Um. It says 'suffer the consequences'. Are you trying to say that means *suffer* non-negative effects? Suffer winning the lottery? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are definitions, and then there are definitions in obvious context. You 'suffer the consequences' of whatever would have otherwise *killed* you. This doesn't mean everyone gets Quadriplegic, no, but neither does it mean the GM can't do things.

They no doubt will have to pay the karma if they ever want their edge back and I'm going to guess even a BFF street doc may still charge them a bit for medical treatment. After all, they had a near-death experience.

So, a paraplegic Street Samurai is still a "playable character" in your estimation, then?

For nearly every player, and for most character concepts, "Congratulations, your character's spine is all fucked up, welcome to the wonders of taking a dump in a colostomy bag and being unable to feel your own personal Mr. Johnson," might as well be the same as being dead.

It's kind of hard to do a stealthy breaking an entering from a wheelchair. Not even if you miraculously have the money to pay for one of the fancy ones that don't even have wheels. It's definitely going to rule out being a physical combatant.

So, no. It's not a strawman at all. Getting suddenly handed the paraplegic/quadriplegic Qualities after invoking the Hand of God is getting a shit sandwich shoved down your throat. Frankly, I'd refuse to play the character any more and make a new one. I imagine many players would feel similarly.





Not necessarily. It could be the result of a dumbfuck firing into the air wildly and you being a very unlucky bastard, or it could be the result of tripping a shotgun booby trap. Either way, it's not necessarily "You FUCKED UP ROYAL SON, EAT SOME PENALTIES!"

Which is what this is all about. You want to heap some penalties onto someone who survived something they shouldn't, to "teach them a lesson" for "being so stupid as to get killed and have to HoG," isn't it?!

Because that's the vibe I'm getting from the pro-heaping-of-negative-qualities camp here.



And I do not hold to that. If someone is forced to invoke the Hand of God, he's already lost a sum of karma which ranges from (at the very least) Non-Trivial, up to Oh My Fucking God. There's no need to heap extra shit on them atop that. If you absolutely must throw on some qualities, throw on a counterbalancing positive quality for the negative quality. If you're not imaginative enough to do that, then just call it good with the Edge burn.





And yet, it says "consequences," it doesn't say "qualities." The word "Consequences" could mean anything, it's very non-specific. In fact, it explicitly fails to prescribe a heaping of negative qualities. It could mean anything from "the guy who thinks he killed you strips you naked and dumps your ass in a gutter, whereupon you wake up with a splitting headache and a burning desire for revenge," to "You're in a coma for a month." It doesn't say you have to permanently saddle the character with a shit sandwich.




As would I. The karma loss and opportunity cost of any potential missed sessions is far more than enough.




Folks who win the lottery tend to wind up dirt-poor in a few years. They've also had hits taken out on them by their own kin.

And in this case, the consequences are already there; you lose the point of Edge, and you lose any opportunity to gain further Karma for the time you're out.




They'd better just hope they don't have Dixie Flatline (thieving bitch) for a street doc, then. That bitch will break into your doss, hack your commlinks and help herself to 10% of your net worth for her lifesaving services.

So, now you're saying that, contrary to the rules, the GM can't actually do anything beyond lost Edge and lost time? Make up your mind, because I thought you said, "The word "Consequences" could mean anything", which fully agrees with the bit you quoted to apparently refute ("That can mean quadriplegism."). 'Can' isn't 'must'.

