  No reasonable GM would.  Just saying, it could use clarification.  Incompetent, right below it, does have such a notation.  Consistency is good.  Players love to argue that omission is permission.

+1 to that

In regards to Hephaestus, remember that not all role-playing systems are supposed to be black and white rules. Many rules are in place to allow players and their GMs to see if something works for their group or not. Saying a quality or another part of the rules is a hard stop at X can limit the creativity of some gamers, pushing them away from the game instead of putting rules out there that are more "gray" and saying it's up to the individual groups/GMs to decide if this works in their games.

Limiting an exploitable ability does not stifle creativity. Allowing players to game the system with exploits absolutely kills creativity, as that allows for "the one build to rule them all" to develop. Riggers are rare in 5th because their rules are sub-par compared to other archetypes, and because the setting doesn't really support car/boat chases or aerial dog fights. MysAds in 5th are power-gamed to all hell, because there are specific power builds that just outclass everyone else.

And the argument of letting a GM have grey areas is moot. A GM can make grey areas wherever they want, or just throw rules out entirely. The issue is how much additional bookkeeping they have to do to manage a campaign. A tight, balanced ruleset means for the most part, they don't have to house-rule much of anything. It also means that the GM can more easily scale encounters to be (roughly) an equal challenge for all players at the table.

On the other hand, a vague, unbalanced, exploitable ruleset means they have to keep track of more and more issues throughout a campaign, and managing it just becomes a chore. And once a game is a chore, its not really a game anymore. And providing a sufficient threat to the cracked out power player usually means the rest of the team ends up as paste.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: FastJack on <08-19-19/2037:18>
Even if that was an acceptable response, it falls flat for any game that is actively supporting a Living Game (such as Missions).
As long as Missions exists as a thing that CGL isn't divorcing themselves from, they at least need to pay lip service to the endeavor and try to make rules clear and concise.
Missions (or, in the case of other systems, PF Society or D&D Adventurer's League) ALWAYS publish their own restrictions outside of the published rules. Because the gaming companies aren't stupid and know rules lawyers would break the system in an effort to "win" the game.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-19-19/2220:09>
Even if that was an acceptable response, it falls flat for any game that is actively supporting a Living Game (such as Missions).
As long as Missions exists as a thing that CGL isn't divorcing themselves from, they at least need to pay lip service to the endeavor and try to make rules clear and concise.
Missions (or, in the case of other systems, PF Society or D&D Adventurer's League) ALWAYS publish their own restrictions outside of the published rules. Because the gaming companies aren't stupid and know rules lawyers would break the system in an effort to "win" the game.

You misunderstand the motivation.  You can't "Win" at a role playing game.  You can have really cool moments where your character does really cool make believe things.  Like Batman.  Don't you want your make believe self to be like Batman? 
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: markelphoenix on <08-19-19/2227:53>
Even if that was an acceptable response, it falls flat for any game that is actively supporting a Living Game (such as Missions).
As long as Missions exists as a thing that CGL isn't divorcing themselves from, they at least need to pay lip service to the endeavor and try to make rules clear and concise.
Missions (or, in the case of other systems, PF Society or D&D Adventurer's League) ALWAYS publish their own restrictions outside of the published rules. Because the gaming companies aren't stupid and know rules lawyers would break the system in an effort to "win" the game.

You misunderstand the motivation.  You can't "Win" at a role playing game.  You can have really cool moments where your character does really cool make believe things.  Like Batman.  Don't you want your make believe self to be like Batman?

I think most people would agree about cool moments, but there are some personality types that will munchkin for the purposes of making it almost impossible for them to fail, or for others to be left behind in the dust if they don't equally munchkin. In effect, they see themselves as 'winning' by making such an uber powerful character that makes any challenge that would be thrown at the team trivial to themselves.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: FastJack on <08-20-19/0908:45>
The "winning" is making sure the story is focused on their character, to the detriment of other PCs (and even the GM's planned story at times).
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-20-19/0944:56>
The "winning" is making sure the story is focused on their character, to the detriment of other PCs (and even the GM's planned story at times).

