Shadowrun

Shadowrun Missions Living Campaign => Living Campaign Discussion => Topic started by: The Masked Ferret on <09-07-10/1408:58>

Title: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: The Masked Ferret on <09-07-10/1408:58>
I have been running missions for 4-5 years now, and I just ran 5 games at Dragon*Con here in Atlanta, GA. One of the things that bothered me is that some of the missions will pay out X * (TR) per person (explicitly), and others simply pay X *(TR) total. No difference in the amount if you are running a table of 4 or a table of eight. Should the pay always be scaled per person? Should I go ahead and run it that way even if the module does not say 'per person'?
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-07-10/1416:12>
Hrmm.  Good catch there.

Unless pay specifically says that it's a lump sum for the entire group, you should always assume that it's "per runner".

I'll try and make sure future missions are a bit clearer about this.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-07-10/1418:09>
Also, on a personal note, I'd like to say "thanks" for running some Missions at D*C.    I'm very appreciative of all the hard work our GMs do at conventions and at Open Play games at Firebases.  :)

How did the convention go?  I assume you were one of Kai's GMs?

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: The Masked Ferret on <09-07-10/1440:00>
You are quite welcome. I enjoy running Shadowrun at D*C. I learn a lot. Plus, I get my badge for free for running enough games.

Shadowrun was, yet again, the first system to sell out all of the games at D*C. It helps that we have a large, dedicated group that comes in and plays together every year. We are the only game group at Dragon*Con that gets its own separate, special room at Dragon*Con.

Everyone was busy. I would say that the average table size over about 30 games was 7 runners. We could always use more GMs down here. :)

Unfortunately, there is not a place that I know of that would serve as a firebase close to my house - all of the gaming stores that I know of are an hour from me - so I can't run too many Open Games. ::sigh::
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Casazil on <09-07-10/1736:05>
Now if I could just get some of the gamers and GM's to come to Megacon and help pump up the Shadowrun presents here.

An I just heard from my friends that were there SO Bull get ready there are questions comeing ...... ;D
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Turtletron on <09-07-10/2229:34>
I have been running missions for 4-5 years now, and I just ran 5 games at Dragon*Con here in Atlanta, GA. One of the things that bothered me is that some of the missions will pay out X * (TR) per person (explicitly), and others simply pay X *(TR) total. No difference in the amount if you are running a table of 4 or a table of eight. Should the pay always be scaled per person? Should I go ahead and run it that way even if the module does not say 'per person'?

I usually scale the pay depending on how many runners are in the run.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: DarkLloyd on <09-08-10/0353:25>
I have been running missions for 4-5 years now, and I just ran 5 games at Dragon*Con here in Atlanta, GA. One of the things that bothered me is that some of the missions will pay out X * (TR) per person (explicitly), and others simply pay X *(TR) total. No difference in the amount if you are running a table of 4 or a table of eight. Should the pay always be scaled per person? Should I go ahead and run it that way even if the module does not say 'per person'?

I usually scale the pay depending on how many runners are in the run.
Just thought I'd chime in here. Even thought it would be a detrement to me as a player, I've Always liked the idea the the johnson just has "This" much cash for a job. No matter if one guy does the job for all the pay or you round up a gang of fifty and get bus fare. The one guy will have to work his hoop of for every cent of that cash and prolly come close to being dead, but the gang of fifty will roll the job in a half hour....
I just look at it as a juggleing game Safety or money, which do you want?
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-08-10/0402:04>
Lloyd:  I often run like that for my home games.  For Missions though, you have no contriol over how many players will end up at a table.  We write for 6, and I know at some conventions, GMs are willing to fit in as many as 8 (We have crazy amounts of people showing up for SR events :)), but on some occasions you end up stuck with 3 or 4.  It's the luck of the draw.  So you can't really write and run Missions like that, because it's not the players choice, most of the time.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: DarkLloyd on <09-08-10/0432:09>
Lloyd:  I often run like that for my home games.  For Missions though, you have no contriol over how many players will end up at a table.  We write for 6, and I know at some conventions, GMs are willing to fit in as many as 8 (We have crazy amounts of people showing up for SR events :)), but on some occasions you end up stuck with 3 or 4.  It's the luck of the draw.  So you can't really write and run Missions like that, because it's not the players choice, most of the time.
Actually, I Have noticed it run like that. We are one of those bigger groups and, not very often mind you, we have hit a run or so that we each got less from the norm because of the size of our group. I actually think those times have more to do with confusion on the GM's part, but we usually make up for it in looting. We're like Kinder, the whole lot of us.  ;)
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: The Masked Ferret on <09-08-10/0659:23>
I actually think those times have more to do with confusion on the GM's part, but we usually make up for it in looting. We're like Kinder, the whole lot of us.  ;)

If you are with the group I think you are with, then the average kinder would look upon you with awe and wonder, as if you were a pantheon. You guys put the larcen in larceny.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Critias on <09-08-10/1637:49>
Just thought I'd chime in here. Even thought it would be a detrement to me as a player, I've Always liked the idea the the johnson just has "This" much cash for a job. No matter if one guy does the job for all the pay or you round up a gang of fifty and get bus fare. The one guy will have to work his hoop of for every cent of that cash and prolly come close to being dead, but the gang of fifty will roll the job in a half hour....
I just look at it as a juggleing game Safety or money, which do you want?
That's how I tend to run it in games I GM, too (and like you said, it's what makes sense from Mr. Jay's point of view)...but for something like Missions, you've got to try and be a little more fair about it, or "above the board," or whatever.  A flat "per person" method of payment is probably the best way to handle it, in an official shared universe thing, being run at cons, etc, etc.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Halabis on <09-08-10/1644:18>
Yeah, I know for a fact that in at least two missions we got paid "by the group" when we should have been paid " by the person" Ah well, it happens.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: The Masked Ferret on <09-08-10/1646:31>
Possibly by me, if you were at Dragon*con
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Faradon on <09-08-10/2128:21>
Just out of curiosity... since we're on the subject of missions and pay, doesn't the overall pay seem a little low?  I know some "rewards" are meant to make up for it if you sell your soul to a corp, but what good is access to a delta clinic if you can't afford the delta gear to be put in to you?
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Casazil on <09-09-10/0055:40>
Honestly I think pay and karma are pretty good my character has amassed like half a million ........ok he's an adept he don't buy jack lol.

but hey there is money to be had.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-09-10/0145:57>
The Pay scales are a bit...  Wonky.  Part of this is due to the fact that there wasn't a pay scale that was implemented and adhered to during Season 3, so the pay varied greatly depending on the writer.  And part of this was due to Table Rating scaling the pay.  I've found that most groups that are unhappy with the pay tended to run at lower table ratings, so that hurts things.  When pay is TR*2000, and your negotiation bonuses are TR*250, there's a world of difference between Table Rating 2 (4,000, with 500 per hit) and Table Rating 6 (12,000 with 1500 per hit).

