For instance, say you have one reaction and take zen, is there any effect other than getting no dice from that attribute?
Or if a mage drains an attribute down?

I'm not sure if 4th Edition addresses it, but I remember in previous editions you become temporarily paralyzed if any of your attributes hit 0. The exact effect/description depending on which attribute it is.

Personal Opinion: Incapacitated.
But I am not aware of specific rules of the top of my head.

Somebody set up us the bomb.

Oh, like you weren't expecting it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

IIRC, the issue is addressed in the SR4A entry for the spell Reduce Attribute. Can't check atm.

Yes, it is addressed for decrease attribute spells:



This isn't stated as a universal rule; its a spell effect. But the GM would certainly be free to take it as a guideline.

Mongoose is correct on this; as written, it is an effect of the spell decreasing an attribute to 0, not an effect of an attribute being decreased to 0.

There are a few other examples, such as Paralyzing Howl & Armor Encumbrance, where if the attribute is decreased to 0, the character cannot move/is incapacitated. But as far as I am aware, there is no overarching rule for the effects of decreasing an attribute to 0, so outside of those effects that specifically list the character being incapacitated in one manner or another, Rules as Written, they simply get 0 dice from the attribute to all linked tests, nothing more.

There's nothing at all wrong for extrapolating a rule from related rules when none exists. It's pretty clear that the intent of having an attribute hit 0 is that you become incapacitated in one form or another. Logically, it makes sense. Related rules where the subject comes up demonstrate that it's very much an intended effect. So pointing to the lack of a core rule, when related rules cover the situation, and attempting to use that to rationalize no effect is pretty foolish.

It's one thing to do that to overwrite a rule. But when one doesn't exist? Common sense prevails. It's one of the perks of having living, breathing, thinking GMs in an RPG. This isn't a video game for crying out loud.

Whip out your back-up runner? You do have one right?

What does common sense say about having an attribute reduced to 0 and having an attribute at 0? My common sense says that there is no difference, what does yours say?

What the living Hell does that have to do with anything I said?

There is no base rule for what happens if you have an attribute that hits 0, largely because having an attribute at 0 isn't possible under normal circumstances. You certainly can't create a character with one. Most -- not all, but most -- of the rules that can result in an attribute of 0 say the same basic thing, however. But there are some times you can hit a score of 0 through a method that doesn't discuss it. I don't think any of the drugs that give you a penalty to an attribute mentions it, for instance. So what do you do? Muspellsheimr suggests the proper thing to do is ignore all those related rules. Common sense and basic logic, however, says otherwise. The incapacitation isn't a result of the effect that reduces your attribute to 0, it's the result of your attribute actually hitting/being 0.

No need to fly off the handle, DF. It is just a relevant question, because while you cannot create a PC with attribute 0, I remember there being NPCs with attributes at 0. So how are you playing/going to play them?

I can't think of any notable examples that don't get around the paralysis in one form or another. The most notable example I can think of (and I'm not sure whether or not they actually have 0/no Physical Attributes) is a Jarhead. And they are, most definitely, physically incapacitated. But they get around that via a drone/vehicle body and a control rig. So problem solved. And please read the last part of my very first post in this thread before continuing.

Possible example/reference: House of the Sun by Nigel Findley, a mage called "Quinn Harlec";) casts a paralysis spell that makes it so that the victim can't even breathe. Maybe not quite the same thing, but I think it works.

The point I am trying to make is that common sense doesn't tell everyone the same thing. Sure, the GM can use his common sense but it might not be the same as what his players common sense might tell them. Someone with a Logic of 0 may just react by instinct, for example.

And no DF, while I can't remember what stat block that was (except it wasn't an April Fool's one) but I distinctly remember it wasn't a Jarhead and it wasn't an incapacitated NPC.

Great choice! Nigel D. Findley was the God of Shadowrun as far as I am concerned.

Microdrones have a Body of 0 and are capable of movement.

Every "Small Vermin" (beginning p.96, Running Wild) have a Body & Strength of 0.

I still have not thoroughly gone through Running Wild yet, but I would assume that flies & other "Small Insects", if even statted, would have a Body & Strength of 0.

There is no rule against having a Base Attribute of 0, except that playable characters all have a minimum of 1.

QFT

Remember : Common Sense Isn't.

Yes, and none of those are player characters. They're all special cases of the rules trying to give a stat to something that's so weak or ineffective that it's not comparable to a metahuman's levels.


The point is that every time the possibility for a metahuman to gain an attribute of 0 occurs, and the rules bother to address it, the end result is the same. But because the rules never address it in certain circumstances, you're arguing that that logic and those other rules should all be completely and utterly ignored. I'm arguing otherwise. In fact, the general rules never even acknowledge the possibility, and the other circumstances that result in a score 0 do the same thing.

If there was a general rule that said a metahuman with an attribute of 0 was fully functional, and it was just a few quirky side rules that said the opposite, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here. Not by a long shot. This is a case of a complete and total lack of a general rule, not contrary rules.

Just sayin, but if a metahuman goes pretty much catatonic at 0 Logic (or any mental attribute), then every Logic 1 troll or orc who took even 1 appropriately-sized dose of Hurlg (-1 Log, +1 Will) would be sitting around drooling for a few hours.
Doesn't seem that likely to me.

First, they'd be sitting there confused and bewildered for the duration. Which is a perfectly acceptable repercussion of taking a swing from such a ridiculously powerful drink filled with large amounts of a hallucinogenic. Second, an ork or a troll with a Logic of 1 is an outlier and every bit as rare as a troll with a base Strength of 10. Third, why is it okay to accept a spell that produces the exact same affect would have an extremely different effect? It's "Decrease Logic" not "Decrease Logic and Leave You Confused and Bewildered."

*loves the notation about common sense, in an rpg forum as applied to possible magical effects on metahumanity and what not. Grins*

One of the posters above did have a nice point. What's common sense for some of us (( Incap in one fashion or another)) Might not be for others.

No. I am arguing that, in those instances where it is not addressed, Rules as Written, "logic" & those other rules should all be completely and utterly ignored.

And I am correct. The rules make no mention of any special effect, such as incapacitation, being made if a character (PC or otherwise) possesses an attribute value of 0, reduced to or otherwise. Because there are no rules for it, there is no such special effect.

Logically, it can easily be debated & justified why this is the case just as easily as it can be debated & justified why they should be incapacitated.


Put simply, incapacitating a character due to an attribute being reduced to 0 from an effect that does not include incapacitation is a House Rule. Common Sense or not.

Then your point is wrong. Because this isn't an issue of the rules as written. It's an issue of the "rules that don't exist." Lack of a rule != a rule.

No. But lack of a rule does equal lack of effect.

You are attempting to argue that lack of a rule does indeed equal another rule because it is similar.

I am arguing that lack of a rule regarding an effect means that there is no rule for it to cause that effect, and thus does not cause that effect.