Hogging the spotlight has nothing to do with character optimization.  I've played at plenty of tables where the person doing much of the talking isn't a mechanically adept character.  That's a "Play Nice with Others" thing, not a min/max thing.  Please don't lump character optimization in with poor table manners.  Anyone can build a mechanically good character, and anyone can be a jerk.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Moonrunner on <08-20-19/0955:25>
This is a great discussion.  I'm learning so much in this forum!
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <08-20-19/1147:45>
Even if that was an acceptable response, it falls flat for any game that is actively supporting a Living Game (such as Missions).
As long as Missions exists as a thing that CGL isn't divorcing themselves from, they at least need to pay lip service to the endeavor and try to make rules clear and concise.
Missions (or, in the case of other systems, PF Society or D&D Adventurer's League) ALWAYS publish their own restrictions outside of the published rules. Because the gaming companies aren't stupid and know rules lawyers would break the system in an effort to "win" the game.

And?

That doesn't counter anything I posted at all.

In fact, it glosses over that the Living Game organizers ALSO write the restrictions to do their damnedest to ensure a consistent play experience from table to table.  If you play at Table A and Table B and both tables happen to have the same (or similar enough) Play Scenario C, they should be handled the same way (or very, very, similarly.)

Now, I don't loathe Missions players as much as you clearly do, but I'd like to think that the consistent play experience is the primary motivation, and the merciless crushing of rules lawyers you take so much joy in is secondary.

YMMV, of course.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Lormyr on <08-20-19/1313:58>
Hogging the spotlight has nothing to do with character optimization.  I've played at plenty of tables where the person doing much of the talking isn't a mechanically adept character.  That's a "Play Nice with Others" thing, not a min/max thing.  Please don't lump character optimization in with poor table manners.  Anyone can build a mechanically good character, and anyone can be a jerk.

This.

I also do not believe that gamers who enjoy optimizing or breaking the system are worthy of this stygma. Let's not wrongbadfun people here. Speaking to Missions specifically, I've met a lot of players in Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, and Origins who were optimizers of one degree or another. You know how many of them turned out to be problem players in addition to that? None.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hephaestus on <08-20-19/1320:21>
I don't get the sense that Fastjack loathes Missions players (can't confirm; don't know the guy), but I can see how the concept of Missions-specific rules can be seen as attempts to plug holes in the rules that shouldn't exist in the first place. On the other hand, Missions rules that are setting-specific don't bother me so long as they are equally enforced across all tables.

If the Missions rules say that in the setting, people with obvious augments (or maybe magic) are treated as pariahs, then that is going to be tough for some players. But its something that good players can work with, and it doesn't kill build potential. And then it falls to the GM to make sure affected players are treated accordingly.

But if the Missions rules say "Impaired Attribute can only be taken once, and only to a maximum of 3 ranks" then that looks like an errata change that they just didn't make official.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-20-19/1336:34>
Haha my 9 body 1 strength troll joke is even better than I thought. Not only do I get to dump strength but I can get like 64 points in negative qualities and as long as I have 44 points in positive qualities I’m good. I thought the racial system on its own was off to the point of easily broken as is. With this negative quality it’s epic.

Limit it to once per stat. Limit it so it can’t be in your racial stat.  Limit it or clarify that special stats like magic and resonance can’t be taken.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: dezmont on <08-20-19/1359:50>
The other big flaw of 'let GMs sort it out' is that like... that freaking sucks for players man. Like for real.

A huge huge HUGE draw for many many players is looking over the books and thinking "This looks cool. I want to try this!"

When you put balancing onus onto the GM as POLICY beyond the bare minimum 'trust your GMs to say no to really ridiculous things that clearly never were intended' you do a lot of intensely negative things.

For one, you are priming your GM to do the opposite of what a good GM does, to limit, to quash, to restrict. It violates one of the basic tenants of good GMing in modern RPGs: Being a fan of your players and wanting cool stuff to happen. Ideally, your rules should springboard player imagination, not to be something that is a false start that requires the GM to tell players "No!"

