What do your players get for their burned edge? Options

[noonesshowmonkey]

Depending on the type of game, street with tons of grit or nigh on super heroes, the use of Edge does different things.

Generally I take burning edge as an opportunity to allow a character to move in a different direction. A character concept I ran once was a ganger who got double crossed and shot in the back while on the highway, was hit by a semi and left for dead (in pieces) in a ditch. The idea was that a "burned edge" point saw that his old cyberarm happened to have a doc-wagon contract associated with it and through a constelation of screwups he ended up in a clinic getting chromed out to save his life. He wakes up with a few hundred thousan nuyen debt, massive essence loss and spotty memory. Made for great fun.

When GMing I try and inject similar bits of development when a player burns edge. If the game is street level they tend to be on death's door rather than just out and out murdered - if hit by a car, for example, they are broken and spattered but not dead and can awake to considerable medical costs, possible essence loss from injury or the need for cyber replacement of destroyed parts. Negative qualities are also a good way to follow up a burned edge that shouldn't, but does, save a character's life. Some times, depending on the situation, a burned point of edge just saves their life. A sniper firing from a great distance into someone's dome may just get a deflection off of the skull. The player takes a couple of boxes of damage, is knocked prone and is considered to possess a guardian angel. Other times, especially in situations of overwhelming damage and circumstance (a bomb, your car getting hit by an ATGM or something) the consequences are far more dire.

[Apathy]

[wanders in late to conversation]

By the way, have I mentioned that squirrels are the source of all evil?

Dammit. I've been telling people that I was the root of all evil. Friggin squirrels have gone and stolen my thunder.

[Wesley Street]

Grow an adorable tail and you can stay in the running.

[raggedhalo]

Players have only burnt Edge twice in my game, both times to survive. I ruled that they were one box away from the end of the Overflow, but stable. My feeling is also that it reduces your maximum Edge (to prevent total immortality) and that you can only burn it if you have the point available to spend.

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

I likewise always make sure edge permanently is reduced. Like a cat's lives, there is a point when your luck will run out.

[Rad]

Possession by a spirit is a good way to handle burning edge to survive an otherwise impossible situation. Any possessed person gets Immunity to Normal Weapons, which is described as "all weapons that are not magical" with the caveat that any substance you're allergic to still works. So even a Thor Shot can be survived by having a spirit possess you just before it hits. Then the spirit walks off with your body, does what it wants to do, and (maybe) leaves the player to deal with the consequences of "their" actions later.

Of course, if the rock being thrown down is also possessed by a spirit...

...hey, I just figured out how to fix Chicago. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[knasser]

I have a couple of things to say on this subject. The first is to promote the greatest house rule I ever made (not difficult - I've made three). I start all PCs off with their minimum racial Edge (2 for humans, 1 for the rest) and this cannot be bought higher. It rises, similarly to the karma pool in previous editions, as a function of karma points you earn. You get your next point of Edge when you earn 10 karma points, then the next when you earn a further 20 points. After that, you've got to earn another 40 points before you get another precious point. 80 after that and you can see where this is going. The sequence when you actually add it up (10 + 20 + 40, etc), works out at earning an Edge point at 10,30,70,150,270 and 590 karma.

The effect that this has on the game is absolutely great. You avoid a cartoon feeling in the early parts of the game and by the time you get to later levels, your players are used to thinking realistically. It also means that starting characters have a genuine feeling of vulnerability but a character you've invested more time in automatically has a bit more of a buffer against you losing them.

Relating this to the original topic, it means that when you burn a point of Edge, it's really burnt. It's not ever coming back. That's great for low-levels where players could otherwise burn an Edge point and then buy it back cheap.

On the subject of what you can get for burning Edge, it's worth highlighting the following parts of the actual text:

• Automatically achieve a critical success on one action.
The character must be capable of carrying out the ac-
tion—you can’t buy a critical success for something
you have no hope of achieving. (Note that you do not
refresh a point of Edge for getting a critical success in
this case.)
• Escape certain death. This use of Edge represents an-
other shot at life—something the spirits are rare to
provide. The streets have decided that they have more
uses for this character before she’s discarded to the
trash heap and miraculously pull her from the jaws
of Death. Gamemasters can explain this phenomena
with any rationale they like, from sheer coincidence to
the intervention of the gods. Note that the character is
not necessarily unharmed by the action; if shot in the
head, for example, she may be knocked into a coma
and appear dead to her enemies, but she will survive to
get revenge another day.

Taking the latter one first, it's pretty clear that you don't get a free restart button you can use at any time. The more severe the situation, the more entitled the GM should feel in heaping on negative consequences. A month in coma, a permanent negative quality, a precious contact is lost, your home blown up or whatever. As far as I'm concerned the latter issue is dealt with.

As regards the first one - getting a critical success, I would say that the intent is to allow characters to survive desperate situations, not abuse million to one chances. The Force 12 spirit for example... Assuming a Magician with Magic, Willpower, Summoning and Binding all of 5 and perhaps a Force 2 Summoning focus and a Mentor Spirit bonus of +2, then even ignoring the initial summoning, the chance of successfully binding and getting a service from the spirit is about 3%, assuming the spirit gets its average number of hits on its resistance test. The likely drain is 16P. Chance of surviving that with 5 Willpower is about 13% assuming you have medical aid on hand ready for when you collapse. Put the two together and you're looking at a 0.3% chance of success.

Is a 0.3% chance sufficent for the GM to rule the player has "no hope of achieving." Sure, why not? If the character violates internal game logic (a person attempting something when they know that "997 out of a thousand magicians that try this will die") by using metagame logic ("My character can burn two Edge points so I'll be fine."), then that character deserves to get flattened by the GM.

[Cain]

Is a 0.3% chance sufficent for the GM to rule the player has "no hope of achieving." Sure, why not? If the character violates internal game logic (a person attempting something when they know that "997 out of a thousand magicians that try this will die") by using metagame logic ("My character can burn two Edge points so I'll be fine."), then that character deserves to get flattened by the GM.

The problem is this isn't "impossible", just unlikely. And anytime you'll be burning Edge, it's likely because the situation is already unlikely and desperate. "Impossible" in this case would be trying to summon a Force 13 spirit, since that's above double his Magic. We'd all readily agree that he had zero chance of pulling that off.

Also, Edge makes the calculations unpredictable. If he spent Edge on both tests, saving the burns for later, his possible successes goes up by a decent margin. And there's no cap based on the number of dice he rolls.

