[X] My Assistant

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Not to go too much off topic, but did you notice that it took nearly four pages into that topic until the OP managed to explain to the other posters what he meant, instead of what he seemed to say in his opening post?

Nobody is perfect I guess... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

Anyway, with drugs the major issue is the vagueness of the addiction rules. I do think it should be somewhat random; taking drugs and hoping not to get addicted should always be a gamble. But currently it's just too vague; unless the GM tells the players how often to expect addiction checks, they have no way to know if drugs are a risk they can afford. In this way the mechanics aren't "consumer friendly", telling the potential "customer" what to expect.

This is just the problem. I wouldn't even care if it said to roll edge every time, but as it is now, it's not usable. Neither as a GM, nor as a player.

[Psikerlord]

I added to the discussion as it went along, no harm in that?

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

I added to the discussion as it went along, no harm in that?

Certainly not.

[Irion]

Well, I mean it is not much of a problem for a GM to impose a houserule in this instance.
Take the drug, roll a W6, if it shows a 1 an addiction test is called for. (Edge would be also an option here, but I like high edge chars and having edge also used as "luck" in more and more cases would just make this stat even more powerful)
I mean just thing of a edge 7 or even 8 guy in a casino.
Its like:" Propability my ass, I am Gladstone fucking Gander."

If you get addicted you get the disadvantage. (Which may be kicked without spending karma later in the game, but you need to kick the habbit...)

Those are the kind of things, I do not think should be ruled too much, because it is mostly a Roleplay question. Giving it to much "dice-ruling" hinders a bit the playing.
And I do think a GM should punish for bad roleplaying if it has methode. Like taking fluff flaws and outright ignoring them. This is the case with a lot of flaws, if you are honest about it. And it has come up more than once here on dumpshock.

And do not give me there are better and worse Roleplayers. If I take a flaw because I want to play an character like that it comes up, if I just needed the points it is more likely not to come up.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This is just the problem. I wouldn't even care if it said to roll edge every time, but as it is now, it's not usable. Neither as a GM, nor as a player.

Why, Exactly?
I ask, because I disagree. I think it is perfectly okay for it to be vague. After all, addiction in the real world is kind of vague. Way to many factors to provide hardline rules for it. And individuals are all different. *shrug*

After all, We have successfully used the Addiction guidelines quite well in game, ourselves. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (Yes, I know, Special Snowflakes, or something)
After all, it really comes down to trust; in your GM and your Players.

[Ascalaphus]

What about the following, as a quick and dirty rule:

Every time a character uses a drug, roll a 1D6, and apply these modifiers:
+1 for each time the character has previously used this drug in the past 7 days.
+1 if the character is speedballing.
+1 if the drug is described as highly addictive.
-2 for every level of addiction the character already has to this drug.
A result of 6+ means the character must make an Addiction test as specified in the book.

The basic idea is that if you use sparsely, you don't run a big risk, but that increased use increases risk. Meanwhile, addiction levels don't increase too fast, but they can increase. (Feel free to consider other variable values; those are just a first impression.)

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Why, Exactly?
I ask, because I disagree. I think it is perfectly okay for it to be vague. After all, addiction in the real world is kind of vague. Way to many factors to provide hardline rules for it. And individuals are all different. *shrug*

After all, We have successfully used the Addiction guidelines quite well in game, ourselves. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (Yes, I know, Special Snowflakes, or something)
After all, it really comes down to trust; in your GM and your Players.

This is going down that alley again.

I'll leave it at this: The writers were too lazy to come up with a rule, or correct that, the creative direction/game design department/whatever were too lazy to ask for a proper rule, so they leave it to GMs to decide. It's simply badly designed. They wanted to get the product out unfinished, and even in the rehash this was not considered worthy of reworking. They have an entire section on drugs, but no mechanics for addiction.

Stuff being unreliable, random, whatever, isn't bad at all. But this kind of indecision is sloppy. Either you want a ruleset, or you don't. Pleae do read the link I posted.