Secondly, its a huge bait and switch killjoy to a player who attached to a cool thing the RPG said to do. Like it isn't a player's fault the RPG book lied to them or said they could do something, a huge appeal of RPG books is perusing them for cool things. That is a massive part of what SR is about, it is why older editions literally framed the books as shopping catologues, because it was fun to look through them and go "Wowe Zowy that is so cool! I am going to use that on my next PC!" By promising a player something and expecting the GM to slap it out of their hands, congrats, you just create a really comically avoidable negative play experience most RPGs these days manage to avoid. How razzed do you think Billy Boardgames, new RPG player, is going to be to make a new PC after their GM tells them they were a naughty boy for doing this cool thing the books tell you to do making a Mystic Adept and tossing the sheet in the bin? Probably not very... Its why pretty much no RPG on the market does this and why no game design course will teach you this is a good idea. Its like... objectively a massive failure?

Finally it basically... surrenders good game design? It isn't a virtue to say "Gms can just balance it themselves so we should make the game extra wacky and let GMs reign it in." Your game... should be good? Like it feels so weird to use this as a counterpoint to an argument but games should be good and well designed.

This quality's only function is to let a player reduce the maximum of an attribute in exchange for more power now. That is ALL it does. Shadowrun is a game where it is not just extremely unlikely, but unheard of to max out all your attributes over the course of a game. It does not take a design genius to realize that this quality, therefore, is an auto-pick at at least one level, and it isn't a Punpun level unexpected outcome for a player to elect to take this quality that, in essence, does nothing, when its effect starts and ends at limiting the upper level of an attribute. Like yeah you can't always anticipate someone will combine a bunch of stuff in an unexpected way to nuke the game, that stuff happens. But we are talking about a single quality being used on its own in the context it is intended to be used in. If it doesn't work THERE its just broken, there isn't a debate to be had on players trying to 'win' the game or GMs limiting content, it just shouldn't have been written.

In the context of SR, this is a failed design on the face of it because as a negative quality it does... nothing, in pretty much any context. It isn't really 'on' the GM that something was printed that was so aggressively out of line. It isn't even like 5e Aged which KINDA gets away with it by forcing it on a bunch of attributes so that being aged really does limit your build severely on most PCs. This quality isn't 'being abused,' it just *IS* broken. That isn't on the GM, someone writing the game should notice this quality breaks good design principles and have fixed it or removed it.

There totally ARE designs where you are trusting your GM to limit content that are not just fine, but good! SR has some! Fame, for example, is a quality banned at many a table just because it is very disruptive to the campaign's dynamic, but it exists because it allows very interesting stories to exist if the GM is cool with it. Fame earns its right to exist despite being something that many GMs won't allow at their table, because it serves a purpose. You don't need to contextualize taking fame as 'abusive' to ban it from your table, it can just not be a good fit. You can just say "nah" for Fame and it is totally clear both why you said it and why it is in the book despite the GM saying "nah."

The same can't be said for Impaired. It doesn't exist to create stories. It just exists to give you karma for giving up access to a future number your never going to reach anyway. It isn't worth any of the effort it takes for the GM or players to think about or conflict over, and therefore shouldn't exist. It purely exists to make the game worse on SOME level (less balanced, GM-player conflict, or a player being disappointed by a bait and switch).

Negative qualities exist to make the game more intersting and make stories better. If they aren't doing that (They are too punishing to the point people don't want to take them and hide in the safe bubble of having a bunch of 'allergies, mild, unobtanium,' or conversely they basically don't impact the story at all) they aren't worth printing. I can't imagine a table or PC made more interesting by impaired, it just exists to be frustrating, so 'why was this printed' is a fair question and 'GM customization of their game' isn't remotely a good answer.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-20-19/1412:19>
Dez, Are you trying to say my decker won’t have a 6 strength and in fact capping at 3 will have no real effect on me. Weird, I never would have guessed that a stat I’ll never use being capped at 3 is not a penalty.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: dezmont on <08-20-19/1435:36>
I get it is obvious but establishing that as a fact is sorta important for the following points that build up to 'the quality is broken because it purely has a negative impact on the game.'

There are plenty of negative qualities that don't REALLY negatively impact you that much. Distinctive Style on a physically stealthy PC for example. But they add something positive, and pointing out this negative quality doesn't do anything positive for the game despite being self evident still tied into the greater idea.