[sunnyside]

I'm not so sure if it's RAW.

But I like the idea of perminantly lowering max edge. However I think they should be able to burn when they don't have a point to spend.

If you don't go that way be sure to tell your players ahead of time.

[knasser]

The problem is this isn't "impossible", just unlikely.

Nah, the problem is a player that says "There's a three in a thousand chance I could do this so I'm going to confidently attempt it knowing that burning an Edge point will make it happen." My solution is just to say those odds fall under the heading of "no hope" and tell them so. No actual person would gamble their life on 1000 to 3 odds willingly, so unless you have a concrete in-game explanation for Edge that makes is a reliable force, aka, "I'm going to invoke my Powers of Destiny that every person and cop knows they have and can consciously use," then it's not believable for any character to try this unless they were utterly, indescribably driven to it by circumstances. I can't think of any circumstances so desperate that summoning and binding a Force 12 spirit is the best response. Can you?

I know we'll disagree on this Cain (we've done a similar dance before, have we not? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ), so I'll just say that the above is obviously the solution to the problem of players abusing metagame rules knowledge which is the real issue, that it works thematically and also add the following support for it for those that need it: If a three in a thousand chance is not sufficient to say that something cannot be achieved, then where would you draw the line? One in five-thousand? One in ten-thousand? If you're willing to grant Edge to anything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics, then you're on your way to running some extremely silly encounters.

And if you do draw a line somewhere, as any GM will have to if a player tries to bend believability out of shape too far, then where do you set it? At one in ten-thousand? One in five-thousand? Or maybe at three in a thousand where we came in where some idiot decides to gamble her life on those odds just because they think the game rules will save them? For me it's the latter. Normally. I'll adjust it perhaps according to whether the player is actively taking on more than their character can handle or whether they're trying to escape from a situation they've gotten themselves into which is too tough for them. The latter gets more sympathy from me because it's not the intention of the player to break the reality of the setting, they're just trying to stay alive.

And anytime you'll be burning Edge, it's likely because the situation is already unlikely and desperate.

As I referred to above, I'll make allowances for that, but the example of summoning and binding a F12 spirit is a bad one - it's a twelve hour ritual with the 6,000:nuyen: of materials you happen to have ready. It's hard to think of a circumstance where there aren't better options than that! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Also, Edge makes the calculations unpredictable. If he spent Edge on both tests, saving the burns for later, his possible successes goes up by a decent margin. And there's no cap based on the number of dice he rolls.

Yes, it was a simple analysis that I did, but though it's going into the specific example too much and away from the general point, a Force 12 spirit in my game would be an extremely powerful being and it would have 12 Edge of its own. Unless the magician had taken specific actions to encourage friendliness from the spirit (e.g. saving a forest from development before trying to summon a mighty plant spirit), then such a spirit would be quite likely to just spend an Edge point of its own. You're then looking at maybe 13 hits and 26P damage to soak. The magician's friends will be lucky if they find an eyeball after that!

[knasser]

I'm not so sure if it's RAW.

But I like the idea of perminantly lowering max edge. However I think they should be able to burn when they don't have a point to spend.

If you don't go that way be sure to tell your players ahead of time.

It's not RAW. But it works extremely well. I have three house rules: the fixed Edge progression, my own weight-lifting rules (because the published aren't realistic) and that you can only have one sprint action in a combat turn. The last one because I think this is as intended and it produces very plausible results in this case, and turns everyone into better than Olypmic athletes if you allow multiples.

I don't like house-ruling, but the fixed Edge is just too good. IMO.

[Cain]

Nah, the problem is a player that says "There's a three in a thousand chance I could do this so I'm going to confidently attempt it knowing that burning an Edge point will make it happen." My solution is just to say those odds fall under the heading of "no hope" and tell them so.

People win the lottery all the time. The odds of winning depend on your local game, but the occasionally run to billions of combinations vs one ticket. Since I see more unlikely events occur every day, I tend to be relaxed about what's possible and impossible. Remember, I'm the GM with an unbroken string of critical botches tracing back to the late-ish 90's. I've personally rolled all ones on 12 or 13 dice. I've also seen players hit a TN of 57 in a game of SR3. So, I think if they have a statistical chance, you should let them roll. The issue I have is that it's an autosuccess mechanic, eliminating the need to roll entirely. That tends to be broken.

I'll just say that the above is obviously the solution to the problem of players abusing metagame rules knowledge which is the real issue, that it works thematically and also add the following support for it for those that need it: If a three in a thousand chance is not sufficient to say that something cannot be achieved, then where would you draw the line? One in five-thousand? One in ten-thousand? If you're willing to grant Edge to anything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics, then you're on your way to running some extremely silly encounters.

If I had my say, I'd grant a roll for each and every circumstance you name. Who knows what'll pop up? When I summoned a Force 10 spirit, no one would have guessed that it'd critically botch both the summoning and binding rolls. Since that character only had a Magic of 5, trying to summon and bind a Force 11 spirit would be impossible, and burning Edge would be rightfully disallowed. But I ended up with two critical successes on the two rolls, *without* burning edge. Grand total, I had 11 services out of that spirit, and no Edge was burnt.

The problem is that anytime you grant a roll, you have to allow for the burning of Edge. That's what's broken. You have to be able to say: "This is impossible, there is no roll you can make" in order to disallow the burning of Edge, by RAW.

And if you do draw a line somewhere, as any GM will have to if a player tries to bend believability out of shape too far, then where do you set it?

Wherever is most fun for everyone. If it bends believability all out of proportion, but renders everyone slack-jawed in amazement or rolling on the floor in laughter, I'm going to let it fly.

As I referred to above, I'll make allowances for that, but the example of summoning and binding a F12 spirit is a bad one - it's a twelve hour ritual with the 6,000:nuyen: of materials you happen to have ready. It's hard to think of a circumstance where there aren't better options than that!:D

I can think of one or two. If you know you're facing a Force 10 spirit, summoning and binding a bigger one to deal with it may be your only viable option, for one. Or if you're a possession-based mage, summoning a big one might be your best bet for surviving a really nasty run.

Also, while I know this isn't statistically valid, some players just have "hot streaks" and some GM's have damned unlucky ones. If you know you're having a hot night, and you know the GM is having a bad one, you might as well funnel that into your character, and do something risky. There's no reason to deny the player a chance to roll, or spend Edge. And if that's true, the rules say you also have to allow the burning of Edge.

