It can totally be abused, no one is disagreeing with that. And in yes you can burn edge to survive, in that case I would let the player burn edge. But as a GM the dice fall bad for the player's a lot more than they do for the NPC's. So being flexible and not killing your PC's just to show them you will, is a good thing.

BTW Pg 266 BBB: "Sometimes the GM has to cheat to keep characters alive."

Look to what I said, keep it consistent and use it sparingly, but arbitrarily letting the dice decide how your story is going to end, is no better then the people who show up to the game without dice.

3. Rules Discussion during the game.
Your the GM, your in charge, don't get bogged down in an argument with a rules lawyer in the game. It kills the mood and possibly ends the session. Instead make a decision right then and there, but caveat that you are willing to discuss it after the game and reach a better long term solution.

I don't know what its called, but in my mind, its the opposite of railroading. I think I did this my last adventure in our last campaign and it really opened my eyes. Basically, I outlined a job and left it completely open to the players to plan out the way they would succeed. At every step of the way, I simply gave them more options, any of which would work. All I really wanted them to do was pick a way to do it, as a team, and execute it together...

Well, it turned out that no one liked anyone else's idea, even though each player came up with one that would work. I completely let the players drive their success and it ended up ending the campaign because everyone got burnt out with, for what I could determine, complete lack of guidance by me.

So, while extreme railroading is a pretty common mistake (especially for those of us not having run games for a long time), giving the players total freedom and not attempting to guide them to a common goal generates it fair share of problems, especially if the GM is prepared to bring them all back into the game.

I await the coming of the "collaborative GM style" crowd...

Sometimes it's just a person's luck with dice. Granted, my situation is likely fairly unique, but it doesn't make it impossible. It's not always player tactics that get them killed.

If someone's getting ganked five time a game, something is seriously wrong.

1) Thinking the players see the "easy solution" the the obstacle you put in front of them.

I've fallen into this trap a ton of times and the game usually comes to a halt because I feel like "my" solution is the only solution, whereas the group has actually come up with other solutions and sometimes better. In my years of experience, I have learned to check my ego at the door and let them be successful, even if it wasn't the way I had envisioned it.

This is a mechanical issue. This style of play works fine if you allow the use of social conflict mechanics. If you leave it to fiat, this doesn't work unless you have a really bought-in group.

I'm unfamiliar with that term: social conflict mechanics. Could you elaborate?

Well, it turned out that no one liked anyone else's idea, even though each player came up with one that would work. I completely let the players drive their success and it ended up ending the campaign because everyone got burnt out with, for what I could determine, complete lack of guidance by me.

Basically, using the game rules to resolve social conflicts just like you would any kind of physical challenge. For example, you could have one PC make an opposed Intimidation or Con test against another PC to settle the argument, rather than letting one player rely on his own personal social abilities to argue until the other player(s) gives up.

The problem is that SR (any edition) doesn't take this into account. You could try and hack it in, as I did in this old thread, but it's not a perfect solution, since the game wasn't designed to handle PC/PC interactions beyond a fiat approach.

I find it a little amusing that you're asking me to elaborate, though, when yours is the second post on that thread.

Odd. I'm gonna have to figure out what prompted my change.

We're already here. But since someone else called it "The worst advice ever", I didn't feel there was anything to add.

I also think collaborative GM'ing requires mature and skilled players, much the same way that homeschooling requires a dedicated parent with children willing to learn from their mom or dad. All the groups I've had were full of players that just wanted to show up, hang out, have fun, and play their guy. They didn't want any part in overall game narrative or campaign direction.