[prismite]

After having read through this thread I wanted to offer my (often wrong) feelings on the matter.

Firstly, I feel that its in bad form to caution the GM not to take action. You can already tell that the GM is bothered by players actions and, for my part at the very least, what the player is doing is not only munchkin-like but downright unrealistic. Nobody in their right mind remains homeless, carrying $25,000 in their wallet. I'm paraphrasing and slightly warping the story, but my point is still the same. The player (and all players, really) need to have the understanding that Lifestyle exists for a reason. Now, I could totally see someone having a "Squatter" lifestyle but be living with another one of the players who is eating the brunt of their presence in the face (for double costs, mind you, but whatever). I saw A4BG say that he wouldn't bog the players down with forced lifestyles (paraphrasing again, there) but honestly ... SR really loses some of its zest when money is no longer a concern.

In fact, a good friend of mine and I have argued this point until we were exhausted many times ... but why would a guy with $25,000 in his pocket and nothing to spend it on keep putting his life in danger to run? He obviously doesn't need the money and apparently holds zero value/utility to him.

Personally, when "rent" time comes around and my "squatter" and "street" lifestyle players decide not to upgrade to at least a LOW lifestyle, bad things DO start happening. At low I just play up how bad life is ... make it really suck to be where they are and hopefully convince them to reach for that "Retire rich in a mansion" mentality that so many dream of but never reach.

Btw Reaver, I've read your posts and good job! I grew up poor and fought my way up the corporate ladder to where I am today. The difference is so vast that I feel particularly qualified to comment on lower lifestyles and I found your discription of the dregs pretty accurate. Again, good post! For what its worth, I was often forced to eat portions of MRE's growing up ... and to me and my siblings those things were better than the way I might look at Olive Garden now. I would not have traded those things for ... well ... anything. It was like prime-rib for us back then. THATS poor.

[All4BigGuns]

SR really loses some of its zest when money is no longer a concern.

No it doesn't, and this idea is the one that needs to be squashed with prejudice because it leads to ridiculously low run payouts which end up preventing expedient advancement for non-Awakened characters.

[farothel]

I agree that lifestyle choices should be played out (in our game, we all had something between low and middle using the 4th edition advanced lifestyle rules so there wasn't much of a problem), with all positive AND negatives attached to it.  But I do caution: if you haven't been doing this until now (I don't know how long the game has been running), be careful if you suddenly introduce big changes, as it might lead to player resentment.  Either talk to your players, saying that after the next run you will start implementing these things (so you give them time to change their lifestyle), maybe showing them the post by Reaver on lifestyles to indicate what you're going to do to them.  Or otherwise introduce the changes gradually.

[prismite]

SR really loses some of its zest when money is no longer a concern.

No it doesn't, and this idea is the one that needs to be squashed with prejudice because it leads to ridiculously low run payouts which end up preventing expedient advancement for non-Awakened characters.

I said "when money is no longer a concern". I didnt isolate any specific type of character. A non-awakened cyber-guy (or gal) that no longer needs money in my experience is identical in enthusiasm towards money as a Millionaire mage. Yes, cyber guys depend on money more than a magic user, typically, and as far as I can tell, I never indicated low run payouts.

Plus, A4BG, I'd further suggest that in a world where your employer is more than likely going to dick you over, you should consider a payday (however minor) a godsend.

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

Always remember the Americar rule. If the Runners' can make more boosting an Americar (~20k) than you are being way to damn stingy with payouts. They should be paid well, otherwise why be a Shadowrunner?

[Herr Brackhaus]

An Americar is 16k; fencing one to a loyalty 6 contact running a chop shop yields 30% of the items value, or 4.8k in this case, no questions asked. Divided by a team of 4 runners that's 1.2k for a single Americar.