Unless the magician had taken specific actions to encourage friendliness from the spirit (e.g. saving a forest from development before trying to summon a mighty plant spirit), then such a spirit would be quite likely to just spend an Edge point of its own.

IMO, that's slightly cheesy. If someone has been abusing spirits, and warned for abusing spirits, then each and every spirit he tried to summon and bind would be blowing Edge. I see no reason why a high-force spirit should be any more or less likely to spend Edge than a weaker one. Like I said in another thread: a Force 10 spirit that is well-treated will cause less trouble than a Force 5 that is mistreated. If one spirit starts to rebel, then all the spirits should start to rebel, right down to the watchers.

I don't like house-ruling, but the fixed Edge is just too good. IMO.

I sort-of agree. I think it still leads to the SR3 problem of high-karma characters having way too much of an advantage, but it's better than what we have now.

[knasser]

People win the lottery all the time. The odds of winning depend on your local game, but the occasionally run to billions of combinations vs one ticket. Since I see more unlikely events occur every day, I tend to be relaxed about what's possible and impossible.

Ah, but there are millions of people playing the lottery. It's not a long shot that someone will win, you've got to ask when was the last time YOU won? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

But this is just thread padding on my part... The important part is this:

If I had my say, I'd grant a roll for each and every circumstance you name.

You do. You're the GM and you get to say what's possible and not today. My point is that all of us here who are GMs are free to actually say something isn't possible based on it being ridiculous odds. You're problem, as you say, is with the "autosuccess mechanic." I am just pointing out to other GMs that firstly, you can consider outlandish odds to fall under the "no hope" category if you wish, that if you don't do that at some point, the belief of your game is going to take some very heavy hits and that it's not in character for a person to gamble their life on thousands to one odds because a player has some metagame reasoning to apply.

As GM of your own game, you're not bound by that, but I'm laying it on the table as an option for all of us GMs to remember we can use if we wish.

Who knows what'll pop up? When I summoned a Force 10 spirit, no one would have guessed that it'd critically botch both the summoning and binding rolls. Since that character only had a Magic of 5, trying to summon and bind a Force 11 spirit would be impossible, and burning Edge would be rightfully disallowed. But I ended up with two critical successes on the two rolls, *without* burning edge. Grand total, I had 11 services out of that spirit, and no Edge was burnt.

Well I'm just going to call you Mr. Lucky from here on, then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The problem is that anytime you grant a roll, you have to allow for the burning of Edge. That's what's broken. You have to be able to say: "This is impossible, there is no roll you can make" in order to disallow the burning of Edge, by RAW.

The rules say the GM has to allow that there is hope of achieving something. As I've pointed out, you have to rule the outlandishly improbable as "no hope" at some point, or else people will be leaping out of aeroplanes every other session and landing on passing dragons who kindly drop them off outside their home. (Then spending four karma and buying up their Edge again). Now if a PC is pushed out of an aeroplane, I might make some allowance, but that a character opens the door, says to his team mates: "I'm sure something will turn up," and steps into the void. Well such a character is asking to be pancaked, and I'll cheerfully oblige them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Wherever is most fun for everyone. If it bends believability all out of proportion, but renders everyone slack-jawed in amazement or rolling on the floor in laughter, I'm going to let it fly.

As I say, no argument. Each their own. I'm more concerned with GM's feeling pushed into letting their internal consistency get trashed by a PC acting on metagame knowledge, hence offering a supportable means of defense.

I can think of one or two. If you know you're facing a Force 10 spirit, summoning and binding a bigger one to deal with it may be your only viable option, for one. Or if you're a possession-based mage, summoning a big one might be your best bet for surviving a really nasty run.

I'll challenge you on that. If you know a powerful spirit is coming for you and you have twelve hours to prepare, there are better courses of action than taking a 1,000 to 3 chance of summoning something that will maybe hold it off while you lie bleeding on the floor from the effort. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Also, while I know this isn't statistically valid, some players just have "hot streaks" and some GM's have damned unlucky ones. If you know you're having a hot night, and you know the GM is having a bad one, you might as well funnel that into your character, and do something risky. There's no reason to deny the player a chance to roll, or spend Edge. And if that's true, the rules say you also have to allow the burning of Edge.

Nope - you just say the player has no hope of achieving something and let them do something different or kill themselves if they're too stubborn to accept it. Remember, this isn't a case of the GM forcing a player to die because the GM wont allow them to burn Edge, it's a case of the GM not helping them do something that the PC knows is almost certain to kill her.

Everyone has their own game style. Which is why a GM shouldn't be forced into a particular style (e.g. Warner Bros), by a player abusing metagame knowledge.

-Khadim.

[knasser]

IMO, that's slightly cheesy. If someone has been abusing spirits, and warned for abusing spirits, then each and every spirit he tried to summon and bind would be blowing Edge. I see no reason why a high-force spirit should be any more or less likely to spend Edge than a weaker one. Like I said in another thread: a Force 10 spirit that is well-treated will cause less trouble than a Force 5 that is mistreated. If one spirit starts to rebel, then all the spirits should start to rebel, right down to the watchers.

I sort-of agree. I think it still leads to the SR3 problem of high-karma characters having way too much of an advantage, but it's better than what we have now.

In my game (and supported by the stat blocks on the critters themselves), the more powerful the spirit, the more intelligence and will it has of its own. F1 Fire Elementals in my game are as dumb as five year olds and about as manic - vicious or playful little firestarters zipping about the place. A F6 spirit is far smarter than most people you know and it behaves with the depth and foresight you would expect from such a being. Get to something like a F9, and it's a mighty and majestic creature with a hugely strong individuality. All things being equal, I might let things go either way, but PCs can affect outcomes by good role-playing. If a magician passes out through drain but they use spirits only for noble purposes that the spirits would see as positive (e.g. my previously mentioned forest spirit protecting woodlands), then the spirit will likely not stomp the magician, but leave him be. If the magician abuses spirits or treats them as slaves, then the magician might well find the that F9 spirit views service to him not as a simple task to be done with and gone, but as a dishonour that must be fought against with all its will (by spending Edge).

There's no "if one spirit starts to rebel then all the spirits should start to rebel, right down to the watchers." It works according to my flavour as above. A watcher probably wouldn't even bother to spend Edge even if they didn't like the magician - they have little mind and not enough power to resist whether they try or not. More powerful spirits are a different issue all together.

[Cain]

Ah, but there are millions of people playing the lottery.

There are millions of people playing the lottery, but trillions of combination, depending on your game. The odds of anyone winning are substantially less than 0.3%, yet people do so every time.

