Your interpretation of what "maximum edge" means isn't unreasonable in and of itself, but using it would mean that "maximum edge" means the same thing as just "edge". Given that, it's pretty clear what was intended (though I admit having an attribute that can be partially spent does complicate the issue).

~J

Yeah. You lose a point of edge *and* your natural maximum decreases by one. It's my usual "cost" for burning edge. In the case of HoG, I will sometimes waive it if the near-death was dramatic enough or just a case of truly bad luck.

Works for me. It should leave a scar that can't be fixed with as little as 5 Karma. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

What's the point?

Even in Warhammer Fantasy D6, Fate Points were not limited. And it doesn't get much grimmer than that.

I posit that it does: start with your example, and then make it grimmer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Limit the fate points, whatever those are. Ding, grimmer!

But in Warhammer Fantasy (1st or 2nd ed) you can't just raise your Fate Points by spending experience points.

And Yerameyahu, Fate Points are allot like Edge, you just start with 1-4 *depending on race) and they are awarded by the GM and are RARE in most games.

I don't lower the max with burning one, but if my player can't explain a "plausible" reason for the effect, then I don't allow it.

That negates most uses of Escape Certain Death, then. Not what I'd want in my games, personally.

Not as much as you might think. I'm not talking about "reasonable", but at least "plausible".

Example: To avoid a low yield nuclear blast:
Dis-allowed: "I burn an edge to Avoid Certain Death...because at the last minute an alien space ship beamed me aboard." huh-uh. Maybe if I was running Stargate or something, but as is, nope.

Allowed: "I burn an edge to Avoid Certain Death...Hey! Didn't you say there was an old lead lined refrigerator nearby?" pushing it, but plausible. 1:1,000,000 but plausible.

I love it when people come up with BScientific reasons for things. I ran for a techy player one time who was a master of pulling pseudo-BScientific nonsense out of thin air. He sometimes even got a bonus for making us stop and say, "Is that really possible?" even though we all knew he wall full of it.

So, maybe "plausible" might have been a poor word choice. At least make it sound interesting and not make me nuke my "suspension of disbelief". Still subject to my OK that it can be used, but YMMV.

If you're Ms. Londa Cannon of Ohio, being beamed aboard the mothership for a photo op with Elvis isn't out of the question. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

But seriously, the nature of rules is to be objective. You're suggesting a subjective replacement: "If it sounds interesting". That's not fair if the player has trouble coming up with interesting details, and has no bearing on rather or not it's dramatically beneficial to your game.

That's probably why RAW makes the GM explain EcD, with whatever rationale he likes.

You don't even need secondary explosions...

First survive the initial gamma ray burst
Then survive the pressure wave
Then survive the heat wave
Then survive the reverse pressure wave
Then survive the firestorm for as many rounds as is necessary to escape it.
Then survive the radiation poisoning.

Or just don't stand next to a nuke when it goes off.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beret.gif) (Thinking cap)

Never been a problem before. Only ever had 3-4 characters in ALLOT of years ever need to use the rule. Never had one NOT come up with wild and interesting ways around things.

Hell, I have a hard time keeping them FROM wild and interesting ideas. If someone couldn't explain it or are fresh out of ideas (not likely with my group (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) ) I probably wouldn't deny them it's use. I've never been that evil a GM.

I've only had one player use it in over twenty years, and that was under SR3. Ironically, it was being at ground zero when a nuke went off. Pony nuke, so not as big of a deal.

However, I have had a lot of uncreative players. Not bad players, mind you, just unimaginative. Just like it's unfair to penalize uncharismatic players who want to play faces, you shouldn't penalize uncreative players with something so subjective.

I wouldn't, just never had that blessing/curse/situation of uncreative players. They all like the idea. Gets to be kinda like a game almost at the table. Then again, I allow commentary/help from the peanut gallery on this sort of thing.

I tend to run LONG continuous campaigns, and nobody wants to really loose a character they've been playing for years.

And I know what you mean about the face thing.....*shudder*, I still have the scars. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) It was, shal we say....memorable, like when you personally witness a 27 car pile up while watching a tornado slowly play with a trailer park.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Another silly thought . .
You can dodge explosives right? O.o
So do a critical success to dodge the nuke going off (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ^^

Dodge only increases the scatter. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
(You're going to need a huge number of successes to move the nuke 1 mile!)

So? Spend Edge to get the theoretically infinite number of hits, and then burn Edge to get the threshold +4.

More silliness, can you move the nuke by dodging unto your enemy?

That's how dodge rolls roll, by RAW. ;D