Not that he "can't," but that he "shouldn't" unless the players agree to it or the campaign is particularly brutal. Or if they did something incredibly stupid to end up in that situation and the GM wants to saddle them with something that reminds them of their own stupidity. But he sure as hell shouldn't completely invalidate a character by saddling them with paraplegia/quadriplegia, which would invalidate most character concepts and massively increase how much they pay for lifestyle costs, thus sending them into a spiraling, inescapable circle of debt, starvation, and eventually death. We play games like this to escape reality, not live it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I agree that quadriplegia is the most extreme example, but StealthSigma made it very clear that it's only the most extreme example of many possibilities. That's why 'can' isn't 'must'. That's why he's not even actually disagreeing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There's also the fact that the GM has to consider whether it will be a detriment to the player's enjoyment of the game if he slaps him with, to use Shadowdragon's language, a shit sandwich in the form of negative qualities that drastically impact the character. A Magician with Cursed 4? A hacker/rigger with Gremlins 4? An Awakened character with a Geas that limits their magic with a limitation that is almost impossible to fulfill (Fasting)? Or would you rather see them come out of it with some new roleplaying opportunities, such as, again, Shadowdragon's examples - slap them with Cursed 1 and a Mentor Spirit, or a hacker/technomancer/rigger with Gremlins 1, or Scorched, or Sensitive Neural Structure and Codeslinger, or an ambiguous negative quality such as Bad Rep, an Enemy, some Flashbacks, Paranoia, maybe a Dementia? But a lot of those should come about through roleplaying, not GM fiat to screw the player because they used a legitimate game mechanic in order to keep playing their character. That's where Shadowdragon is coming from - you should be enriching the roleplaying experience as a GM, even through the bad shit, not deliberately fucking the characters over.

I've seen others mention the sustaining focus bits. But even without a sustaining focus this is dead wrong. The LOS requirement is only to cast certain spells (others are touch range). You can sustain a spell as long as you're willing to take the -2 sustaining penalty (or keep an active focus on your body) and it stays up. (IE: force 3 goes into a BGC 3+ and drops... spell ends; or you sustain a permanent spell until it ends as it becomes permanent).


The entire point of burning edge is that he doesn't die. Since he's alive the focus stays active.



That said, did you remember that the mage has a physical track and on top of that he has overflow damage boxes == body? He's dead when overflow runs out. He's dying when the physical track runs out.


As far as good negative qualities... why not some of the mental ones. The one I'd recommend for the best RP fun is delusions. It's not crippling, just a fun handicap.


p163 augmentation these are mostly for cyberzombies... but they can work here as well.
5BP Mania/Phobia
10BP Assensing Rejection : Not all minds are capable of processing astral information even when it is thrust upon them. (don't actually recommend this one... still kinda funny and apt in a black humor way).
10BP Delusions : Examples include an imageinary friend or foe, belief in the power of a 'lucky' charm, or knowledge of a global conspiracy between dragons and elves.
10BP Emotion Leak
And for the truly sick and twisted.... *drumroll*
10BP Will to Die : A cyberzombie is not supposed to be alive, and some part of her is willing death upon herself even at the best of times. *haha*

So far, I've done it twice, once in a story, another in-game.

In my story, the guy who was practically stock now is at the "Almost Cyberzombie" stage of Essence Loss, as well as a bit unhinged mentally.

In game, my group's magician now owes a spirit "A small piece of your soul. A piece that regenerates if you're working at it.", Karma in other words. If he can't make the payment, however... He loses Essence. He owes this once every lunar month thirteen times. Oh, and the spirit looks like Alice Cooper.

That's right, Alice Cooper has a piece of the magician's soul, AND the human equivalent of his "True Name", although I haven't told the player that yet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

Does he get his edge back when he has paid off the karma?

I still want to hear the story behind this. The picture of the spirit haunts my nightmares.

The spirit is seriously named Alice Cooper?

Speaking for myself, the one time it came up was with a Technomancer who lost an arm (to a dwarf with a combat axe). I asked the player (or, at least, the player for that session, it was kind of a round-robin character) if they'd rather get a cloned new arm, or if they wanted to dip into the fun of Augmentation, and all that, suck up the Essence loss, and kit 'em out like a chromeboy? We ended up going the cyber route, and suddenly that gimpy little Technomancer -- while, yes, he took a hit on Resonance -- had something to do with all his nuyen and started hanging with the big boys when the bullets started flying. The arm got more and more tricked out as gameplay went on, and the whole thing ended up being a lot of fun.