I am just pointing out to other GMs that firstly, you can consider outlandish odds to fall under the "no hope" category if you wish, that if you don't do that at some point, the belief of your game is going to take some very heavy hits and that it's not in character for a person to gamble their life on thousands to one odds because a player has some metagame reasoning to apply.

The problem is that once you allow a roll, you acknowledge it as possible. I'll use the same example: Magic 5 mage trying to summon a Force 12 spirit. No roll is permitted, therefore no Edge can be spent or burned. It's just impossible. Magic 5 mage trying to summon a force 10 spirit? Unlikely, but possible. I did it without a dedicated conjuring build; dumb luck took care of the rest.

Well I'm just going to call you Mr. Lucky from here on, then.

Heh, you'd be the first. Remember, I always botch at least once a game when I GM Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

The rules say the GM has to allow that there is hope of achieving something. As I've pointed out, you have to rule the outlandishly improbable as "no hope" at some point, or else people will be leaping out of aeroplanes every other session and landing on passing dragons who kindly drop them off outside their home.

In 1972, Vesna Vulovic managed to survive a fall from 33,316 feet, without a parachute. You can call it what you will, but stranger things than falling out of a plane and surviving have happened.

Nope - you just say the player has no hope of achieving something and let them do something different or kill themselves if they're too stubborn to accept it. Remember, this isn't a case of the GM forcing a player to die because the GM wont allow them to burn Edge, it's a case of the GM not helping them do something that the PC knows is almost certain to kill her.

If you allow the roll, you acknowledge that it's possible, however unlikely. If you tell them: "Sorry, even with your Magic of 6, you can't roll to summon a Force 12 spirit", that's different and a house preference. You have set the precendent that it is impossible in your game. It's not RAW, but it doesn't have to be.

[knasser]

There are millions of people playing the lottery, but trillions of combination, depending on your game. The odds of anyone winning are substantially less than 0.3%, yet people do so every time.

Heh. Well Google didn't know how many lines (attempts) in total are bought by people each week in the UK lottery, so I can't work out what the odds actually are. But if a 1000 to 3 chance (.3%) is coming up week after week after week, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask to see your figures.

The problem is that once you allow a roll, you acknowledge it as possible.

And I don't allow the roll. I understand where you're coming from, and I know you understand what I'm saying as well, but I'll just say it again that I file it under "no hope" and have done with it. If a player insists that it is possible to succeed, really insists, then I'll just hand her the dice and ask her to prove it. She's welcome to try but I'm going to kick her out when its time for bed. Of course the player might resort to maths to prove that it's possible at which point I'll simply re-iterate what I have said here (twice): If no line is drawn at some point against ridiculous odds, then the game becomes stupid. There is a point at which you can look at the chances of something and say it's not going to happen. If you accept that, then for me, a 1000 to 3 chance is good enough to do that with. If you don't accept it, then prepare for ignorant gutter punks to start landing space shuttles and mixing retro-viruses. I'm just laying the choice out for people so that it's obvious how things work. Of course you as GM can say that a 1000 to 3 chance is not sufficiently outlandish to be considered "no hope." You can even, as you do Cain, say that a 1,000,000 to 1 chance isn't unlikely enough. (And yes, I know 1,000,000 to 1 chances come up 9 times out of 10 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ). But note the wording: it says "no hope" not "forbidden by the laws of Physics." Or "metaphysics" in the case of spirit summoning, I suppose. It's within RAW (for those that care) to rule out the 1,000 to 3 chance.

And I believe that unless a GM wants a game where the silly happens, then the GM should rule such chances as "no hope." The issue isn't the character being forced into situations where they are unlikely to survive and depending on burning their Edge to survive. The issue is where a character willingly engages in a course of action because metagame knowledge assures them of success. I've said all this before. There isn't really any other way I can say it and be as clear: If you want a technically incompetent gutter punk character on a plane to shoot the pilot and say "I'm feeling lucky, I reckon I can fly this to Atzlan on my own" then you can chose to interpret "no hope" to mean "utterly impossible." You as GM are free to do that. But a GM is also free under RAW to say: "there's no hope of that, you'd better think of something else."

Heh, you'd be the first. Remember, I always botch at least once a game when I GM Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Yes, but these botches have given you something to support your argument. Even when it comes down to luck, you're metagaming, Cain. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

In 1972, Vesna Vulovic managed to survive a fall from 33,316 feet, without a parachute. You can call it what you will, but stranger things than falling out of a plane and surviving have happened.

Ah, but I bet he didn't step out of the plane deliberately knowing that the Edge rules would save him. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) And that's my point. I'll be more generous with a player that's just trying to survive. Those that try to convince me their character feels lucky enough to play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun (because, hey - it might jam), well they pay the price.

If you allow the roll, you acknowledge that it's possible, however unlikely. If you tell them: "Sorry, even with your Magic of 6, you can't roll to summon a Force 12 spirit", that's different and a house preference. You have set the precendent that it is impossible in your game. It's not RAW, but it doesn't have to be.

It is too RAW - as said: the passage reads "you can’t buy a critical success for something you have no hope of achieving." Perhaps I'm just a pessimistic sort, but I call 997 out of 1,000 no hope. At least if you engage in it deliberately. Sorry, Mr. PC. Put a few more points in Logic next time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If you understand what I'm saying, I suggest we not go around again and again and again. But as always, I am happy to argue with you if you disagree, Cain. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Regards,

Khadim.

[Cain]

Heh. Well Google didn't know how many lines (attempts) in total are bought by people each week in the UK lottery, so I can't work out what the odds actually are. But if a 1000 to 3 chance (.3%) is coming up week after week after week, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask to see your figures.

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know!) the odds of winning $10,000 in the Mega Millions game (not the jackpot) is about 1:689,065. I can't find how many prizes of this level have been awarded, but let's just say there's been plenty.

And I don't allow the roll. I understand where you're coming from, and I know you understand what I'm saying as well, but I'll just say it again that I file it under "no hope" and have done with it. If a player insists that it is possible to succeed, really insists, then I'll just hand her the dice and ask her to prove it. She's welcome to try but I'm going to kick her out when its time for bed

Let's say they do it, without burning Edge. They successfully summon and bind a force 10-12 spirit, without killing themselves or having the thing go uncontrolled, but only earned 1 service out of the spirit. Would you allow them to burn an Edge to go to a critical success, and now have 4 services? Or, if you'd seen them do this trick without burning Edge before, would you forbid them from trying again?