The insanely obvious fact people who take this quality likely never intend to raise that stat anyway even if they were allowed to was merely setup for the greater takedown of the point that can be summed up as 'no harm in it existing because the GM can just get rid of it.'
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: FastJack on <08-20-19/1447:45>
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Iron Serpent Prince on <08-20-19/1509:55>
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

And yet, you have been doing it to my, and other posters posts for weeks now.

Why in the hell should we have to play by different rules than you?
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-20-19/1510:21>
I get it is obvious but establishing that as a fact is sorta important for the following points that build up to 'the quality is broken because it purely has a negative impact on the game.'

There are plenty of negative qualities that don't REALLY negatively impact you that much. Distinctive Style on a physically stealthy PC for example. But they add something positive, and pointing out this negative quality doesn't do anything positive for the game despite being self evident still tied into the greater idea.

The insanely obvious fact people who take this quality likely never intend to raise that stat anyway even if they were allowed to was merely setup for the greater takedown of the point that can be summed up as 'no harm in it existing because the GM can just get rid of it.'

If a Disadvantage isn't a disadvantage it's not a Disadvantage.  Champions?  GURPS?  I forget which that quote is from.  I'm very old these days, it all gets a little fuzzy.

But yes, it's an easy Banhammer from the Missions team because it's dumb if the Errata team doesn't get to it.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: dezmont on <08-20-19/1512:25>
I prefer Ars Magica's take:

Complications/Disadvantages exist to enrich the story, if they don't do that, they don't serve a purpose.

Ars Magica was playing Chess while everyone else was playing checkers, which is why 'positive' things that only exist to make the story more interesting, like having visions of the future or having a non-sapient normal animal companion to help you out, were 'flaws' in that system. Like they helped you, but only in ways that allowed the GMs to set up interesting stories and scenes, so you GOT points for em.

I am not going to begrudge SR for not making fame a negative quality despite being mostly positive because despite being a crazy old game Ars Magica's take hasn't really permeated the RPG design culture yet, but its still a good mindset to take into adjudicating negative qualities in that its often a mistake to try to push them to make them 'worth their karma.' Like as long as the negative quality has created interesting scenes in your campaign it was worth the karma, even if that 25 point negative quality never directly lead to anything bad happening. If you just hammer on negquals you train your players to view them as weak points rather than story elements and they will guard them really hard to make sure they can't ever be relevant and then they are failing their purpose.

Put another way: No one is taking distinctive style so you can have their PC arrested. They just wanna stand out and have their PC be noticed in scenes a bit more, be a little more in your face. Uncouth is similar, most people who take it tend to want to get into Shenanigans (TM) rather than accidently offend a crimelord and get beheaded. Negative qualities are best utilized in ways that make players happy you remembered them, not upset you did.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: FastJack on <08-20-19/1532:52>
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

And yet, you have been doing it to my, and other posters posts for weeks now.

Why in the hell should we have to play by different rules than you?
If I had, I haven't noticed and didn't realize I was doing it. If you can point me to where I did so, I'll go back and offer my apologies to those I've offended.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-20-19/1844:43>
I get it is obvious but establishing that as a fact is sorta important for the following points that build up to 'the quality is broken because it purely has a negative impact on the game.'

There are plenty of negative qualities that don't REALLY negatively impact you that much. Distinctive Style on a physically stealthy PC for example. But they add something positive, and pointing out this negative quality doesn't do anything positive for the game despite being self evident still tied into the greater idea.

The insanely obvious fact people who take this quality likely never intend to raise that stat anyway even if they were allowed to was merely setup for the greater takedown of the point that can be summed up as 'no harm in it existing because the GM can just get rid of it.'

If a Disadvantage isn't a disadvantage it's not a Disadvantage.  Champions?  GURPS?  I forget which that quote is from.  I'm very old these days, it all gets a little fuzzy.

But yes, it's an easy Banhammer from the Missions team because it's dumb if the Errata team doesn't get to it.

Champions. But I’d say in hero games systems about 1/2 your points are from disadvantages so they impact design a lot more and should be fairly impactful to your character.