I don't know where you're getting ~20k from, Rift, but boosting cars is unlikely to be a very lucrative trade if you ask me. Besides, if your players would rather boost cars than run the shadows as part of the game, then I'd say the problem is with the player and not the GM. The game is supposed to be about having fun and participating in a story, playing a role. If the player creates a car thief instead of a runner, I'd say he's doing it wrong as far as the game is concerned.

Misunderstand me right, I agree that runs should be paying out appropriately in terms of karma and nuyen, but I don't necessarily agree that there needs to be a set limit for said payout. A high-life team is going to be paid way better than a street scum team, after all.

[MijRai]

And the Street Scum team is going to have to be paid better than what they can make while not risking their lives like a 'runner does, otherwise they won't do the job.  Would you try to run the Korean DMZ for 10k?  That's a good example of a Zero Zone, if you ask me. 

As far as having fun and playing a role goes, that only goes so far if you don't get any room for improvement due to a lack of reward. 

Boosting cars can be quite lucrative if you've got the set-up for it (that high loyalty contact as a chop-shop owner or something, for example).  And if most 'runners can't manage to steal a car...  Well, I'm going to assume they're not at the top of their game by any stretch. 

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

First off, the ~20k was before chop shop, etc. Also, I was making a rough estimate of the price, so being 5k off is not bad. Actually, a good rigger with a shop (doable at character creation) could run his own chop shop, all he needs is a decker to change ownership, then he could sell the car, not the parts. So ~15k ÷ 4 = 3.75k for a party of 4, or if decker is contact and charges .33% of retail value, each runner makes 2.5k for a party of 4. So my point still stands, If it is safer and makes you a similar or greater amount of money, why run the shadows?

[Reaver]

Are we really going to get into another 15 "chopshop better than running" argument? If you want to see the out come of thag one (including the bans) just search the forums...

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

Was not trying to start an argument, but make a point. Thanks for the warning though, Reaver.

[Herr Brackhaus]

I still don't understand how you manage to sell anything for close to retail value, Rift. 16k is showroom price for all intents and purposes; how can you even come close to 100% of full value on stolen property?

[Spooky]

Well, my table managed to do it by stealing a fully loaded ready for bear banshee, having the rigger, decker, weapons specialist, and technomancer go over it for a couple of days (essentially a complete factory reset),  and then when the face negotiated the sale, he had a margin of success of 10 hits, and the arms dealer glitched. Sold for 3 million. That money went fast, too.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

By selling it yourself, of course.  The 30% etc. comes from selling it to someone who's going to get all the hassle done for you, move it out of the way (maybe out of town), chop it up, sell it, etc. - in short, selling it to someone else who's going to do all the work.  For getting it and selling it to them, you get 10-30%.  Doing all the hard work yourself, though, means you can sell it for as much as you can get for it - which can be up to retail.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Three issues with fencing goods yourself.

First, as per page 418, items with no availability cannot be fenced "as a rule", and this includes the Ford Americar. The wording of the statement implies to me that this is more of a guideline, but the text is still there for GMs to consider.

Second, time. Presuming a GM allows fencing an Americar, finding a buyer is an extended Etiquette + Charisma [Social] (10, 1 week) test because of the vehicles 16k base value. Even a proficient face could struggle getting 10 bits consistently, so you're more than likely looking at at least 2 weeks to find a buyer.

Third, price. Once you've found a buyer, its an opposed Negotiation + Charisma [Social] test to agree on price. Success gets you 25% plus 5% per net hit. You would need 15 net hits to get 100% of retail value for your item. That is certainly not insignificant.

In summary, taking the book value of an item and saying that a team should be able to earn as much as the retail value of said item per run is a grossly oversimplified statement in my opinion, as it fails to account for a number of factors beyond the purely mechanical ones.

Once again, I believe that a team should be earning an appropriate reward that befits table expectations and the story. I do not believe in the claim that boosting cars is an adequate benchmark for what is appropriate, however, as successful car thieves are likely good at what they do and I do not think it is given that runners will automatically possess those same skills.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

And this is the difference between taking the rules as a guideline and taking the rules as absolute.