But what worked for me might not work for everyone, and I get that.

Maybe instead of sniping at each other and flaming out the thread, just this once, folks could just politely agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat, admit that the wording for HoG is vague enough that a consequence might be a Negative Quality, and that it's the sort of thing that's best decided at an individual game table, GM by GM and player by player, as to what's appropriate?

Maybe?

*snicker*
*LOL*
*ROFL*
*ROFLMAO*
*Wets pants from laughing so hard*
*scampers off to change clothes*

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Sorry I just couldn't help myself.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

-D

Nope when skinning a cat you have to start on the front left leg.

Oops double post.

Well said Critias (and DMiller), though if Dumpshock isn't used to debate such matters (and I believe most posters in this thread are approaching it with an appropriate sense of spirited debate) won't it be little more than another FAQ? Albeit a more useful and less definite one.

Call it 'sniping' if you like, but ShadowDragon8685 did

single himself out somewhat.

(see what I did there?).

@ShadowDragon

1. Please stop with the phrase 'shit-sandwich' – it's melodramatic and now tiresome.

2. 'Heaping' in the context of negative qualities is not accurate to anybody's playing style as they've represented it here. Of course it's not on to throw numerous issues on a character for sheer bloody-mindedness to the point that they're little more than a brain in a jar, but nobody's said that it is.

3. Getting shot is a consequence of "someone aiming a gun at you and pulling the trigger", but it's not a one-to-one relationship – it is a consequence of other things too.

4. I think the vibe you're getting from the pro-'heaping' (seriously, no) camp is off. Personally I see it less as a lesson-teacher and more about making the experience mean something more than a setback on the infinite Karma trail. The player was already intending to go out to earn Karma to boost stats so the loss of Edge has changed nothing ingame and I for one think that's definitely not sufficient. The key text for me is "The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death", noting that the character should suffer.

5. I think a paraplegic street samurai would be fascinating to play. You have the new challange of physical impairment and roleplaying the psychological hardship as well as forging the character's way to recovery or even taking a new career path. I don't remember if the particular quality prohibits recovery, but it would be excessively harsh for the GM to assign an irrevocable suffering and as has been noticed this is already an extreme example.

6. As Critias put so delicately, different tables will have different games and gaming styles and this is not a cut-and-dried area of RAW. In your game it seems that the goal is to build stats and dicepools as far as possible before getting bored and lamenting every scratch incurred in the meantime. Good, if that works for you and yours (and I hold my hands up that my speculation is one-sidedly-negative). Me, I'd be bored off my arse at that table as you might at mine. Personally, I like things going wrong in my games, either as a player or as a GM, because therein lies my enjoyment of roleplaying. A guy who was built for shooting people who then goes out and shoots people won't hold my interest with that alone, but if something goes horribly wrong and he then has to work with a post-traumatic stress disorder? That's more interesting, not less. When I recount SR tales and characters I don't go on about the numbers I was allowed to write on a bit of paper – I relate the decisions made and how the consequences were suffered/enjoyed. But as always, YMMV.

7. I don't think there is such a thing as an 'unplayable' character. Not strictly speaking. If you don't like what the GM has done to your character then you should question it by all means, since if he allowed you to HoG (and by RAW it's always up to him on a case-by-case basis) he is obviously open to the character's story continuing and that will only happen if you're still interested. That said, the whole point of HoG is you have a choice between two options and what you might consider to be a battered wreck of a PC cannot be less appealling than a dead one. Dead PCs don't even get wheelchairs.

Pretty much what I'm saying... except I wouldn't use the term 'vague'. I think it's extremely clear that it's more likely that there is more to be given to the character beyond the burned edge and the opportunity cost from having to recover from the wounds sustained.



There's a couple of things that need to be addressed about it.