In shadowrun it’s like 50 out of 1,000 so while I don’t think cheese like this should make it I also as a GM don’t think it fits to make it a significant disadvantage. Its more how can I use this to make it a good story. It’s why I thought ones that were clear obvious disadvantages didn’t seem to click for me But others did like I suck at simsense stuff. I always take it on magically active types because setting wise they supposed to suck at it. Hence why Sam Verners icon limped in the books. 5 points and it helps develop the character and setting. As a GM I can work it into the story as well.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hephaestus on <08-20-19/1955:52>
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

And yet, you have been doing it to my, and other posters posts for weeks now.

Why in the hell should we have to play by different rules than you?

I don't think anyone is playing by a different set of rules here. One of the advantages of a forum is that you get to take time to dissect people's statements and come up with what you believe are logical counterpoints tailored to their posts. One of the disadvantages of forums is that because the responses are so tailored, people tend to take offense more easily because they feel personally attacked, and then things just start spiraling down from there.

I prefer Ars Magica's take:
I am not going to begrudge SR for not making fame a negative quality despite being mostly positive because despite being a crazy old game Ars Magica's take hasn't really permeated the RPG design culture yet, but its still a good mindset to take into adjudicating negative qualities in that its often a mistake to try to push them to make them 'worth their karma.' Like as long as the negative quality has created interesting scenes in your campaign it was worth the karma, even if that 25 point negative quality never directly lead to anything bad happening. If you just hammer on negquals you train your players to view them as weak points rather than story elements and they will guard them really hard to make sure they can't ever be relevant and then they are failing their purpose.

I agree, to a point. I think both positive and negative qualities should be ways to create story moments, but they should also reflect their nature. If a character takes First Impression, there are countless ways to work that into a story, from Johnson meets to trying to sweet-talk their way out of being arrested. Conversely, if they take Uncouth (or even better, the "Did You Just Call Me Dumb?" quality from 5th), then conversations should be rocky, and there should be a chance (not a certainty) that bad things will happen.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: dezmont on <08-20-19/2036:30>
I agree, to a point. I think both positive and negative qualities should be ways to create story moments, but they should also reflect their nature. If a character takes First Impression, there are countless ways to work that into a story, from Johnson meets to trying to sweet-talk their way out of being arrested. Conversely, if they take Uncouth (or even better, the "Did You Just Call Me Dumb?" quality from 5th), then conversations should be rocky, and there should be a chance (not a certainty) that bad things will happen.

Right but my point is more no one takes a negative quality specifically because they wanna have a bad time.

Like someone with Uncouth definitely is signing up for problems, but a good rule of thumb I have is if your ever thinking 'will this negative quality severely permanently damage the PC in some way or kill them' based off it just showing up, your going way too far. The Uncouth guy getting some temporary condition box damage that will affect them on the run after accidently insulting a mob boss and being humiliated as he is forced to sit through the meeting tied up and gagged with duct-tape as everyone talks like they aren't there is a fun time, the uncouth PC losing some major piece of equipment or 'ware or losing a limb probably isn't.

Like the ideal is any time someone has a scene where their negative quality comes up they are happy it came up. I know so many players who weirdly love their characters being humiliated and made buffoons, while others may want their uncouth to lead to an impromptu barfight rather than serious social consequences. The point is that pretty much no one picks a negative quality and thinks "Boy this would sure be a fun landmine for the GM to have blow off my legs!"
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: markelphoenix on <08-21-19/0034:55>
I agree, to a point. I think both positive and negative qualities should be ways to create story moments, but they should also reflect their nature. If a character takes First Impression, there are countless ways to work that into a story, from Johnson meets to trying to sweet-talk their way out of being arrested. Conversely, if they take Uncouth (or even better, the "Did You Just Call Me Dumb?" quality from 5th), then conversations should be rocky, and there should be a chance (not a certainty) that bad things will happen.

Right but my point is more no one takes a negative quality specifically because they wanna have a bad time.

Like someone with Uncouth definitely is signing up for problems, but a good rule of thumb I have is if your ever thinking 'will this negative quality severely permanently damage the PC in some way or kill them' based off it just showing up, your going way too far. The Uncouth guy getting some temporary condition box damage that will affect them on the run after accidently insulting a mob boss and being humiliated as he is forced to sit through the meeting tied up and gagged with duct-tape as everyone talks like they aren't there is a fun time, the uncouth PC losing some major piece of equipment or 'ware or losing a limb probably isn't.

