[DamienHollow]

That would be the responsibility I mentioned there.  Whether he should or shouldn't use it in this specific way or that is unrelated to the question of whether or not he has that right.  So, do you grant that he has the right to disallow characters?  Point of note: this is a binary question.  Either he does, or he does not - anything else is getting into a different matter, and I would ask that you answer the specific question so we can at least understand the terms of the argument properly.

 Fallacy of the false dichotomy?

[All4BigGuns]

And I would ask that you cease with your inane questions which serve no purpose but to reveal your intent to discredit the proponent(s) of a point of view different from yours.

[RHat]

That would be the responsibility I mentioned there.  Whether he should or shouldn't use it in this specific way or that is unrelated to the question of whether or not he has that right.  So, do you grant that he has the right to disallow characters?  Point of note: this is a binary question.  Either he does, or he does not - anything else is getting into a different matter, and I would ask that you answer the specific question so we can at least understand the terms of the argument properly.

 Fallacy of the false dichotomy?

Nope, because the dichotomy is not false.  The GM either has the right to disallow characters, or the GM does not have the right to disallow characters.  There is a responsibility inherent to this right as with any other, of course, but the point stands.

It does, in fact, have to be that binary, (a) because there's nothing that specifies the circumstances under which a GM may or may not disallow a character, and (b) because the nebulous reasons why a GM should have this right do not lend themselves to any specific limitations.  The rest is a matter of the responsibility to apply this right properly, and the definition of properly varies from table to table - which means it really can't be an element of this discussion.

And I would ask that you cease with your inane questions which serve no purpose but to reveal your intent to discredit the proponent(s) of a point of view different from yours.

You misread me.  Severely.

The purpose of my question is, in essence, to advance a particular argument:  If the GM has the right to disallow characters, how is there something wrong with his doing so preemptively before players have made those characters?  Further, is it not better to do so if the limits might seem, as you put it, inane?

[Glyph]

GMs, at least by RAW, have the right to disallow characters, or suggest revisions.  I don't have a problem with being told my character doesn't work for a game, or needs to be revised to fit the house rules or power level of a specific game.  I prefer that to the passive aggressive douchebaggery of some GMs, who allow something, then hit the character with unfair penalties or assorted other crap.  You know, the old "Well, if he takes sensitive system, then the corporation is going to forcibly implant 'ware into him when they capture him."

To go back to my earlier example, maybe the GM thinks that things like skin or hair are too easy to fix with simple biomods to be real flaws.  I would have preferred to be told this before I started the character, but I could probably adjust to it.  So maybe I keep the hair and skin as fluff description, and get the nocturnal quality.  At least it's something that fits the character.  If the GM simply picked the nocturnal quality for me, I would be more upset, and have second thoughts about the game even if the character wasn't ruined.  It's needing to change my character that would bother me, but the choice of how to do so being taken out of my hands.

[DamienHollow]

Technically, if a GM gets up and walks out there's no game anyways. The question isn't can he ban them, it's what's the point at which he should? Most of my party agrees that if it's in the rules and doesn't explicitly advise GM's against it, then it should be allowed. If it does advise against it (like cyborgs,) the GM needs to take a close look before making a call. Cyborg in a 400BP game? kind of stupid. in a 500BP game? Why not, you'll fail your tests soon enough and you don't even get the BP back from the borrowed Time quality.

[Prodigy]

Glyph's point is valid. A GM should define boundaries pre-char gen. After that, the GM should accept consequences if a player is overpowered. I have been in that situation as a GM. Adapt to the situation. Learn ways to challenge others in the group separately. DO NOT punish the player for your failure as a GM.

[RHat]

Technically, if a GM gets up and walks out there's no game anyways. The question isn't can he ban them, it's what's the point at which he should? Most of my party agrees that if it's in the rules and doesn't explicitly advise GM's against it, then it should be allowed. If it does advise against it (like cyborgs,) the GM needs to take a close look before making a call. Cyborg in a 400BP game? kind of stupid. in a 500BP game? Why not, you'll fail your tests soon enough and you don't even get the BP back from the borrowed Time quality.