1. The burning of edge is a consequence of death and not a consequence of the circumstances that lead to the death. Additionally, the "unconsciousness" that results and takes the character out for the rest of the session/scene is a consequence of the death (or burning edge if you want to view it that way) as well. Consequently, neither can be considered part of the direct harm the character suffers from the circumstances that lead to the death.
2. In light of point 1, the quote uses the plural form of consequence. Since neither burnt edge or unconsciousness is not a direct consequence of the circumstance, and there's only one other consequence (damage) that the character can absolutely be considered suffering from, that leaves at least one unsaid consequence which could be any of the various things that have been listed in this thread. Of course, it could be just the damage from the death stroke, but the term is still consequences leaving open the door to more than that.
3. The word should is the past tense of shall. It's pretty common for people to think that there's wiggle room with should, but there really isn't much if any room. Should is basically synonymous with must and it's just a less heavy handed way of telling someone what they must do. Whatever negative effects would result from the circumstances should be applied to the character. If your death was caused because your legs got severed when you were nearly pulled out an airlock during a firefight with some ghouls, then burning edge isn't going to magically restore your lost limbs. Likewise, burning edge doesn't magically heal you of the damage you took from the circumstance that led to your death.

I'm curious how you're planning to earn the 40 karma required to buy off that negative quality the GM just gave you. You're dead from the waist down, so you can barely move. You're definitely not a street samurai anymore, and what, exactly, do you bring to a group and how do you plan to 'recover', mechanically speaking? Do you plan to sit there for ~20 sessions leeching up karma for showing up ('per session' karma) and sitting on the sidelines, sighing melodramatically and telling your team over their 'links 'Wish I could be out there with you, guys' for an extra point or two per session? That's actively hampering the enjoyment of the other people at the table - they're doing the work and you're getting the rewards. Basically, why should your team still cut your useless ass in from this point forward? Especially if you built that shiny street sam with BP - I doubt your hacking skills are up to snuff. And even if they are, the rigger's doing just fine on his own and doesn't really need you to pilot that shiny Crimson Samurai, thanks for the offer.

There are points where a character does become unplayable - whether by a detriment that makes them useless, or a detriment that hampers the enjoyment of the rest of the players at the table. Being unable to perform the role you signed up for is pretty much the latter.

Why should he?

The key here is that when HOG is invoked the player is saying they want to continue playing the PC despite the consequences. The GM's job then becomes to make the consequences of HOG interesting and fun for the player. Some players don't want their PC's to be gimped and won't invoke HOG when a PC dies even though they can. THey'll just make a new PC. Others might be very attached to their PC, and want to continue even if it means playing a paralyzed PC. It isn't a straight forward this is right way to handle it or not, it is a judgement call by the GM who has to keep in mind the Players attitude toward the PC and if they would still have fun playing the PC.

@Aerospider

I was just about to post, and then when reading to the end of the thread saw that you'd covered everything I was going to say. Specifically points 1 and 5. So thanks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

On point 5, I too think playing a paraplegic character would be great fun, and loads better if it happened in-game than out of game. If you chose it from the start then it's already somewhat mitigated by your other choices. When it happens suddenly you've got a life-changing moment and you've got to cope with that. For net based or awakened characters it wouldn't immediately stop them from being useful. Sams would be harder to make work, but you could still man a mounted weapon, drive a van etc. More than that though you'd have to rely on other people, your team-mates and contacts until you were back on your feet. Would a cyber torso fix paraplegicism? I'd imagine so, and I think I've just made up a word.

It's like a spirit pact. Spirit gets one point of his edge to use until he pays his debt then he gets it back.

You may be dead from the waist down but that does not stop you from shooting a gun, or even swinging a sword/axe. Every team needs someone to watch their backs when they go in and if you take that place it frees up another character that usually holds that position to 'build their skills.' And you might learn some new ones (like maybe disguise).

I think Aerospider is correct and that it just depends on the person playing the character to make the most out of what has happened.