Things will be a bit more even in Season 4. 

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Casazil on <09-09-10/0149:29>
What ever you do keep a limit on how many success count in negoations for that money heh I know people that can an will get 10+ success.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-09-10/0156:30>
Yeah.  I ran into this with the version of 03-12 that went to Origins.  Just to cover our bases in the future, there needs to be a blanket rule that says soething like "Unless stated otherwise, 5 is the max cap on Negotiation Successes" or some such :)

That, and the Johnsons all need much better negotiation scores :)

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Casazil on <09-09-10/0204:19>
Well yes all your Mr Johnsons need high negotiations good charisma and of course list the emotion software to their commlinks at of course rateing 6 as every face has that.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: The Masked Ferret on <09-09-10/0623:05>
I ran into a number of NPCs, some of them Johnsons, who could be negotiated with that had no negotiation skill or influence sg to do so with. I will have to look up an example before I can give it, but there was more than 1 negotiation test that the NPC had to default to charisma! A good face can capitalize on that like nobody's business.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: FastJack on <09-09-10/0936:40>
Honestly I think pay and karma are pretty good my character has amassed like half a million ........ok he's an adept he don't buy jack lol.

but hey there is money to be had.
You need to get yourself a big 'ol Weapon Focus with money like that... ;)
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Faradon on <09-09-10/0953:46>
Yeah.  I ran into this with the version of 03-12 that went to Origins.  Just to cover our bases in the future, there needs to be a blanket rule that says soething like "Unless stated otherwise, 5 is the max cap on Negotiation Successes" or some such :)

That, and the Johnsons all need much better negotiation scores :)

Instead of just a flat 5 net success max, I'd like to suggest something a little more enticing.  Before just "complaining" about the money / adventure I was doing some research into other published runs (on the run, Dawn of the Artifacts, Denver Missions, etc.) and really liked the mechanic of "For every net hit you can do one of the following:
1) Raise the pay by X (be it a percentage or a flat increment.
2) Increase the up front portion of the pay to cover expenditures
3) Have the Johnson provide something needed (asked to blow up a building, johnson provides some explosives)
4) Johnson provides information they might otherwise be reluctant to give up initially (A helpful contact info, pictures / video footage, whatever.)

#'s 1 and 2 should probably always be an option.  3 and 4 are more situational based on who the Johnson is, how much they know, and what they are capable of.  
The Denver mission where negotiation hits let you get access to gear over availability 12 per hit is a pretty nice perk and would like seeing more things like that.  
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Turtletron on <09-09-10/1300:06>
Yeah.  I ran into this with the version of 03-12 that went to Origins.  Just to cover our bases in the future, there needs to be a blanket rule that says soething like "Unless stated otherwise, 5 is the max cap on Negotiation Successes" or some such :)

That, and the Johnsons all need much better negotiation scores :)

Instead of just a flat 5 net success max, I'd like to suggest something a little more enticing.  Before just "complaining" about the money / adventure I was doing some research into other published runs (on the run, Dawn of the Artifacts, Denver Missions, etc.) and really liked the mechanic of "For every net hit you can do one of the following:
1) Raise the pay by X (be it a percentage or a flat increment.
2) Increase the up front portion of the pay to cover expenditures
3) Have the Johnson provide something needed (asked to blow up a building, johnson provides some explosives)
4) Johnson provides information they might otherwise be reluctant to give up initially (A helpful contact info, pictures / video footage, whatever.)

#'s 1 and 2 should probably always be an option.  3 and 4 are more situational based on who the Johnson is, how much they know, and what they are capable of. 
The Denver mission where negotiation hits let you get access to gear over availability 12 per hit is a pretty nice perk and would like seeing more things like that. 


It's a good way to use the negotiation successes, i'm taking notes ;D
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Casazil on <09-09-10/1713:30>
While this could work the catch (which in this case is minor) is to not put too much into the Negotiation options that it takes the players time to decide what to do.

Time is finite at a con
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-09-10/1934:37>
While this could work the catch (which in this case is minor) is to not put too much into the Negotiation options that it takes the players time to decide what to do.

Time is finite at a con

Agreed.  While I'd love to do more with negotiations and such, there's a lot to be said for KISS.

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: The Masked Ferret on <09-10-10/0241:06>
While this could work the catch (which in this case is minor) is to not put too much into the Negotiation options that it takes the players time to decide what to do.

Time is finite at a con

Agreed.  While I'd love to do more with negotiations and such,  there's a lot to be said for KISS.

Bull

Well, you could include an 'additional successes' sidebar, which gave them the rewards similar in style to the above system, but based only on the number of successes. Players roll high, GMs check for additional bonuses. This could account for all levels of skill, and would even work with the static target numbers.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-13-10/2326:44>
I know at some conventions, GMs are willing to fit in as many as 8 (We have crazy amounts of people showing up for SR events :))

I showed up hoping to get into a particular game at DC, and immediately saw the GM had at least 8-9 folks sitting around him.

I turned around and played something else. No way I was going to subject that poor GM to more.

 :o



-karma
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Wasabi on <09-17-10/0716:09>
If the face is going to be capped at 5 net hits cap combat and investigation at 5 hits too. Make it so even a 200 karma character with a singular focus they love can only get 5 hits. While I hope my sarcasm transfers to this page but I mean, c'mon.

Instead, make it a diminishing return. That way it skews income a little but less than an openended roll.

Have the award be TR*x*net hits up to 5 ...then HALF-TR*x*net hits PAST 5.
Alternately have it be TR*x*net hits up to 5 ...then y*net hits PAST 5 where Y is a static number.

Mitigate but dont eliminate. Let folks who want to be pornomancers see reduced effect past 5 hits but make it less arbitrary. Some folks like being a face and even an uber face.

In a TR6 game the Johnson gets 6 extra dice to begin with so in a TR6 game I dont know what the typical hits would be by the Johnson but I'd calculate the worst-case-scenario payout based on a pc pool of 26 dice to get a sense of what a runner could make with whatever you decide on.