The gamemaster
can also do away with Addiction Tests and simply determine
if, when, and at what severity a character acquires an addiction based
upon the character’s roleplaying actions.

This is really the extreme case of bad rules. At least an addiction test that occurs at a whim can be justified as some sort of challenge that has to be overcome. Which is really the same as saying "alright, you have taken the same route to work three days in a row in the roughest district of X, this time you'll be ambushed". Or any other likely challenge that happens because players do something. It IS the GMs job to make the challenges. So... you want to create conflict, I guess asking for an addiction test is quite similar, it's not an auto-fail. It's salvageable as a game element, just not a particularly fun-laden one. The difference obviously being that when any kind of other challenge happens this is supposed to lead to memorably moments, whereas this one leads to a roll. Arguably that's like random traps in D&D, which are where they are for no other reason than to randomly annoy a character that fails a roll. Now a trap that creates a tactical challenge, that's something else entirely.

So it's really not about trust: I trust my GMs (generally speaking) to create fun challenges. It's about how fun the challenge really is.

But the above paragraph is really just nothing other than saying:
"The game master can also do away with tactical or any other mechanically resolved combat and simply determine if, when, and at what severity the PCs are brutally ravaged by the opposing forces, based upon the characters' roleplaying actions or the players' lack of giving him cookies."

[ Spoiler ]

-When you use Fiat Resolution the player is simply begging to win and the GM lets them win or fail at a whim.

-Fiat Resolution, when repeated, is also known as Railroading. Or rather a specific type of railroading.

-Players are deprotagonized by Fiat Resolution. They are powerless over their characters destiny.

-The GM interprets the situation using his own ideas and hangups. This means the outcome completely varies with different GM's and varies based on the mood of the GM.

-It is also impossible for the player to accurately predict the chances for success or failure.

-It is not a game when you resort to fiat. You can't get lucky. You can't think tactically. You can't use good play to help you succeed.

-Conflict means that the player wants something. If they lose it was because the GM decided they could not have what they want.

-If you “win” a fiat resolution conflict it is actually the same as not having a conflict at all. That means Fiat Resolution typically means “you fail.”

Ok, if I were to give the writers/designers a lot of credit, I might start imagining they wanted it that way. Generally it has to be said that addiction is a dangerous (and potentially stupid) thing to be risking, and you don't want it to be predictable in the least.
So... but wait, so is getting in a firefight. What's more stupid, taking a shot of heroin or starting a firefight? What's more stupid, taking a combat drug or starting a firefight? Oh, and obviously: what's most stupid? Easy, taking a combat drug AND starting a firefight.

But then why do firefights have pretty concise rules for nearly everything that can possibly happen, but addiction doesn't?

Final words, or TLDR-version: I don't really have a point other than how sloppy this is. I'm generally deploring the lack of good rules for shadowrun. If this were any other game license a game this sloppily designed would surely fail. But here I am actually playing the game and venting my frustration, because it's really necessary to house rule so many things. Of course, I am to blame, because noone is forcing me. I just want it to be good/better, that's all.

@Ascalaphus:
This is good, and I like it. And I suppose it didn't really take a lot of time or effort, and it's neat and elegant nonetheless. (It's also better than what I came up with.) It takes an antirely new mechanic to a game of generally established mechanics, and adds complexity, albeit not that much. It has a clearly defined design goal and actually follows through with it.

[Yerameyahu]

Ascalaphus' suggestion is more or less what the RAW says. Which is good. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ascalaphus]

I dunno, RAW leaves the frequency of addiction checks a bit too much up in the air. This is an area where a player would want more information about what to expect if he takes drugs IC. How much is "often enough for a check"? With no indication in the rules, you'd need to ask the GM (which isn't a disaster, but it's annoying). As a GM, it's good practice to be consistent, hence to make up a rule such as the one I proposed and stick to it.