Like the ideal is any time someone has a scene where their negative quality comes up they are happy it came up. I know so many players who weirdly love their characters being humiliated and made buffoons, while others may want their uncouth to lead to an impromptu barfight rather than serious social consequences. The point is that pretty much no one picks a negative quality and thinks "Boy this would sure be a fun landmine for the GM to have blow off my legs!"

I think Qualities are what you and your GM agree them to be. Some see it as an additional challenge to weave into their characters identity, where the Uncouth may kick in and lead to a bad social situation, but there comes a point where all sides can mitigate complete disaster, such as in the examples you provided. Alternatively, a bad GM absolutely will look at it from the standpoint of, "How can I use these qualities to force the player to be screwed over!"
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: penllawen on <08-23-19/0918:30>
There totally ARE designs where you are trusting your GM to limit content that are not just fine, but good! SR has some! Fame, for example, is a quality banned at many a table just because it is very disruptive to the campaign's dynamic, but it exists because it allows very interesting stories to exist if the GM is cool with it. Fame earns its right to exist despite being something that many GMs won't allow at their table, because it serves a purpose. You don't need to contextualize taking fame as 'abusive' to ban it from your table, it can just not be a good fit. You can just say "nah" for Fame and it is totally clear both why you said it and why it is in the book despite the GM saying "nah."
I agree with the rest of your post, and wanted to add something, which is: I think moving ill-fitting rules to sourcebooks can help.

For example, hypothetically consider moving Fame out of the CRB and putting it in No Future, which contains other rules for PCs from sports, trid, or music backgrounds. I think this sends a strong implicit message that "this is not a quality that's going to play well in most Shadowrun campaigns, but if you're making stories a bit off the beaten track, here's a quality that can help you tell those stories." Same thing with, say, the DocWagon supplement, or the Lone Star one from the 2e days. These contain rules and ideas that aren't very useful to a "traditional" shadowrunner-focused campaign. but have their place for people who want to run those sorts of campaigns.

I think telling a player "no, we're generating shadowrunners, so you shouldn't take Fame" is a smoother conversation if Fame is in a sourcebook compared to if Fame is in the CRB. And then the CRB can remain focused and streamlined, as far as possible, by not trying to offer too many incompatible things.

Going back to the topic, I agree that (as I understand it from here -- I don't have the book) it's baffling that Impaired Attribute made it into SR6e at all. The argument that "GMs can just fix that" doesn't carry much water with me, especially as it's being deployed all over the place. Just how many things can a GM be reasonably expected to be fixing? I can't even carry in my head all the 5e things that concern me from a game balance perspective, let alone what to do about them.

Something I've found since reading a lot of stuff on here and r/shadowrun is a significant array of things in SR5 that can be game breaking if not handled well by the GM, but that I totally missed when I read the book. Consider Quickening. I missed this entirely, tucked away in the Magic chapter. But it's extremely common knowledge in discussion groups that quickening should either be banned, nerfed, or handled very carefully by the GM to emphasise its drawbacks. It's a little landmine, lurking the rules, waiting for my group to step on it, but I was blind to the danger. How many more landmines like that are there? How many GMs will overlook Impaired Attribute and start campaigns with 6e characters who abuse it for cheap munchkin trickery? How many novice GMs are there who can't spot this stuff and aren't active in discussion forums and so, in naivety, follow the rules and get the table into trouble?

I'd much rather the rules had no landmines in the first place.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-23-19/0957:23>
How many GMs will overlook Impaired Attribute and start campaigns with 6e characters who abuse it for cheap munchkin trickery?

Cheap Munchkin trickery is subjective.  Also, you're capped at 20 "Bonus Karma" so even if you wrack up 48 points of Karma from Impaired Attribute you're locked into spending most of that on Positive Qualities.  You're still limited to a total of 6 Qualities Positive and Negative, and most of the Positive Qualities are niche use. 