And be careful if adding Emotisoft software and such...while not a bad idea the characters should lose moneyif the Johnson gets net hits and not every team has a face.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: A.A. Salati on <09-17-10/0811:47>
Everything has a limit to how successful it can be.  Blasting someone with your panther cannon with 10 net hits will kill them just like 1 net hit can.  It won't kill their children or their twin who lives in another city or do anything other than exceed their overflow and cause death.  ;)

Negotiation is not purely mechanical or a matter of dice.  It's an economic relationship and should be fun without getting crazy.  Mr. Johnson's available funds do not go up because someone he's hiring used tailored pheromones on him.  In fact, speaking of fun, look for some unconventional negotiation openings...  they won't always be Johnson vs. Face = resulting cha-ching.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-17-10/1633:40>
Yeah, combat and investigation tends to have binary results. Dead/not dead, success/fail.

Negotiation has degrees of success.

You can't necessarily compare the two.




-karma

player of a 20+ social die pool character
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-18-10/1115:18>
Yeah, combat and investigation tends to have binary results. Dead/not dead, success/fail.

Negotiation has degrees of success.

You can't necessarily compare the two.




-karma

player of a 20+ social die pool character


Actually it is fairly similar if I only have $50 I can't pay you $75.  Negotiations  It is variable anywhere beneath the $50 down to $0 and variable up to $75.  Just like in combat I can take 0 boxes of damage of anywhere up to the point where I die. 

Since a lot of other things are based on table/team rating ideas I'd just vary the negotiators skill with the table.  Something like -3 dice of lead PCs negotiators skill cap at 15 dice+1 per team rating.  Yeah variable skills kind of suck on the logic level of things, but I don't think it is great to punish people for not being min max monstrosities.  Something like this allows for the adventure to give a challenge for the normal range of the expected skill, but if someone ants to be the negotiating god they exceed the cap by enough they still blow him out of the water.  It isn't perfect, but it gives a bit of normalization to random groups at a con, where maybe the negotiator player did not make it this con.  It is effectively what a GM would do at a home game, he'd know the players stats and build the challenges with that in mind. 
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-18-10/1226:17>
Well, to a degree you can.  Mr Johnson answers to someone higher than him, usually, and he has a budget.  And rememebr, at the end of the day, there are always other teams of runners out there who want your job. :)

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-18-10/1344:51>
Just thought I'd chime in here. Even thought it would be a detrement to me as a player, I've Always liked the idea the the johnson just has "This" much cash for a job. No matter if one guy does the job for all the pay or you round up a gang of fifty and get bus fare. The one guy will have to work his hoop of for every cent of that cash and prolly come close to being dead, but the gang of fifty will roll the job in a half hour....
I just look at it as a juggleing game Safety or money, which do you want?
That's how I tend to run it in games I GM, too (and like you said, it's what makes sense from Mr. Jay's point of view)...but for something like Missions, you've got to try and be a little more fair about it, or "above the board," or whatever.  A flat "per person" method of payment is probably the best way to handle it, in an official shared universe thing, being run at cons, etc, etc.

Yes, DarkLloyd is with the group you are thinking of.  And yes we take everything that is not nailed down that has a decent profit level.  The more expensive the better due to the 10% of cost thing.  The only reason he did not get away with a doc wagon high threat chopper is the GM basically told him no the doc wagon team picked up the chopper.

I think this year we made off with a seimi rig, bull dog step van, or 2 not sure many suites of high end armor, ect.

And I am sorry I did not get to run with you Evil says you were fun.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-18-10/1347:15>
What ever you do keep a limit on how many success count in negoations for that money heh I know people that can an will get 10+ success.
Cas, I have no idea who you are talking about. .  . . .

How could anyone ever do that?   :o  ;)
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-18-10/1352:36>

Instead of just a flat 5 net success max, I'd like to suggest something a little more enticing.  Before just "complaining" about the money / adventure I was doing some research into other published runs (on the run, Dawn of the Artifacts, Denver Missions, etc.) and really liked the mechanic of "For every net hit you can do one of the following:
1) Raise the pay by X (be it a percentage or a flat increment.
2) Increase the up front portion of the pay to cover expenditures
3) Have the Johnson provide something needed (asked to blow up a building, johnson provides some explosives)
4) Johnson provides information they might otherwise be reluctant to give up initially (A helpful contact info, pictures / video footage, whatever.)

#'s 1 and 2 should probably always be an option.  3 and 4 are more situational based on who the Johnson is, how much they know, and what they are capable of.  
The Denver mission where negotiation hits let you get access to gear over availability 12 per hit is a pretty nice perk and would like seeing more things like that.  


Actually I have seen GM's do this with missions to a degree.  When I have overwhelmed the poor Johnson with massive successes, and the poor GM says I am sorry you have way over capped the money I can give you.  I have asked for things like free trips to the Horizon clinic when they were needed ect.  And for the most part have either been given them or had a counter offer given.  I think it is a good thing when people think and move with the situation.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-18-10/1404:43>
deleted because I re read and decided not to say what I was going to say.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-18-10/1414:02>
I think this year we made off with a seimi rig, bull dog step van, or 2 not sure many suites of high end armor, ect.

I had one table where we had an opportunity to make off with an entire fleet of Bulldog Step-Vans.

Only we tripped the mission's "OMG We Are So Screwed" event right after that and had to run. So I had to set off the satchel charges we had stuck in the area as a distraction so we could get away.

I has a sad about that. So many pretty pretty vans...



-karma
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: DarkLloyd on <09-18-10/1418:27>
Uhm, well i'm gonna chime in here.

     First, Shinobi I'm gonna assume you Don't work in corprate high finance.
"Actually it is fairly similar if I only have $50 I can't pay you $75". Well the $50 is what the J was Given as a budget. That's not to say he can't call up to his superiors and tell then he has found assets that exceeded his (and their) expectations but also demand more than expected. I've found when a company needs Specialized help that they can't manage to weasl a company man into doing, they pay out the nose. Throwing cash at it is how corps take care of problems. In SR and the real world.

     Now as to limiting "insane" faces, not that I'd want to to begin with, (We don't limit the number of sucsesses a sammie cam get when he shoots some one, whether those hits are neccesary or not we give them to him) I propose useing the table rating as a threshold to the negotiations test. take yer faces hits subtract the table rating and then compare sucsesses.
Easy fix that slows down but not kanks faces.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-18-10/1500:29>
Now as to limiting "insane" faces, not that I'd want to to begin with, (We don't limit the number of sucsesses a sammie cam get when he shoots some one, whether those hits are neccesary or not we give them to him)

Again, sammies have a problem that their measure of success is succeed/fail. Face characters have degrees of success. It's not a good example comparing the two. Sammies would be dramatically affected, much worse, than any Face by limiting their successes.

I propose useing the table rating as a threshold to the negotiations test. take yer faces hits subtract the table rating and then compare sucsesses.
Easy fix that slows down but not kanks faces.