Remember, in this case, they have the right to roll and try. Even if you don't think they should be allowed to burn Edge, they have the right to make the roll. It's within both the spirit and intent of the rules for them to try, for whatever reason their character decides. My argument is just that if they're allowed to roll, they have a chance at making a critical success normally. And if there is a chance, they should be able to burn Edge for a critical success.

The odds of summoning such a high force spirit are low, but not impossible. Players can and do have really good dice rolls. And I'm of the school that says: "Let them try." I figure it's better for a player to roll, even at a huge penalty, than it is to tell them "No, you can't." If the fail, they feel like they had a chance. And if they succeed, then they're probably going to be jumping up and down for joy; I'd hate to crush someone after that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Ah, but I bet he didn't step out of the plane deliberately knowing that the Edge rules would save him. wink.gif And that's my point. I'll be more generous with a player that's just trying to survive. Those that try to convince me their character feels lucky enough to play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun (because, hey - it might jam), well they pay the price.

She, but that's beside the point. The fact is, if someone wants to burn a point of Edge to simulate her feat, I have no reason to deny them. You're referring to a variant of the Hit Point problem-- as long as the have Edge to burn, the players feel invincible. If I felt it was a serious metagaming problem, I'd consider applying more Flaws as a result-- Vesna did not escape totally unscathed, she was in a hospital for months, and IIRC she didn't walk for almost a year. The rules give me that right. But since the rules give them the chance to roll, they have the chance of a critical success.

There isn't really any other way I can say it and be as clear: If you want a technically incompetent gutter punk character on a plane to shoot the pilot and say "I'm feeling lucky, I reckon I can fly this to Atzlan on my own" then you can chose to interpret "no hope" to mean "utterly impossible."

You can simply say "No!" to that case. You can't default to Pilot Aerospace anyway. No default, no roll. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It is too RAW - as said: the passage reads "you can’t buy a critical success for something you have no hope of achieving." Perhaps I'm just a pessimistic sort, but I call 997 out of 1,000 no hope. At least if you engage in it deliberately.

Like I said, what happens if they roll it without burning Edge, and succeed? Or have done the same feat in the past?

If you're feeling really mean, you could say they botched on their critical success, since both are possible. That might solve the problem you're having. But basically, my opinion is that if they have a chance to roll, they have a chance for a crit. If you completely disallow a roll, then it's fair to say that it's impossible.

Oh, one more thing. If you're determined to have spirits resit them, for whatever reason, then the spirits can burn Edge as well. That leads to an interesting matchup. I consider nameless NPCs burning Edge to be the height of GM cheese, but it could be a valid use in someone's playbook.

[knasser]

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know!) the odds of winning $10,000 in the Mega Millions game (not the jackpot) is about 1:689,065. I can't find how many prizes of this level have been awarded, but let's just say there's been plenty.

I can work out the odds of your chosen numbers coming up for myself. What I said was that you also need to know how many entries were made before you can say how likely it is that nobody wins.

Let's say they do it, without burning Edge. They successfully summon and bind a force 10-12 spirit, without killing themselves or having the thing go uncontrolled, but only earned 1 service out of the spirit. Would you allow them to burn an Edge to go to a critical success, and now have 4 services?

Probably. I'd refresh their Edge pool and give them bonus karma as well. If a player gets a 1000 to 3 chance come up, then I have no problem with it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Or, if you'd seen them do this trick without burning Edge before, would you forbid them from trying again?

No - because the chance of doing it twice in a row is now over 1,111,110 to 1. That's even less likely to persuade me to allow a roll. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Remember, in this case, they have the right to roll and try. Even if you don't think they should be allowed to burn Edge, they have the right to make the roll. It's within both the spirit and intent of the rules for them to try, for whatever reason their character decides. My argument is just that if they're allowed to roll, they have a chance at making a critical success normally. And if there is a chance, they should be able to burn Edge for a critical success.

I think this is the fourth time now. I UNDERSTAND YOU! But a GM does not have to allow a roll if the GM decides there is no hope of success. If it's thousands to one against, a GM is able to say there's no hope. A player with a very poor grasp of probability or delusions of telekinetic power might have hope, but it's the GM that decides. And, again for the fourth time, if the GM is unwilling to rule something as without hope based on ridiculously long odds then they open their game to Bug Bunny style gameplay..

That is all. How much clearer can I make this:

My point is this:

Option 1: Allow burning Edge on ridiculously long odds and stupid and immersion-breaking things happen in your game.
Option 2: Draw a line at some degree of staggeringly long odds and these things wont happen.

Corrolory: The GM may adjust where he or she draws this line according to whether the player is forced into this situation or whether the player is acting in a manner that would be unbelievable to their character, i.e. casually attempting something that the character would know to have perhaps only 1 in a 1000 chance of surviving if not for metagame knowledge.

You are repeatedly arguing that you would allow the player to burn Edge. I know this. Everyone knows this. You have said it four times. Now in what way does that at all contradict what I am saying is that the GM has two options as above? You choose option 1. We get it! We know! You've told us! Four times! Look everybody - Cain chooses option 1!

Now for the love of whatever you hold dear, please stop repeating yourself in the mistaken belief that you are contradicting what I'm saying. I have described the choices to people. I have explained the consequences of the former choice. I have qualified and shown how the latter choice remains RAW. What problem do you have with that?

She, but that's beside the point. The fact is, if someone wants to burn a point of Edge to simulate her feat, I have no reason to deny them.

You feel you do not. Others of us do and that reason is for the sake of stopping the game from turning into Stupid: The Metagamingâ„¢. You, like everyone, has a choice. Stop making out that I said people must play my way. I am outlining the choice. You're relentless pounding home of "I choose option 1" is nothing to me. I. Don't. Care. (no offence).

You can simply say "No!" to that case. You can't default to Pilot Aerospace anyway. No default, no roll. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Like I said, what happens if they roll it without burning Edge, and succeed? Or have done the same feat in the past?

I'll give them karma and let them wear my hat for the rest of the evening. Such luck deserves reward. But they ain't buying Force 12 spirits, not in my game!

That might solve the problem you're having.

I have no problem - I don't allow burning Edge on deliberately chosen impossible tasks. It's metagaming.

Oh, one more thing. If you're determined to have spirits resit them, for whatever reason, then the spirits can burn Edge as well. That leads to an interesting matchup. I consider nameless NPCs burning Edge to be the height of GM cheese, but it could be a valid use in someone's playbook.