Play with characters.  There are multiple limits on everything meaningful you do in chargen so even if you find a loophole that gets around one limit, there is another limit that will still cap what you can do.

Edwin here has Impaired Attribute, and what exactly did it gain him?
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-23-19/1030:43>
It got him both of his positive qualities for free or in the case of your troll technomancer 4 positive qualities including focussed concentration 3 for free with 10 karma to spare. When you compare it to the points given for other negative qualities it’s clearly broken for what it does to the character which is pretty much nothing. You can more than double your starting karma from 1 negative quality that doesn’t impact your character at all when other qualities thugs are not hits give you only 8 karma . That’s terrible design.

No matter the table people will know it’s pure power game fodder  whether that’s a bad thing or not is what will vary from table to table.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: penllawen on <08-23-19/1042:34>
How many GMs will overlook Impaired Attribute and start campaigns with 6e characters who abuse it for cheap munchkin trickery?
Cheap Munchkin trickery is subjective.
I only see three ways to look at negative qualities:

1) interesting mechcanical trade-offs for players to ponder
2) interesting story hooks for GMs to hang stuff on
3) things that are neither but give you karma to spend elsewhere

Taking -3 Impaired Attribute on a dump stat isn't (1) because it has essentially no downside. Shadowrun isn't a game where characters are routinely going to earn enough karma to raise all their attributes to their maximums, and it isn't a game where characters get so much utility out of all attributes that having a dump stat is painful. Quite the reverse, it's a game of specialists, meaning even moderately optimised builds will be ignoring a few of the attributes.

It isn't (2) because it doesn't change anything mechanically or in story terms -- there's no difference between a character with Charisma 2 and max Charisma 6, or one with Charisma 2 and max Charisma 3. There's no story angle there.

So I'm happy to call it (3). Power gamers can disagree with calling this "cheap munchkin trickery", which is their opinion, but this one is mine and I stand by it.

Quote
Edwin here has Impaired Attribute, and what exactly did it gain him?
Turn that around and ask: what did it cost him? I submit the answer is "nothing." It has no negative impact on the character.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Hobbes on <08-23-19/1129:13>
Right so instead of Impaired Attribute it becomes an Addiction to Cigs, or an Allergy to Platinum or whatever.

Banning / Removing options isn't going to get the result you want, just changes what the "optimal" picks are.  More character options allow for more valid character concepts, which is good. 

And Cheap Munchkin Trickery is Badwrongfunning folks who enjoy that aspect of the game, please refrain from name calling, thanks. 

Still limited to six overall Qualities.  Still limited to 20 Bonus Karma for other character stuffs.  An Extra Positive Quality that comes up periodically isn't unbalancing or egregious.  And in general nerfing/banning "The Best" option just becomes a game of Whack-a-Mole as something else just becomes "The Best". 

It's usually best practice to put hard limits on the outcomes (which they have in this case, six qualities, 20 bonus Karma), rather than trying to "out rules lawyer" the player base.  That's a fairly pointless activity. 
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-23-19/1141:52>
And things like addiction get you like 5 points unless you take it to a level where it actually impairs you. There is a difference between a 5 point negative quality not impairing you and a 56 point negative quality not impairing you.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: dezmont on <08-23-19/1330:47>
Lets not call it Munchkin Trickery because that is some pretty charged language that conceals the insidious design of such a quality.

Again, people who take the quality are not playing a trick. They aren't mixing stuff in bad faith or using a move or ability in a manner that creates a negative play experience.

They are just taking a quality and using it straight up how it was designed to be use. Therr isn't anything nefarious about what the PLAYER is doing.

99% of the people who take this are thinking 'oh hey, my character is weak, lets put 3 points in strength for this because that is what it represents' and move on. Even if you knowingly use this that doesn't make you a munchkin, it makes you a powergamer or optimizer, which is a neutral term, not a negative one. Munchkins are jerks who try to make the game about themselves, it isn't inherently wrong to just enjoy tuning an RPG character like they are the engine of a supercar as long as you don't then drive em like a drekhead.