This already happens to some degree. Table rating adds to the Johnson's Negotiate dice. Which can negate the player character's hits.

I personally like the idea of specifically allowing non-pay options for extra successes. More money up front, expenses being covered, etc.


-karma
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Wasabi on <09-18-10/1535:26>
It's not a good example comparing the two. Sammies would be dramatically affected, much worse, than any Face by limiting their successes.

KarmaInferno,I like your suggestion about nonmonetary benefit past the 5 hit cap.

Not just to KarmaInferno:
As to the two being different think in terms of time.

The Sammie's fight a third to half of the session.
The Face gets to negotiate 1-3 times on average... once on pay, once on gathering info, and once after 'the turn'.

Despite the lack of spotlight-time someone intent on doing a Prime Runner face knowstheir massive dicepool will only matter for sure during the payout test, buying of gear, and maybe 1-2 other tests. The sammies will almost always get mileage in a given mission.

Tocap the face's one guaranteed spotlight-moment is take away a large portion of their fun.

The numerical comparison may not match but let them shine when its their time to shine in some fashion. Monetarily, non-monetarily, whichever, but let their skills show how awesome they are during their few moments to shine. To cap their one guaranteed time to shine is to relegate face-ness to a secondary role which may not be what the PC envisions.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-18-10/1916:01>
In the end, faces just have to eat it on this I think... sooner or later you reach the limit on what 1 indiviual can get you no matter how many hits you get.  If the Corp authorizes 4500 nuyen caps, then its all the Johnson or fixer has to go with.  Promising past that is just making the stupidity of taking a pornomancer to the next level by rewarding it.  You got 12 hits, here's your max offer... don't like; well take your game on the road!

Also on the ease of the game; this means it makes it easier on the writer.  If the writer has to think of adding too many things to the script, they lose wordcount that can be used elsewhere to make a more interesting adventure.  For the GMs, having 1 simple line (like the johnson opens with 3500 as an offer + 200 per hit) saves the GM from having to worry about anything other than those 5 hits you might net.

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
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-19-10/2013:04>
Uhm, well i'm gonna chime in here.

     First, Shinobi I'm gonna assume you Don't work in corprate high finance.
"Actually it is fairly similar if I only have $50 I can't pay you $75". Well the $50 is what the J was Given as a budget. That's not to say he can't call up to his superiors and tell then he has found assets that exceeded his (and their) expectations but also demand more than expected. I've found when a company needs Specialized help that they can't manage to weasl a company man into doing, they pay out the nose. Throwing cash at it is how corps take care of problems. In SR and the real world.

     Now as to limiting "insane" faces, not that I'd want to to begin with, (We don't limit the number of sucsesses a sammie cam get when he shoots some one, whether those hits are neccesary or not we give them to him) I propose useing the table rating as a threshold to the negotiations test. take yer faces hits subtract the table rating and then compare sucsesses.
Easy fix that slows down but not kanks faces.

Yeah sure if he isn't working off the books, if he has his bosses ear, if the expected returns on the run justify going higher than what his mission budget is, if there are no other runners, if the run isn't against his boss as a ploy for advancement etc..  You don't think run guidelines might take some of this into account?  If the run says max pay X, that is the max he can get either through calling his boss or operational expense or whatever you want to call it.  I am going to assume you don't work in corporate high finance if you think people have access to unlimited sums of money for a operation, there are limits where you just wont get any more money for your project.  While budgets exist and yes you can make calls/pleas/reports that request more money for a project, there are always limits too how much they will put into your project.  Just like if the Johnson gets 50 extra hits then the party they does not start paying him to do the job there does come a point where the Johnson says sorry no I'll hire someone else, or the runners say sorry no I wont take the job.  There are caps on how much the johnson can and or will pay and there are caps on what the runners can or will work for. 

While I have no desire to limit insane faces, there are practical limits to a variety of tasks.  There comes a point in everything including a Sams capabilities where extra successes don't do anything more.  My larger concern for a con adventure is making sure a team doesn't get hosed because one roll is missing.  I don't want to see them working for a sandwich and a pack of cigarettes because no face is at the table today.  Sort of like how I don't think you want a con adventure that can only be resolved is you have a dedicated decker on the team.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-20-10/0015:46>
At the end of the day, there's a balance that needs to be maintained.  That's one problem Missions has had up to this point, a lack of balance.  In the rewards, in the pay scales, etc.  So Faces need to have some limits on them, from a game balance standpoint. 

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.  Then I go to another game, and play with another Sammy who played the exact same three games, but didn't get all that extra cash.  Even though we've played the same amount, I've got a huge edge on my fellow Samurai through no ability of my own. 

Keep in mind that extra successes on negotiation tests aren't a right.  They're a privilege.  And new characters may want to think about branching out and being more than one trick ponies.  There will be solid caps to negotiate tests.

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-20-10/0024:29>
And new characters may want to think about branching out and being more than one trick ponies.

Being able to throw fistfuls of dice at infiltration tests, combat tests AND social test counts, right?

 ;D



-karma
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-20-10/0029:17>
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.  
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Wasabi 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.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali 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.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Shinobi Killfist 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. 
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Wasabi 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.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Chance359 on <09-20-10/1308:54>
I like the idea of the face's negotiations result being capped by TR x 1.5. 
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali 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. 
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Wasabi 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!
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Shinobi Killfist 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. 
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali 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.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen 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. ::)
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali 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.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: FastJack 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.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen 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
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: DWC 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?
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali 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.

Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: FastJack on <09-21-10/1535:37>
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?
Well, I didn't go with the 10 point quality of total pacifism, but the 5 point of "I'll defend myself" is pretty good. It's mostly a way of saying your character still has morals even though working in the criminal shadows.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-21-10/1614:10>
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.   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.
I take Lynx on the road to the Cons.  Its going to just be part of that whole experience.  Fortunately we have a local GM who can fill in the gaps (Iusually only get to play 3-5 Missions all con season, and got none in this year :( )  Unfortunately for us, the pornomancer is in the local "fill-in" group for me, but on the plus side, my drones may malfunction into her back sometime :D (and yes, she is the 10 point pacifist...)

I think however, whereas te "regular" Missions should have a bit of a cap, that the "prime" missions should give leeway to much crazier attempts at negotiation.  Making a good focused face a better asset to have (but I'll still shot cheezemonkey's in the back :D )
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-21-10/1615:54>
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.

Yeah, my Face counts "multiple machineguns firing full auto" as a negotiating tactic. And rolls 16 dice to hit, too...

"I Wish for many guns, floating around me, controlled by murder thoughts." - Yeah, she does that.