A difference in playing styles. A F12 spirit would never be a nameless NPC in my game. I'd ad lib a full history and personality for that level of power. Players gain in my game by having spirits with personality. Example: A beast spirit summoned once (F5) decided it was enjoying slaughtering guards so much (the service they had) that it decided to carry on rampaging around the complex creating a great distraction for the party for the rest of the run. It was just in character for the spirit. Players can get advantages from their relations with spirits, they can get disadvantages. It's all based on their actions so there's nothing unfair about it. Action followed by consequence. They know how it is and they make their choices or not as they wish.

[Cain]

But a GM does not have to allow a roll if the GM decides there is no hope of success. If it's thousands to one against, a GM is able to say there's no hope. A player with a very poor grasp of probability or delusions of telekinetic power might have hope, but it's the GM that decides.

If you believe the odds are so long, they shouldn't even get the chance to roll, that's one thing. But if you believe that they have enough of a chance to make the roll (statistically possible, if however unlikely) then IMO they deserve the chance to make a critical success. Basically, I'm saying that *if* you allow the roll, you have to allow the option of burning Edge. If you're not allowing Magic 6 magicians to roll for force 12 spirits, that's a different matter, and you're right.

Corrolory: The GM may adjust where he or she draws this line according to whether the player is forced into this situation or whether the player is acting in a manner that would be unbelievable to their character, i.e. casually attempting something that the character would know to have perhaps only 1 in a 1000 chance of surviving if not for metagame knowledge.

Yes, you are the GM. Yes, you may ban highly unlikely rolls if you like. But following the Rules As Written, they have the right to make the roll and blow themselves up. Burning Edge represents that miniscule chance that they succeed.

You feel you do not. Others of us do and that reason is for the sake of stopping the game from turning into Stupid: The Metagamingâ„¢.

Let's turn that back on you. If someone wants to burn an Edge to survive a fall from a plane without a parachute, would you allow them under *any* circumstances? Even knowing that someone probably fell from a greater height, and survived? We're talking the "escape certain death" clause here, not the autosuccess one I have more of an issue with.

Now, for the easier question: if you did, and you felt the player was metagaming, would you inflict more penalties on him for being cheesy? I freely admit that I would.

I'll give them karma and let them wear my hat for the rest of the evening. Such luck deserves reward. But they ain't buying Force 12 spirits, not in my game!

That's fine. But would you allow them to roll at all?

A difference in playing styles. A F12 spirit would never be a nameless NPC in my game. I'd ad lib a full history and personality for that level of power.

Definitely a difference in playing styles. I'd give more personality to a long-held force 3 spirit than to a brand-new force 12 one. Just because it's more powerful doesn't mean it has more experience or personality.

[knasser]

If you believe the odds are so long, they shouldn't even get the chance to roll, that's one thing. But if you believe that they have enough of a chance to make the roll (statistically possible, if however unlikely) then IMO they deserve the chance to make a critical success. Basically, I'm saying that *if* you allow the roll, you have to allow the option of burning Edge.

Yes. I understand. I disagree with you.. The rules say don't allow it where there is "no hope." For me, I am happy to say a 1,000 to 3 chance of success qualifies. Especially, and this is important, when the character is engaging in that course of action willfully because of a player's metagame knowledge.

Yes, you are the GM. Yes, you may ban highly unlikely rolls if you like. But following the Rules As Written, they have the right to make the roll and blow themselves up. Burning Edge represents that miniscule chance that they succeed.

You are saying things I never said. I have never said do not allow a roll. That is quite clear. What I have said is do not allow a player to claim there is hope of success on any ridiculously outlandish improbability so that they can fudge a success with the Edge rules.

Let's turn that back on you. If someone wants to burn an Edge to survive a fall from a plane without a parachute, would you allow them under *any* circumstances? Even knowing that someone probably fell from a greater height, and survived? We're talking the "escape certain death" clause here, not the autosuccess one I have more of an issue with.

I have already answered this question several times. If a player falls from a burning plane without a parachute, they can spend an Edge point to escape death. They'll likely take some serious repercussions such as broken limbs, damaged organs, etc. Or if I don't think I can make the fall from the plane believable then maybe they'll be rescued by a spirit or a magician which will exact a hefty price for its aid (probably negotiating while they're still a mile up and falling). If a character willingly steps out of the plane because the player wants to spend an Edge point to do something suicidal and get away with it, rather than pursue a course of action that the character would realistically take without that metagame knowledge, then they're going to become pancake. As I've said repeatedly.

Now, for the easier question: if you did, and you felt the player was metagaming, would you inflict more penalties on him for being cheesy? I freely admit that I would.

It wouldn't arise, I wouldn't allow the roll.

Definitely a difference in playing styles. I'd give more personality to a long-held force 3 spirit than to a brand-new force 12 one. Just because it's more powerful doesn't mean it has more experience or personality.

Did I mention not giving personality to a long held F3 spirit? No I did not. I actually provided a characterisation of how I would play the personality of Force 1 spirits, if you care to go back and read my post. However, a F12 spirit has an intellect and a will and a charisma that is substantially beyond what even a magically or technologically augmented person could ever hope to be. This makes it, if you're going to portray it realistically, more likely for its personality to project itself onto the actions its taking and the decisions it makes. Yes - if players wildly piss off spirits and then try and summon one of the mightiest of them, they'd best be prepared that it might resent it and fight back against control with greater than normal might. On the other hand, if they are respectful to the spirits they summon, or summon spirits to perform actions that are in accord with their nature (such as a Beast spirit hunting down their enemy), they may well be lucky enough to find the spirit spends Edge to accomplish that task better. Stop making out that I'm "cheesy" and trying to crush the players in some sort of adversarial relationship. The players know how spirits work in my game. They aren't automatons and they are not secondary PCs for a player. So the players are free to behave with that in mind. If a player knowing that decides that they're going to carry on pissing off spirits, get themselves a reputation for such behaviour, and then try and summon some mighty lord of the astral to do their bidding, then they might get what's coming to them. They were warned. They did it anyway. Not my problem.

[Muspellsheimr]

Knasser, if you do not want to allow a player to burn Edge for a Critical Success on something they *are* allowed to roll on, that's fine. It is not, however, RAW. RAW, if you have a chance of success, regardless of how small, you may burn Edge for a Critical Success.

That means that if you are somehow reduced to rolling 1 die to bind a Force 30 spirit, you are allowed to burn Edge - the chance of your success may be in the billions to one, but it is still greater than zero.