Right, but that's a group by group call without a real right answer.  What I was getting at was that if a GM chooses to make Negative Metagenetic Quality selection for characters with SURGE III, that's not a "warning sign" - it's a legitimate option available to the GM, and in some groups it might be the right call (like if a player decides to take only negative qualities that don't hamper his playstyle at all while causing issues for another, essentially forcing the game into his way of doing things over anyone else's), others it's not needed but harmless, and in some cases it could be a problem.  Like pretty much anything.

Now, as to where that might be the right call or not, boundaries need to be defined at the outset. 

[DamienHollow]

It's the same reason no one sane ever plays D&D "3d6 straight down." We play Shadowrun to create our own character and see how the story plays out with that character. If we hand over that kind of control to the GM without a very good explanation as to why then it stops being a game and starts being a book. And really, isn't the reason we play because we've spent too many hours yelling at a character in a book or movie for something absurdly stupid or obvious? We think we can do better and we want to try.

[RHat]

It's the same reason no one sane ever plays D&D "3d6 straight down." We play Shadowrun to create our own character and see how the story plays out with that character. If we hand over that kind of control to the GM without a very good explanation as to why then it stops being a game and starts being a book. And really, isn't the reason we play because we've spent too many hours yelling at a character in a book or movie for something absurdly stupid or obvious? We think we can do better and we want to try.

Like I said - the GM has a responsibility to have a good reason for that sort of decision.

[Bastwolf]

HEY EVERYONE!

You're getting severely off topic. The original question was about SURGE and the maximum qualities that they can take. What you are all discussing has very little to do with that topic and is getting  close to possible disciplinary action (I may not have any power but I figure you should just be aware).

Now, as far as the SURGE qualities go and having played a SURGE in pretty much every game I have participated in, I have always viewed the 30/15 BP as a max and have always tried to stay within that limit (I was unaware that the extra would be taken from the 35 character max). Personally, I enjoy playing SURGE because it allows you to have easy access to some flavorful qualities for your character. Sure, all of the qualities provide some bonuses, but I will usually pick up certain qualities because I like the way they help to build my character. Since a Kitsune was brought up, I would recommend the balance tail quality (only one tail would apply the bonus) as well as insulating pelt for a start.

[DamienHollow]

I thank you, truly thank you for addressing the original question. Most of my posts end up hijacked, usually by All4BigGuns and a collection of others who just don't get along.
I was looking at Balance (5) or Prehensile Tail (10), Fangs (5), Keen Eared (5), and Glamor (15). If i took Balance Tail then I'd also add Low-Light Vision (5) or Celerity (5).
Negatives were Mood Hair (Black to Blonde,) i can't remember what the Eye quality was called (Blue/Green Heterochromia), Nocturnal, and Berserker (to go along with her already vindictive/sadistic personality) i assume that extra negative Qualities count as regular negative qualities.

[Novocrane]

The original question was about SURGE and the maximum qualities that they can take.

The original question was answered in the first reply, too. Just saying.

[DamienHollow]

I have always viewed the 30/15 BP as a max and have always tried to stay within that limit (I was unaware that the extra would be taken from the 35 character max).

This is what i was looking for specifically. The original post mentions the default rule concerning SURGE I and II without any sort of acknowledgement of the two words in SURGE III that set it apart from the other two, At least. My question was do these two words simply reference the option to take more qualities at the cost of Quality BP, or did it mean that there was no established maximum. I can see how the post was an argument in favor of the first, but it was not a direct answer to the question or show that the words in question were even considered. I apologize if this comes off as having an attitude but i have an unhealthily direct way of thinking. Probably the reason I stopped playing D&D. (I make a called shot to it's neck with an Executioner's Axe... Nat 20... WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT"S STILL ALIVE!)

This being said, I'm going to say that the words are pointless and just reference the already established rule saying that you can take extra qualities for Quality BP.

[Inconnu]

I have got to stop posting...

Why did you post this then?

[DamienHollow]

Because All4BigGuns and RHat finnaly got soar fingers from pounding the keys.