:)



-karma
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-21-10/1640:37>
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.   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.
I take Lynx on the road to the Cons.  Its going to just be part of that whole experience.  Fortunately we have a local GM who can fill in the gaps (Iusually only get to play 3-5 Missions all con season, and got none in this year :( )  Unfortunately for us, the pornomancer is in the local "fill-in" group for me, but on the plus side, my drones may malfunction into her back sometime :D (and yes, she is the 10 point pacifist...)

I think however, whereas te "regular" Missions should have a bit of a cap, that the "prime" missions should give leeway to much crazier attempts at negotiation.  Making a good focused face a better asset to have (but I'll still shot cheezemonkey's in the back :D )

I am trying to think of a way to help you in this situation.  Give me some time and some energy and I may be able to come up with a suggestion that will allow her to play her character with out irritating the rest of you.  But the only thing I can think of at this time is to ask her to just negotiate the pay for the job and have her pick up some hacking skills so she can get you pay data and more information with out necessarily going on the physical part of the run.   
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-21-10/1722:27>
It's not the character, so much as it's the player. (I'm in the same group with Caine, playing my Street Sammy Rush).

And I expect that Prime Missions will be a whole lot crazier.  And a whole mot more dangerous.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Deacon on <09-21-10/1735:20>
The problem I have is, when you get a new player to Missions, and he's playing a Face, and he's told that he's capped in the one field he decided to specialize in... it's not conducive to making him feel like he's contributing, ka? He might think 'Missions hates Faces, so I might as well have played a samurai'.

But while the Johnson might only have $50, remember that often he's taking his own pay out of that $50.  He might start the group at $25, and you negotiate him up to $75... but he's not going to take a cut in pay.  He might not get that whole $25 he was counting on to pad his retirement account, but he's going to at least take the $10 that he was promised for doing this for the Corp.  

A solution?  I wouldn't list a cap.  Caps are stupid, IMO; if a character has managed to exceed common-sense limits in one field, he should reap the rewards he's planned for himself.  He'll show deficiency somewhere else, and that's the beauty of the whole system.  When combat starts and all the Face can provide is a couple of badly-aimed shots in the general direction of the opposition, he's finding out what exceeding those common-sense limits in one field is doing to him.  Maybe next character he'll keep things in perspective.

Instead of a cap, I'd allow extra successes to purchase assets for the mission and beyond.  Need a skilled insertion?  Johnson calls up the corporate VTOL fleet.   Living on the low side?  Johnson has access to a corporate condo you can stay in for a few months.  Need some cyberware installed?  Johnson can get you into that sweet Beta clinic the corporation owns.  This way the Johnson isn't out the pay, but is still compensating the 'runners for the job.

-Deacon
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-21-10/1825:07>
Again...  two things..

1)  Not listing a cap is suicidal to game balance, since I've seen a face at a con get something like 17 net hits.

2)  The baseline payments are intended to be decent paydays.  We balance these things so that groups without Face characters don't get screwed.

3)  Extra stuff is outside the scope of Missions.  The more you add, the more complicated it gets, and the more problematic it becomes.

4)  Don;t over specialize.  Again, 5 net hits means, on average, you were throwing 15 more dice than the Johnson.  Yes, exceptions happen.  But still.  5 Net hits is a freaking lot of net hits.  If this isn;t enough for you, then obviously the Johnsons aren't good enough at their job.  Rating 10 Emotitoys, Tailored Pheremones, a social adept, and hey, I can start giving the Johnsons street cred scores as well, if necessary.

5)  If 5 net hits aren't enough pay for you.  Walk away from the run.  <shrug>

6)  Likewise, shadowrunners are disposable assets.  If you demand too much, Mr. Johnson can always walk away as well.  The city is full of shadowrunners eager to take on jobs.  

7)  the other option is I can not limit net hits...  But make the bonus for net hits negligible.  Your pay is 8,000, plus 50 per net hit.  

8 )  Don't over specialize.  If you find that you're capping your hits every time?  It's time to start putting points in other things.

<shrug>

This is a topic that's been discussed to death, and I'm sorry, but there's not going to be more to it than this.  It won't necessarily always be 5 hits.  Sometimes they will offer additional incentives beyond pure cash.  But not always.

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Deacon on <09-21-10/2003:26>
One thing I wanted to pull up.

Rating 10 Emotitoys

Rating 10?!?  Arsenal puts the limit at 6, I thought. 

Actually, while those things are useful to a Face, I personally think they're vastly overused (and annoying, from a GM's perspective).  I'd love to see a house rule where they (and emotional sensor software) are treated like the other sensor software: that they replace your social skill dice, they don't add to it.  They'd be very useful to a team without a Face, instead of being the bonus dice every Face uses to trump the Johnson.

And every Johnson worth his salt should be using the same toys the 'runners use.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-21-10/2031:30>
I'd love to see a house rule where they (and emotional sensor software) are treated like the other sensor software: that they replace your social skill dice, they don't add to it. 
That technically has some validity to it... being as SR4A was released AFTER Arsenel... now I gotta go read rules...
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-21-10/2052:14>
One thing I wanted to pull up.

Rating 10 Emotitoys

Rating 10?!?  Arsenal puts the limit at 6, I thought. 

Military Grade Emotitoys :)  I was being a smart-ass here, really :]  The point stands though.

Quote
Actually, while those things are useful to a Face, I personally think they're vastly overused (and annoying, from a GM's perspective).  I'd love to see a house rule where they (and emotional sensor software) are treated like the other sensor software: that they replace your social skill dice, they don't add to it.  They'd be very useful to a team without a Face, instead of being the bonus dice every Face uses to trump the Johnson.

And every Johnson worth his salt should be using the same toys the 'runners use.

Either way, the last sentence was my real point.

And Caine and I looked it up...  Emotitoy is technically is Sensor Software, and in SR4A, Sensors replace the Attribute.  So yeah, Emotitoys are useful for low Charisma characters, but not a bonus like they used to, which is nice. :)  We'll have to make sure GMs and players are aware of that ;)

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-21-10/2338:11>
That could be worse balance-wise than allowing the natural attribute, actually.

It's a LOT easier and BP/nuyen cheaper to buy a Rating 6 Camera than it is to buy Rating 6 Charisma.

Oh, hey, look, that Charisma 1 street sam now has 12 + Negotiate Skill dice to throw at the Johnson instead of 7 + skill.

And even my 24 dice social adept rigger* goes to 25 dice.


-karma

*- the funny thing is, the reason for the 24 negotiate (bargaining) wasn't really to get better paydays, it was to make getting high-Availability gear easier in downtime. More money is nice, though.