My reasonings were these:
1) Odds must be random; that makes it dangerous. You can't be sure that using won't trigger a check, unless you've used less so far than is normal for your current degree of addiction.
2) Odds depend somewhat on how much you're consuming. Consuming more increases risk of addiction.
3) Speedballing is bad.
4) The worse your addiction already is, the more you need to use to worsen your addiction.
5) Consuming only once every week (perhaps at a weekend party) has only a small chance to trigger addiction, although the chance exists.

[Yerameyahu]

No, I agree. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm saying that adding some minor specifics is not a huge new mechanic, but merely doing what the rules already say to do.

[Ascalaphus]

I dunno, it's those minor specifics that make it workable.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

I dunno, it's those minor specifics that make it workable.

Sometimes it's good to feel understood...


just saying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Ascalaphus]

I understand what you're getting at when you ask for tighter mechanics, although I think you take it too far sometimes, and that you're a bit colored by past experiences with bad GMs.

[Yerameyahu]

Ack. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I didn't say it wasn't workable! I'm just saying it's a nice *little* change, not a whole new mechanic. Which is what Brainpiercing said. (Everyone understands your obsession with rigid public rules, dude. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) We just don't agree how big a deal it is.)

[TheOOB]

Ascalaphus' suggestion is more or less what the RAW says. Which is good. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Do you know what RAW means? It means ®ules (A)s (W)ritten, what he suggested is completely not RAW, where the rule is basically to call for an addition test whenever you feel like it. I'd agree that there should be more concrete rules, but call them what they are, a house rule.

I think Ascalaphus rules are a step in the right direction, but I don't like the random factor. You already have a random factor with the addiction test. Instead I would make specific conditions that call for an addition test, and add modifiers to said test. Something like if you have no addition test you make a test if you take the drug more often than once a week/month(depending on the type of drug), and as your addition gets worse those intervals will go down(mild makes a test if they take the drug more than once per 3 days/week, moderate day/3 days, severe 6 hours/day). I'd also say there is always an addiction test the first time you take a given drug.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

I think Ascalaphus rules are a step in the right direction, but I don't like the random factor. You already have a random factor with the addiction test. Instead I would make specific conditions that call for an addition test, and add modifiers to said test. Something like if you have no addition test you make a test if you take the drug more often than once a week/month(depending on the type of drug), and as your addition gets worse those intervals will go down(mild makes a test if they take the drug more than once per 3 days/week, moderate day/3 days, severe 6 hours/day). I'd also say there is always an addiction test the first time you take a given drug.

That's a question of taste, I guess.

Why do I think it should be random, well... look at alcoholics. NOONE in their right mind would drink like they do if they knew they would become an alcoholic after that drink. Or after the next. So... basically not knowing is part of the game. And double random really isn't bad. Addiction tests could be edged to nearly never fail, anyway - as long as they are not required often. Now, if the PC keeps popping, he sure as hell will end up having to make a few. Or maybe not, who knows?

However, I don't want to make the decision as a GM, either. Yes, even though a GM makes decisions every session that could kill a character, I'm very loathe to make a decision that could leave a character with a significant flaw. Call me squeamish, or whatever.

So, Ascalaphus rule is good because:
- it adds a second measure of random, albeit with an offset the player can influence.
- it saves me the trouble of making that decision as a GM. Yes, I'm actually no longer saying that asking for an addiction test on a whim is bad on principle. It merely adds little to the game.
- it has a clear design goal and follows through with it. (Repeating myself, here, I know. Oh, not the first time, either.)

[Ascalaphus]

My main motivation for the random factor, is that otherwise you could probably manipulate the system to really minimize the addiction checks while maximizing drug use opportunities. If you only have to make a test if you've taken drugs in the past X days before, then it becomes a cooldown power, predictable, controllable.

The only real way to control your chance of addiction should be abstinence, not precise timing. The risk of losing control of your power-drugs is exactly the point.

[Yerameyahu]

TheOOB, this isn't that hard: I'm only saying that it's not a major new mechanic. Instead, it's a minor specification of what the RAW already says to do. I'm not saying his suggestion is RAW or 'already RAW' or anything like that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And I never did so.