NEWS

[6WE] Edwin the Exotic Weapons Specialist

  • 49 Replies
  • 944 Views

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2292
« Reply #30 on: (14:12:19/08-20-19) »
Dez, Are you trying to say my decker wonít have a 6 strength and in fact capping at 3 will have no real effect on me. Weird, I never would have guessed that a stat Iíll never use being capped at 3 is not a penalty.

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 129
« Reply #31 on: (14:35:36/08-20-19) »
I get it is obvious but establishing that as a fact is sorta important for the following points that build up to 'the quality is broken because it purely has a negative impact on the game.'

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

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

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Kids these days...
    • For those that hate 6E
« Reply #32 on: (14:47:45/08-20-19) »
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
« Reply #33 on: (15:09:55/08-20-19) »
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

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

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

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2352
« Reply #34 on: (15:10:21/08-20-19) »
I get it is obvious but establishing that as a fact is sorta important for the following points that build up to 'the quality is broken because it purely has a negative impact on the game.'

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

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

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

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

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 129
« Reply #35 on: (15:12:25/08-20-19) »
I prefer Ars Magica's take:

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

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

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

Put another way: No one is taking distinctive style so you can have their PC arrested. They just wanna stand out and have their PC be noticed in scenes a bit more, be a little more in your face. Uncouth is similar, most people who take it tend to want to get into Shenanigans (TM) rather than accidently offend a crimelord and get beheaded. Negative qualities are best utilized in ways that make players happy you remembered them, not upset you did.
« Last Edit: (15:15:58/08-20-19) by dezmont »

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Kids these days...
    • For those that hate 6E
« Reply #36 on: (15:32:52/08-20-19) »
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

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

Why in the hell should we have to play by different rules than you?
If I had, I haven't noticed and didn't realize I was doing it. If you can point me to where I did so, I'll go back and offer my apologies to those I've offended.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2292
« Reply #37 on: (18:44:43/08-20-19) »
I get it is obvious but establishing that as a fact is sorta important for the following points that build up to 'the quality is broken because it purely has a negative impact on the game.'

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

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

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

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

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

In shadowrun itís like 50 out of 1,000 so while I donít think cheese like this should make it I also as a GM donít think it fits to make it a significant disadvantage. Its more how can I use this to make it a good story. Itís why I thought ones that were clear obvious disadvantages didnít seem to click for me But others did like I suck at simsense stuff. I always take it on magically active types because setting wise they supposed to suck at it. Hence why Sam Verners icon limped in the books. 5 points and it helps develop the character and setting. As a GM I can work it into the story as well.

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #38 on: (19:55:52/08-20-19) »
Thanks, Heph. I don't hate missions players, and I'm getting a little more tired of ISP consistently twisting words of other posters to suit his ends. This is twice you've done it to me, ISP. Next time, there will be a warning whether it's my post or not. Consider your Overwatch score tripled.

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

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

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

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

I agree, to a point. I think both positive and negative qualities should be ways to create story moments, but they should also reflect their nature. If a character takes First Impression, there are countless ways to work that into a story, from Johnson meets to trying to sweet-talk their way out of being arrested. Conversely, if they take Uncouth (or even better, the "Did You Just Call Me Dumb?" quality from 5th), then conversations should be rocky, and there should be a chance (not a certainty) that bad things will happen.
« Last Edit: (19:58:28/08-20-19) by Hephaestus »

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 129
« Reply #39 on: (20:36:30/08-20-19) »
I agree, to a point. I think both positive and negative qualities should be ways to create story moments, but they should also reflect their nature. If a character takes First Impression, there are countless ways to work that into a story, from Johnson meets to trying to sweet-talk their way out of being arrested. Conversely, if they take Uncouth (or even better, the "Did You Just Call Me Dumb?" quality from 5th), then conversations should be rocky, and there should be a chance (not a certainty) that bad things will happen.

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

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

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

markelphoenix

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
« Reply #40 on: (00:34:55/08-21-19) »
I agree, to a point. I think both positive and negative qualities should be ways to create story moments, but they should also reflect their nature. If a character takes First Impression, there are countless ways to work that into a story, from Johnson meets to trying to sweet-talk their way out of being arrested. Conversely, if they take Uncouth (or even better, the "Did You Just Call Me Dumb?" quality from 5th), then conversations should be rocky, and there should be a chance (not a certainty) that bad things will happen.

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

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

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

I think Qualities are what you and your GM agree them to be. Some see it as an additional challenge to weave into their characters identity, where the Uncouth may kick in and lead to a bad social situation, but there comes a point where all sides can mitigate complete disaster, such as in the examples you provided. Alternatively, a bad GM absolutely will look at it from the standpoint of, "How can I use these qualities to force the player to be screwed over!"

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #41 on: (09:18:30/08-23-19) »
There totally ARE designs where you are trusting your GM to limit content that are not just fine, but good! SR has some! Fame, for example, is a quality banned at many a table just because it is very disruptive to the campaign's dynamic, but it exists because it allows very interesting stories to exist if the GM is cool with it. Fame earns its right to exist despite being something that many GMs won't allow at their table, because it serves a purpose. You don't need to contextualize taking fame as 'abusive' to ban it from your table, it can just not be a good fit. You can just say "nah" for Fame and it is totally clear both why you said it and why it is in the book despite the GM saying "nah."
I agree with the rest of your post, and wanted to add something, which is: I think moving ill-fitting rules to sourcebooks can help.

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

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

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

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

I'd much rather the rules had no landmines in the first place.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2352
« Reply #42 on: (09:57:23/08-23-19) »
How many GMs will overlook Impaired Attribute and start campaigns with 6e characters who abuse it for cheap munchkin trickery?

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

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

Edwin here has Impaired Attribute, and what exactly did it gain him?

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2292
« Reply #43 on: (10:30:43/08-23-19) »
It got him both of his positive qualities for free or in the case of your troll technomancer 4 positive qualities including focussed concentration 3 for free with 10 karma to spare. When you compare it to the points given for other negative qualities itís clearly broken for what it does to the character which is pretty much nothing. You can more than double your starting karma from 1 negative quality that doesnít impact your character at all when other qualities thugs are not hits give you only 8 karma . Thatís terrible design.

No matter the table people will know itís pure power game fodder  whether thatís a bad thing or not is what will vary from table to table.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #44 on: (10:42:34/08-23-19) »
How many GMs will overlook Impaired Attribute and start campaigns with 6e characters who abuse it for cheap munchkin trickery?
Cheap Munchkin trickery is subjective.
I only see three ways to look at negative qualities:

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

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

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

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

Quote
Edwin here has Impaired Attribute, and what exactly did it gain him?
Turn that around and ask: what did it cost him? I submit the answer is "nothing." It has no negative impact on the character.