Um. That reminds me, someone at DragonCon mentioned that the dice cap didn't apply to 4:1 buying hits? Is this actually in the rules somewhere or just someone's mistake?
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Spanner on <09-22-10/0822:11>
And Caine and I looked it up...  Emotitoy is technically is Sensor Software, and in SR4A, Sensors replace the Attribute.  So yeah, Emotitoys are useful for low Charisma characters, but not a bonus like they used to, which is nice. :)  We'll have to make sure GMs and players are aware of that ;)

Bull

Could you reference the page number for this restriction? I looked last night and couldn't find it.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Chance359 on <09-22-10/1023:12>
Quote
1)  Not listing a cap is suicidal to game balance, since I've seen a face at a con get something like 17 net hits.

2)  The baseline payments are intended to be decent paydays.  We balance these things so that groups without Face characters don't get screwed.

3)  Extra stuff is outside the scope of Missions.  The more you add, the more complicated it gets, and the more problematic it becomes.

4)  Don;t over specialize.  Again, 5 net hits means, on average, you were throwing 15 more dice than the Johnson.  Yes, exceptions happen.  But still.  5 Net hits is a freaking lot of net hits.  If this isn;t enough for you, then obviously the Johnsons aren't good enough at their job.  Rating 10 Emotitoys, Tailored Pheremones, a social adept, and hey, I can start giving the Johnsons street cred scores as well, if necessary.

5)  If 5 net hits aren't enough pay for you.  Walk away from the run.  <shrug>

6)  Likewise, shadowrunners are disposable assets.  If you demand too much, Mr. Johnson can always walk away as well.  The city is full of shadowrunners eager to take on jobs. 

7)  the other option is I can not limit net hits...  But make the bonus for net hits negligible.  Your pay is 8,000, plus 50 per net hit. 

8 )  Don't over specialize.  If you find that you're capping your hits every time?  It's time to start putting points in other things.

1) Writers should be using table rating to give Mr Johnson the same toys the runners have (if my table brings a talented face, Mr. Johnson is going to get TR rating emo soft added to his gear)
 
2) The baseline for pay is a total joke in season 3, only made better by use of TR.

3) A simple side box written in the mod listing options for extra success.

4) So I'm not playing my character right?

5) I have to take my character off the table because he's not being paid what he's worth?  I dont mind hits being capped, a sam can only kill a guy with the same bullet so hard.  My issue is that the value of those successes needs to be looked at.

6) You get what you pay for.

7) I'm not sure I'm really against this, if I'm gonna get paid crap anyway, I might as well be able to get as much crap as possible.

8) Again, I'm playing my character wrong?

Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-22-10/1023:29>
Actually its an absolutly confounding conundrum.  Sensors can either be a stand alone attribute replacement (usually staging from rating 1-6) or be a modifier (usually rating 1-3).  Empathy Software comes inunder the "Sensors" catagory and rates from 1-6, but is descripted as a bonus.  I think its a case where "snsors" is really really really f-ing ambiguos, and its something that needs to be fixed.

Thn again, there is a case for Sensors being limited by hardware... so an emotitoy w/ its sensors 2 shold probably be capped for sensors software at 2.  Unfortunately its a place without clear rulings.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Spanner on <09-22-10/1111:21>
Well, I realize that we're all postulating now, but I believe sensors only replace your attribute when you're perceiving through them (e.g., when jumped into a drone).

By my reading, if I run rating 6 empathy software, in a commlink with 6 system and 6 response, tied to an RFID trideo camera sensor that is also rating 6, I get a bonus of 6 dice to my negotiation roles during a face-to-face, meat-body negotiation.

I agree that the emotitoy should be limited by its sensors, but really, who wants one of those things crawling around on you anyway?
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Spanner on <09-22-10/1128:31>
Again, I'm playing my character wrong?

BTW, I have to agree here.

Bull, I think we all understand where you're coming from in regards to playing Missions. We understand that you feel the power levels shouldn't get out of control. But you don't help your case by posting your opinion every time this discussion comes up. If you want to change the feel of the game, you need to change the rules as spelled out in the FAQ. I'm sure you understand that folks want to play the game THEIR way which may or may not match your way. Throwing tons of dice on a test is powerful and fun, and as long as the rules provide for it, people will continue to do it.

As coordinator, you need to develop a balanced FAQ that addresses the issues as you see them. Put your stamp on the feel of the game. People will play or not as they see fit based on those rules. Do you want to be a popular guy with Missions players? Take out most of the restrictions on play, gear, dice, etc. Do you want tables to be filled with runners trying to eke out a living, barely surviving, but all at around the same level as a new guy with a fresh character? Put in restrictions out the wazoo. Whatever the decision, it needs to be DOCUMENTED in the FAQ. It can't be hearsay or postings of opinion on these forums. And by all means, update the FAQ as often as needed to address the concerns. Players have questions now. If you have an answer, document it and make it legal. That's really the only way to settle the questions. (You'll never settle the discussions about whether something is fair or not.)
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: KarmaInferno on <09-22-10/1139:04>
I agree that the emotitoy should be limited by its sensors, but really, who wants one of those things crawling around on you anyway?

(http://www.karmainferno.com/images/emotitoy.jpg)

:)



-karma
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Spanner on <09-22-10/1309:14>
 :o

You win teh internets sir! Congratulations!
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: TranKirsaKali on <09-22-10/1313:46>
Again...  two things..

1)  Not listing a cap is suicidal to game balance, since I've seen a face at a con get something like 17 net hits.

2)  The baseline payments are intended to be decent paydays.  We balance these things so that groups without Face characters don't get screwed.

3)  Extra stuff is outside the scope of Missions.  The more you add, the more complicated it gets, and the more problematic it becomes.

4)  Don;t over specialize.  Again, 5 net hits means, on average, you were throwing 15 more dice than the Johnson.  Yes, exceptions happen.  But still.  5 Net hits is a freaking lot of net hits.  If this isn;t enough for you, then obviously the Johnsons aren't good enough at their job.  Rating 10 Emotitoys, Tailored Pheremones, a social adept, and hey, I can start giving the Johnsons street cred scores as well, if necessary.

5)  If 5 net hits aren't enough pay for you.  Walk away from the run.  <shrug>

6)  Likewise, shadowrunners are disposable assets.  If you demand too much, Mr. Johnson can always walk away as well.  The city is full of shadowrunners eager to take on jobs.  

7)  the other option is I can not limit net hits...  But make the bonus for net hits negligible.  Your pay is 8,000, plus 50 per net hit.  

8 )  Don't over specialize.  If you find that you're capping your hits every time?  It's time to start putting points in other things.