Mechanical optimization is not your enemy as a GM. This quality, in the grand scheme, isn't a big deal, because it isn't going to break any game and merely just exists as a sore spot of bad design that the SR community is sorta intolerant of because of the game's history. That isn't to say the negative reaction is an over reaction because SR's negative quality design philosophy has been bad for like 4 editions now well before the license even changed, and its ok to sorta be fed up with it, but my literal point was "Hey man it isn't the player's fault the design is so bad that doing something 'honestly' is sorta a system exploit." Like if a system exploit is so baked into the system the average first time user will exploit it by accident without even realizing it, it isn't an exploit. This isn't quickening, it won't melt your campaign despite having no design virtue to improve the actual game.

And, honestly, if I had the choice between making this not exist and making addiction cigs cost 20, or this existing as is, I would take the former. Addiction cigs tells you something interesting about the character and leads to cool scenes even if it doesn't ultimately matter. Part of my point of 'You don't really need to make a disadvantage feel 'worth the points'' is that you create highly defensive behavior. Like I know GMs who would make the mistake of trying to get that 5 point disadvantage to result in some social kerfuffle as you offend someone important or whatever but in reality even a 20 point disadvantage is merely intended to add texture to your character, not actually cause serious ongoing problems.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: markelphoenix on <08-23-19/1739:01>
Lets not call it Munchkin Trickery because that is some pretty charged language that conceals the insidious design of such a quality.

Again, people who take the quality are not playing a trick. They aren't mixing stuff in bad faith or using a move or ability in a manner that creates a negative play experience.

They are just taking a quality and using it straight up how it was designed to be use. Therr isn't anything nefarious about what the PLAYER is doing.

99% of the people who take this are thinking 'oh hey, my character is weak, lets put 3 points in strength for this because that is what it represents' and move on. Even if you knowingly use this that doesn't make you a munchkin, it makes you a powergamer or optimizer, which is a neutral term, not a negative one. Munchkins are jerks who try to make the game about themselves, it isn't inherently wrong to just enjoy tuning an RPG character like they are the engine of a supercar as long as you don't then drive em like a drekhead.

Mechanical optimization is not your enemy as a GM. This quality, in the grand scheme, isn't a big deal, because it isn't going to break any game and merely just exists as a sore spot of bad design that the SR community is sorta intolerant of because of the game's history. That isn't to say the negative reaction is an over reaction because SR's negative quality design philosophy has been bad for like 4 editions now well before the license even changed, and its ok to sorta be fed up with it, but my literal point was "Hey man it isn't the player's fault the design is so bad that doing something 'honestly' is sorta a system exploit." Like if a system exploit is so baked into the system the average first time user will exploit it by accident without even realizing it, it isn't an exploit. This isn't quickening, it won't melt your campaign despite having no design virtue to improve the actual game.

And, honestly, if I had the choice between making this not exist and making addiction cigs cost 20, or this existing as is, I would take the former. Addiction cigs tells you something interesting about the character and leads to cool scenes even if it doesn't ultimately matter. Part of my point of 'You don't really need to make a disadvantage feel 'worth the points'' is that you create highly defensive behavior. Like I know GMs who would make the mistake of trying to get that 5 point disadvantage to result in some social kerfuffle as you offend someone important or whatever but in reality even a 20 point disadvantage is merely intended to add texture to your character, not actually cause serious ongoing problems.

You get it. Is nice to read. People seem to forget that this is a pen and paper game and not a pvp mmo.
Title: Re: [6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist
Post by: penllawen on <08-25-19/0825:00>
And Cheap Munchkin Trickery is Badwrongfunning folks who enjoy that aspect of the game, please refrain from name calling, thanks. 
Lets not call it Munchkin Trickery because that is some pretty charged language that conceals the insidious design of such a quality.
You're both right and I apologise. I didn't mean to use such a charged term. I'd kinda forgotten it has such heavy negative connotations, honestly, but that's on me.

Quote
Mechanical optimization is not your enemy as a GM.
Again, yes. Thank you.

I'm a little twitchy around this stuff (unfairly so) due to some tricky balance issues in previous games where the table had a mix of optimisers and non-optimisers and it caused a bit of friction. My game groups have almost always consisted of existing friends, so there was no easy out of moving people around between games to match them up with similar folks. But that doesn't mean I have to be a dick about it.