[Cain]

The rules say don't allow it where there is "no hope." For me, I am happy to say a 1,000 to 3 chance of success qualifies. Especially, and this is important, when the character is engaging in that course of action willfully because of a player's metagame knowledge.

That's fine, if you disallow a roll entirely. But if you allow the roll, you open yourself up to the possibility of a critical success. If you allow a roll, you essentially acknowledge that there is hope.

Let's try the plane example again. Someone falling from 10,000 meters would be facing roughly 5000 boxes of damage, if I read the falling rules correctly. We can do one of three things:

1. Disallow a roll in its entirety; and by doing so, disallow any chance of burning Edge for an auto-crit;
2. Allow a roll, and if that fails, allow the burning of Edge;
3. Allow a roll, but not the use of Edge.

I think we agree on 1 and 2. It's number 3 where we have difficulty. Now, if you're saying that you'd disallow a chance to burn Edge for an auto-crit on the damage roll, I'm right there with you. That's a case for "Escape Certain Death", I wouldn't allow someone to walk away unscathed. But if you allow a roll *at all*, you've opened up the possibility of success. That's a different can of worms.

If a player falls from a burning plane without a parachute, they can spend an Edge point to escape death. They'll likely take some serious repercussions such as broken limbs, damaged organs, etc. Or if I don't think I can make the fall from the plane believable then maybe they'll be rescued by a spirit or a magician which will exact a hefty price for its aid (probably negotiating while they're still a mile up and falling). If a character willingly steps out of the plane because the player wants to spend an Edge point to do something suicidal and get away with it, rather than pursue a course of action that the character would realistically take without that metagame knowledge, then they're going to become pancake.

Here's one I don't agree with. If two characters invoke the same mechanic, they should both get to live. Like I said, I would (and have the right to, as a GM) inflict stricter penalties on the one I felt was metagaming. But both should get the same result out of the same mechanic-- namely, survival. The RAW gives you the right to inflict Flaws as you deem appropriate to someone who burned Edge to Escape Certain Death. But without changing the rules, you can't allow one person to do the same thing as another, and not get away with it. I'm not attacking you, but that is a good way to get hit with charges of GM favoritism. I know you wouldn't actually favor someone, so why make it look that way?

So the players are free to behave with that in mind. If a player knowing that decides that they're going to carry on pissing off spirits, get themselves a reputation for such behaviour, and then try and summon some mighty lord of the astral to do their bidding, then they might get what's coming to them. They were warned. They did it anyway. Not my problem.

This part, I don't disagree with. However, I still think that mistreating a spirit, regardless of force, should get you into hot water with all spirits, regardless of force. If you've been treating spirits well, why should a more powerful one rebel any harder than a lower-force one? And if he's been mistreating spirits left and right, why should the weaker ones not resist just as hard as the more powerful ones?

Additionally, the question was on burning Edge. Technically speaking, a spirit can burn Edge to critically succeed on its resistance roll. I think this is extreme GM cheese-- you've got an essentially infinite amount of Edge to use. But it is allowable, under the rules.

Oh, and one more thing: What bugs me the most about the burning Edge for a crit rule isn't the autosuccess, it's the critical success. If it were fixed, it'd be much easier to deal with. For example, in another thread, someone posted his table's house rule as "Burning Edge earns you four successes", but not a crit. So, let's see what happens in the case of falling from 10,000 meters:

Player: "I burn an Edge! I get 4 successes!"
GM: "Great. Now what are you going to do about the other 4,996 boxes of damage?"

What do you think of that as a fix?

[knasser]

Knasser, if you do not want to allow a player to burn Edge for a Critical Success on something they *are* allowed to roll on, that's fine. It is not, however, RAW. RAW, if you have a chance of success, regardless of how small, you may burn Edge for a Critical Success.

If a player attempts something that has a 1,000,000 to 1 chance of success, I call that "no hope." The odds are too long, it's not plausible that they will succeed. They have no hope of winning those odds, in my opinion. So I disallow it as the rules say.

Now you say that it is not RAW because there is a theoretical possibility that the 1 in a million chance must occur and that this qualifies as having a hope of success. Your opinion of hope is different to mine, but we're both still playing under RAW because we're both, as GM's, making our judgement call as to what counts as "no hope." And before you respond, consider carefully just how far you would allow this principle to extend. 10,000,000 to 1? 1000,000,000 to 1? It's theoretically possible that a PC will shoot a bullet at a tank shell and hit it right on the nose and kick off a premature detonation that causes it to go bang in mid-air and not harm the PC at all. For burning an Edge point, you've got PC's shooting tank shells out of the air. It's actually just a called shot away to target the shell while it's still in the gun and take out the tank all together. If you are willing to draw a line anywhere based on probability, then you have already followed the same approach that I have. Any difference will be on where we choose to draw that line. A player says to me they want to stand between the tank and target and shoot shells out of the air, then I call that "no hope." The rules don't say "forbidden by the laws of physics," they say: "no hope of success." Call me a pessimist if you like, but I class a billion to one against as falling into that category.

[Cain]

If a player attempts something that has a 1,000,000 to 1 chance of success, I call that "no hope." The odds are too long, it's not plausible that they will succeed. They have no hope of winning those odds, in my opinion. So I disallow it as the rules say.

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line of "Impossibly long odds"?

Now you say that it is not RAW because there is a theoretical possibility that the 1 in a million chance must occur and that this qualifies as having a hope of success. Your opinion of hope is different to mine, but we're both still playing under RAW because we're both, as GM's, making our judgement call as to what cu counts as "no hope."

This is not RAW, because the difference between the impossible and the unlikely is very well defined in this case. You have NO HOPE of summoning a force 13 spirit, you can't even roll to try, let alone burn Edge. On the other hand, you have a statistical possibility of getting that Force 12 spirit, even if it's low-- people here have discussed various was of ding so and succeeding. In this case, the rules are very explicit: you may do this, you may not do that.

[knasser]

That's fine, if you disallow a roll entirely. But if you allow the roll, you open yourself up to the possibility of a critical success. If you allow a roll, you essentially acknowledge that there is hope.

No, I acknowledge that a player may make a roll. It doesn't mean that I agree with the player that there is any hope of them actually pulling it off. Nowhere in the laws of the Universe does it say that a player rolling a dice affects what I believe. What do I care if the player wants to roll a dice at something that's a thousand to one against? They'll only lose. But I may well care if the player tries to use an Edge point to buy a success on something that I consider to be hopeless.