<shrug>

This is a topic that's been discussed to death, and I'm sorry, but there's not going to be more to it than this.  It won't necessarily always be 5 hits.  Sometimes they will offer additional incentives beyond pure cash.  But not always.

Bull

1.  I still think not capping the character but just what the budget is for the Johnson is best.  To be honest, I do not want to know how many hits over the Johnson I got.  That takes the role playing out of the game for me.  And when I am told I got 10 hits over the Johnson and just can't get any more money of of him is when I try for other stuff.  If I am told no then I go with it.  If I am told yes, well hey it is a bonus.  Sorry Midnight I can only pay you XXX I do not have anymore than that would be just fine.  

2. I disagree that the payments are good.  If they were we would not have felt the need to loot anything and everything of value not nailed down.

3.  Let this be GM purview and character role play.  In other words, if the Face can come up with something reasonable as an extra incentive and the Johnson feels they can provide it cool.  If the Face over shoots then the Johnson says no.

4.  I agree with not overspecializing.  I tend to create the focus of my character as high as I can while still adding in things like pistols, infiltration and perception.  Those skills tend to be low.  Mainly because I plan on those being the first that get increased.  That way my character is good at what she wants to be from the get go and has character development as she gains in karma.  There is rounding but rough edges are their to be smoothed out.  

5.  People do not want to just walk away from the run.  They paid to play.  Most of the time once the game has started you can not get your money back.  And at 6 dollars or more a game, people do not want to just throw that money away.

6. Yes and no.  I agree with the you get what you pay for.  My characters assume you came to them for their specific skill set or the fact that you have heard about the team and want what we've got.  So we should get paid as close to what we are worth as we can be.

7. Just remember, when runners feel they aren't getting paid enough, And the qualifier is can I retire in comfort before I die doing this, then they will loot and pillage their way through the run. To get the money they want for gear and to live comfortably.

8.  Just a repetition of 4


As for the emoti toys and software, if the Johnson knows the runner is using it, I think they should get a bonus of some kind.  I mean really, If I am running around with a very popular toy on my shoulder that is highly recognizable, why shouldn't the Johnson either get the opportunity to turn on his own software or try to fool the toy?  This is why I have the software not the toy. No need to throw it in someones face.  But if it replaces my skill. . .  Well then I am not hard capped like I thought.  Just give me a little more time.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-22-10/1513:27>
1) Writers should be using table rating to give Mr Johnson the same toys the runners have (if my table brings a talented face, Mr. Johnson is going to get TR rating emo soft added to his gear)

They should.  To a degree.  The thing to keep in mind is that we have to write for ALL groups.  And I've GMed for and play with enough groups that either didn't have a face at all, or didn't have a "Pornomancer" taht was totally tricked out.  And these groups would be at a massive disadvantage we always tricked out Johnsons.  

At the end of the day, limited successes is a balancing factor for this reason...
 
Quote
2) The baseline for pay is a total joke in season 3, only made better by use of TR.

I almost always played at TR 6, so I never noticed.  Though even at TR 6, some missions pay was ridiculous (Burning Bridges comes to mind).  But, it can be argued that you working in a corp Enclave.  They controlled the jobs, they controlled the money, and thus they controlled the pay rates.

Seattle is a different bag of tricks, and is a different setting and theme.  Pay rates will be higher, on average.  

Quote
3) A simple side box written in the mod listing options for extra success.

This is a giant pain in the ass for writers, trying to come up with interesting things to list for every module.  Plus, what happens when Mr. Johnson can offer up, say, a Beta Cyberarm to a team made of nothing but Adepts and Mages?  This is the same problem that New York's affiliation awards had.  Random Loot sucks.  It's complicated, it's cumbersome, and it's more work than we need to do.

Quote
4) So I'm not playing my character right?

Nope.  There is never a way to play you're character wrong  But realize you're limiting yourself.  You're better off spreading yourself out a little more, after a certain point.  

I'm telling you flat out that in the future (and at the present), you're capped at successes.  If this limit kills the fun of your character and you feel it's not worth playing him anymore, then that's up to you.

Quote
5) I have to take my character off the table because he's not being paid what he's worth?  I dont mind hits being capped, a sam can only kill a guy with the same bullet so hard.  My issue is that the value of those successes needs to be looked at.

ANd I'm telling you that it's perfectly reasonable and perfectly fair.  You walk into a job interview in real life, they tell you what the job pays, and you think you're worth more, does that mean they have to pay you that?  No.  Same goes for Mr. Johnson.  

I've told you that out of character, it's a balance issue.  We limit how much karma you can get, we limit how much money you can get, so that two missions in, you're not sitting on a ton of cash and karma.  If you've played 5 missions and another player has played the same 5 missions with a different group, the two characters should be at relatively similar karma and money scales.  They won;t be identical, and the smarter player with the better face on their team will have an advantage, but it won't be overwhelming.

#5 here, that was my "In Character" rationale to go with the out of character.  There's a point in any adventure where you have to make the decision...  Is this worth it to my character?  And more importantly, is this worth it to me as a player?  Do I really want to play this adventure?  Sometimes, the answer may be no, and at which point you walk away.  If the adventure is an assassination job, you can;t negotiate a different mission.  it is what it is.  That's the nature of Missions.  YOu're signing up to play the game as it is.  There's a limit to what a living campaign can do.

Quote
6) You get what you pay for.

See above.  And you pay what it's worth to you too.

Quote
7) I'm not sure I'm really against this, if I'm gonna get paid crap anyway, I might as well be able to get as much crap as possible.

WHat's more worth while.  500 per hit, capped at 5, or 50 per hit, with no cap?  THat's what I'm talking about.  

Quote
8) Again, I'm playing my character wrong?

Again, see above.

This is my last reply on the subject.  If you're not happy with the situation, make a different character for Season 4.  You'll have the opportunity to transfer Karma over as well and rebuild your character, so maybe retweak his stats and skills a little.  The caps stay in place.

Like I said above, if you're regularly getting 6+ net hits, then honestly, we're doing something wrong as writers.  Because on average, that's 18 dice above what the GM is rolling.  And Mr. Johnson should always be rolling at least 10 dice.

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-22-10/1515:38>
Whatever the decision, it needs to be DOCUMENTED in the FAQ.

That's one of my many projects this week, updating the FAQ.  And it will be in there.

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Deacon on <09-22-10/1559:06>
ANd I'm telling you that it's perfectly reasonable and perfectly fair.  You walk into a job interview in real life, they tell you what the job pays, and you think you're worth more, does that mean they have to pay you that?  No.  Same goes for Mr. Johnson.