Let's try the plane example again. Someone falling from 10,000 meters would be facing roughly 5000 boxes of damage, if I read the falling rules correctly. We can do one of three things:

Either you're reading comprehension is truly dreadful, or you think that endlessly asking the same question will somehow generate a different answer. This is the FIFTH time you have asked me the same thing. My answer is, amazingly, the same! Watch:

1. Disallow a roll in its entirety; and by doing so, disallow any chance of burning Edge for an auto-crit;
2. Allow a roll, and if that fails, allow the burning of Edge;
3. Allow a roll, but not the use of Edge.

I think we agree on 1 and 2.

Okay, I take it back. It *is* that you're reading comprehension is truly dreadful. I have never said I disallow a roll. I even, because you seem to have immense difficulty with this concept stated absolutely explicitly in my previous reply to you that I haven't said I disallow a roll. Why do you therefore think that I disallow a roll? We do not agree on number 1 - it is not RAW. The player would normally be allowed a roll. It is not the GM's place to start forbidding rolls unless there is some particular reason to do so. I don't consider this to be such a reason.

On number 2, that is the GM's choice. If a player is thrust from a plane against their will, I shall probably allow an Edge point to be burnt to survive. THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN THE PREVIOUS REPLY TO YOU! How can you NOT understand this? I have said this multiple times. I even explicitly gave two examples of how I would describe the results of burning an Edge point to survive. Go and look at my post again. See those funny markings in front of you? Those are something called 'words.' If you look at them long enough, you might actually realise that I talked exactly about what you're asking. IF a character calmly steps out of the plane because of metagame knowledge, then I may be less lenient in deciding what counts as "no hope" and let them die. Serve them right for using metagame knowledge to justify character actions. In fact, a more accurate way of looking at it would be that in the case where it isn't the player's fault, then I make an exception and allow them to burn their Edge point (probably).

It's number 3 where we have difficulty. Now, if you're saying that you'd disallow a chance to burn Edge for an auto-crit on the damage roll, I'm right there with you. That's a case for "Escape Certain Death", I wouldn't allow someone to walk away unscathed. But if you allow a roll *at all*, you've opened up the possibility of success.

See my first point in this reply. Just because I allow a player to roll, doesn't mean I agree with them that they have a hope of success. Although with the shifting of examples, I'll point out that I'm going to be more lenient in cases of survival, rather than of power-grabbing or greed. Falling from aeroplane, perhaps. Summoning world-shaking spirit for the fun of it, less likely.

Here's one I don't agree with. If two characters invoke the same mechanic, they should both get to live.

Why should they? It depends on the characters. Earlier we had a player that decided to summon an immensely powerful spirit confident in the knowledge that even though his character would see it as near certain death, he attempts it anyway because the player knows that using the rules of the metagame, he can succeed and survive. Now we have a character that is forced from a burning plane, hoping because there is no other hope, that some miracle will save her. Treat the two circumstances differently? Sure. They're both no hope situations really, but for the one who's fault it really isn't and who asks only to survive, then I'll bend that a little.

Like I said, I would (and have the right to, as a GM) inflict stricter penalties on the one I felt was metagaming. But both should get the same result out of the same mechanic-- namely, survival.

They're not the same result. Your initial example was a player burning Edge to get a critical success on a spirit binding (and gain four services). Your latter example is a poor innocent player just trying to survive. Don't shift you're ground. I've been talking about how I treat these two different cases. Don't suddenly pretend that my basis for difference is dependent on which player I favour.

I'm not attacking you, but that is a good way to get hit with charges of GM favoritism. I know you wouldn't actually favor someone, so why make it look that way?

I'm quite happy to explain to any player the reason their character has just been eaten by a spirit. Please pay particular attention to the paragraph above. You are talking about two very different circumstances which all players can appreciate the difference in.

This part, I don't disagree with. However, I still think that mistreating a spirit, regardless of force, should get you into hot water with all spirits, regardless of force. If you've been treating spirits well, why should a more powerful one rebel any harder than a lower-force one? And if he's been mistreating spirits left and right, why should the weaker ones not resist just as hard as the more powerful ones?

The weaker ones will be more compliant because they're weaker. I'll still let them cause a little mischief if they're not closely watched, and they certainly wont be performing their services with any great enthusiasm, but they're not going to be especially confrontational to a magician that is much more powerful than they are. The powerful spirits, though, can be a great deal more direct in their emnity. Even if the little spirits use Edge, it probably wont be enough and they might be punished for it. I consider a large component of Edge to mean trying your utmost, and a spirit that's afraid of someone probably wont do that. But the powerful spirits - they actually consider themselves more powerful than the magician a lot of the time (they're immortal, smarter and have greater force of personality than the mage). They're more likely to see a chance to really strike back at the mage in the binding process and to consider themselves to have a real chance of breaking free if they try for it.

Additionally, the question was on burning Edge. Technically speaking, a spirit can burn Edge to critically succeed on its resistance roll. I think this is extreme GM cheese-- you've got an essentially infinite amount of Edge to use. But it is allowable, under the rules.

I'd be very unlikely to have a spirit burn Edge. I'm not sure what would provoke such an action, but temporary service to a mortal magician probably wouldn't cut it. Short of running some sort of metaplanar game where I explored spirits' motivations in greater detail, I doubt any such circumstance would ever arise in a game I ran.

Oh, and one more thing: What bugs me the most about the burning Edge for a crit rule isn't the autosuccess, it's the critical success. If it were fixed, it'd be much easier to deal with. For example, in another thread, someone posted his table's house rule as "Burning Edge earns you four successes", but not a crit. So, let's see what happens in the case of falling from 10,000 meters:

Player: "I burn an Edge! I get 4 successes!"
GM: "Great. Now what are you going to do about the other 4,996 boxes of damage?"

What do you think of that as a fix?

I don't actually feel the need for a fix, as I've said I'm happy using the "no hope" judgement call appropriately. But if you were looking for a fix, I think the above wouldn't be ideal. It's not a bad thing, but there are some circumstances where four successes would just be a bad bargain because it wouldn't be enough, so it doesn't meet the same functionality as the existing rule. Maybe if you kept it as a success, but not a critical success, so you get one more than you need. There's still abuse possible, but it's lessened. But actually, your system might be better. Is this burn an Edge for four additional successes? That would be better as it would give you a better return on your investment (it's burnt Edge point, after all), but it doesn't let you achieve the ridiculously unlikely things that cause problems. Four additional successes is probably what I would go for.

I think I've got a bit excitable in this thread. Going to go and chill and come back later,

Regards,

Khadim.