If you walk into a job interview and then negotiate your pay higher based on your years of experience and other considerations, that's just part of being a good negotiator.  That's why my brother hired a headhunter to find him his current job -- so the headhunter would not only find him the job, but also negotiate a substantial pay increase.

If on the other hand, they tell you what the job pays and you demand more money for no specific reason, then they are perfectly within their rights to tell you "Thanks for your interest, but we'll be going with someone else". 

Skilled negotiators know not only how to use their skills, but when it's appropriate.  If I am a Face and part of a skilled shadow team with impressive amounts of Street Cred and experience, and the J is offering me a pittance for the use of my skills, and this being Shadowrun (and thus a setting where it's almost accepted that you will negotiate with your Johnson), I'm going to have to ask for more money.  If the Johnson can't pay, I'm going to have to ask whether the 'run is worth my team's time or not.

And that's the rub.  If pay is going to be crap, then I would see no reason to go on the job.  You'll have people walking away from the job, and thus walking away from Missions, simply because you aren't offering enough money to compensate them for their time.

And there are characters out there that have the skills that the J wants.  But the J has to be able to afford them.  Which is the J, and thus the corporation, going to want?  Is he going to want a mediocre team that may-or-may-not be able to get the corp the inside scoop on their competitor's assets?  Or is he going to want the team that has the skills, the gear and the cojones to pull it off, all without ever letting the competitor even know they were there?  In Shadowrun, you get what you pay for.

-Deacon
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Chance359 on <09-22-10/1718:50>
Quote
And that's the rub.  If pay is going to be crap, then I would see no reason to go on the job.  You'll have people walking away from the job, and thus walking away from Missions, simply because you aren't offering enough money to compensate them for their time.

I admit I've played some missions simply to help my team out, (which is ironic since they all think my character is a backstabbing, money grubbing SOB).  I held to the attitude that if I was there helping out my friends play the game, then it was worth my time to sit through a mod I didn't like. 

This changed when Firestorm came along.  After a well written opening Mr. Johnson proceeds to offer far less then he would have spent on the meal he served during the meeting.  At this point my hacker stood up apologized to the rest of the team, told the Johnson to get bent, paid for his own meal, and walked out.  I've refused to accept a log sheet for the run, I even offered my GM to take a point of notoriety for my actions.  So Bull you're right, I did walk away when it wasn't worth my characters time, where I take the hit is that I don't have any option to recoup anything for it.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-22-10/1735:10>
Firestorm was a balance act...  it had 2 seperate negotiations so the Dev at the tim decided to lower the payola.  At TR4 it was relativly easy to walk away with 12K/per nuyen, but you would have had to make it to the 2nd negotiation.  It was also an attempt at having TR help determine payout... whic also didn't quite work out for yo it seems.  Looking over the original draft, the payout for TR4 was 25K/per average.  I rather liked that number, but it might have been a bit overbearing the way it was set up, a TR 6 in the same adventure probably averages 19K/per for the adventure.
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: Bull on <09-22-10/1936:32>
One other thing to keep in mind when making characters for Missions is Expectations.  There are active threads here and on Dumpshock about how much runners should get paid, and that's a topic that's been around for as long as I've been active in the SR ONline community (Going back to 1996 now).  There's never been a solid answer for it, either.  The fact is, Shadowrun scales up adn down fairly well, and it's usually up to the GM to tailor the game and pay to what he and the players want.

Missions, on the other hand, doesn't really have that luxury.  Some players and GMs condier 5K a run pretty decent.  You can do 4 runs a month, which means you pay for a Middle lifestyle and net 15K, minus expenses.  Other players think 10K a mission is way too little, because they're maintaining a high lifestyle and wanting to buy Beta Move By Wire 3.  I've heard complaints from players about "only" making 20K for a job before.

So managing your expectations is important, figuring out where the baseline for the game is.  I'll be upfront...  For Season 4, my planned baseline (And this may change) is 10K a run.  That's the average payout, for an average difficulty adventure.  Some runs might be less, if they're less difficult or involved, some might be more.  If the runners are asked to do something crazystupid that's going to piss off a lot of people and give them a lot of public awareness, then the pay will be a lot higher.  As I've said before, Burning Bridges left a pretty bad taste in my mouth, because it's a very hard mission at Table Rating 6, and we still netted less than 10,000.  And I've earned more than that for waaaay easier jobs in Missions.

This is also something that I plan to go over in the FAQ a little bit.  When i have the time to catch up on everything. 

Bull
Title: Re: A beef with some missions: Amount of Pay
Post by: A.A. Salati on <09-22-10/2229:26>
There are really two issues here, and I would like to separate them.

1) People have a problem with Missions pay.

2) Some people want faces to get unlimited negotiation results, because they have a huge dice pool.

Issue 1 I'm on your side.  Some runs should pay moderately, but every once in a while you should hit the big score.  That's what you're in this for, right?  As players sure, we want to have fun and do a Shadowrun, but in character?  Show me the money!  I want you to get paid.  I want you to score.  I'm going to side with you in Season 4 and do what I am able to make sure this isn't a complaint anymore.

Issue 2 is sour for me.  It is the min/max undermining of what is supposed to be roleplaying.  Shadowrun gives you some mechanics to help resolve it, but the complaint about how those mechanics are usually set up in Missions is disheartening and distasteful.  Here's what seems to be the expectation:

* The Johnson meets us and makes a lowball offer.  * The Face rolls negotation.  * This Face power increases our pay.  * We do the Mission and get paid.

This is NOT Shadowrun.  This is a formula people are using to reduce the beginning of the game to a mechanic like an attack roll, dodge roll, and damage resistance test.  I get that good negotiators are able to get more because they're slick and experienced, and that's definitely a cool part of the game.  I love playing a Face!  But please acknowledge that the reality of a job is that somebody, represented by the Johnson, wants to accomplish something that will usually net them more than the cost of the job.  You can't exceed this dynamic without violating the reality of negotiation, and that is:  No matter how good you are at it, negotiating is the process of two parties making a mutually beneficial agreement.  There is a limit to what each party can concede before the agreement is no longer beneficial to them.

I totally get that Missions pay has been wonky, and I will even go so far as to say in my opinion too low.  However, I think that is the root cause of discontent, not the negotiation success cap.  The pay we're agreeing to work on, but everything in Shadowrun has limits on success.  I think that's a good thing.  Take Missions for what it is.  It's a living campaign that's trying to accommodate everyone so that each of us can play with lots of other runners.  It has difficulties, and it will always have difficulties because of what it is, but at the end of the day, we all want to sit around a table together and roleplay in this incredible setting.