In need of Hand of God consequence ideas Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Ictoagn]

I am a newbie GM running a group of equally new players. In a session last night, a player burned edge to stay alive for the first time, and I have no idea what could realistically happen to his character. For context, he is a mage that "died" in the astral plane in Denver with his body back in Seattle. The mage that killed him also nearly killed herself with drain, and was shortly taken down by another party member. The only idea I have is that he was sustaining a mission-critical invisibility spell through a sustaining focus. Would it be realistic to say it fails? Is that a consequence on an appropriate level? Does the community have any better ideas?

[Starmage21]

2 minor nitpicks before I make any suggestions:

1.) The player should not have been able to sustain an invisibility spell without maintaining line of sight. That means he wouldve had to have been there too

2.) The player has already burned edge. He's paid a price enough for his failure.


That said, he's not there anymore to sustain the spell, it goes down and the team needs to revert to their SHTF scenario.


as far as "fun stuff" for the mage who "died", you could say that his unconscious mind wandered the astral metaplanes for awhile before naturally returning to his body out of instinct. Give the player flashback scenes featuring any kind of surreal scenery that is triggered by like images in the physical world. The player sees the flying spaghetti monster every time he gets near pasta, for example.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

Personally, I suggest apply some "odd" touch to the character, maybe a negative quality related to the astral plane or to his character persona and leave him unconciously wandering the astral planes being led back by a spirit maybe.

In fact I would be so bold as to say as the spirit that brought him back from the brink touched him in some way, pick a spirit type and see if you can find an attribute, quality, or effect you can apply to him in some way.

[Aerospider]

If you're really stuck for ideas, default to the Serious Wounds/Heavy Damage optional rules in AU. Last time one of my players used HoG I hit him with brain damage and left it at that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

He's already burned edge, he's paid the price for getting his astral ass handed to him on an ectoplasmic platter.

If you're going to do any thing else, don't just cram a ration of shit down his throat by heaping him up with negative qualities or fiat penalties or something. If you really want to do something more than just "you invoked the HoG, lose Permanent Edge," either give him a balancing positive quality of the same point value, or give him one of those qualities that can be both an advantage and a disadvantage when looked at cockeyed.



If you want to go with the "your soul survived by autopiloting on a Metaplane for a while," then, for instance...
He saw things within the Metaplane that would shake a magician's foundation of magic if he could remember them fully, things which completely contradict the rules of magic as he knows it. As it stands, he gains a Cursed 5BP flaw (reducing the number of 1s required to glitch on a spellcasting test by 1,) but gains a Mentor Spirit if he didn't already have one (it guided him through the Metaplanes and sticks with him as a powerful protective force) or the Guts quality (he stood alone against the horrors of the metaplane and prevailed with his mind shaken, but not stirred, and it gives him the perspective to resist fear and intimidation.)

Or give him Magic Resistance. It sucks when he's trying to buff himself, or when his allies (seems that there's several magicians in this group) try to heal him, but he was scorched and hardened by the opposing magician's blasting him, letting him more easily ward off such attacks in the future.

[forgarn]

As long as the sustaining focus is on the magician's body (SR4a, pg. 199) the focus stays active. Therefore the invisibility spell is still sustained, because the focus is sustaining the spell not the mage. Also, on pg. 193 of SR4a, there is a box titled "While You Were Out..." and in it, it states:

Should the astral body die, the physical body falls irretrievably into a deep coma since it has no mind and no spirit. If the body is placed on life support, it can live its full lifespan; if not, it will die of thirst within a week (or sooner if organ harvesters or enemies get hold of it).

I like the wording on pg 75 of SR4a (under Burning Edge) for starting out. Make the mage appear dead to everyone, and have the body fall into a coma until the end of the current adventure (or longer if you wish, but I would stick to the end of the adventure).

And I have to ask, why was the mage in the astral in Denver doing a run, with his body in Seattle?

[ShadowDragon8685]

And I have to ask, why was the mage in the astral in Denver doing a run, with his body in Seattle?

Either his whole team was doing an astralized run for some reason, or someone doing a run in Denver needed astral backup that didn't require any meatspace support.

[All4BigGuns]

The fact that that point of Edge is gone permanently until he spends karma to get it back is enough "consequence". Anything further is the GM equivalent of holding a magnifying glass over a line of marching ants trying to burn them.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

The fact that that point of Edge is gone permanently until he spends karma to get it back is enough "consequence". Anything further is the GM equivalent of holding a magnifying glass over a line of marching ants trying to burn them.

Personal opinion really... Falls to DM choice, nothing in the rulebook contradicts this.

[forgarn]

Personal opinion really... Falls to DM choice, nothing in the rulebook contradicts this.

In fact, the book says:

Note that this does not mean the character gets off scot free. The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death. In fact, the character should suffer most of the consequences of the action that would have killed her; 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. A character who uses Hand of God should be incapacitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call.

So I would say that the book says there SHOULD be more than just loosing edge.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

In fact, the book says:


So I would say that the book says there SHOULD be more than just loosing edge.

Well I didn't want to be all rules lawyer about it, but without saying anything more... Yes? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

I would do one of two things. If the player made a simple mistake or just had bad luck, i'd leave it at "hand of god, burn edge" and go on to describe how the hand of fate decided to intervene and save his life.

If the player made a stupid move or did some otherwise boneheaded maneuver, then I might consider tossing on a negative quality as well. It doesn't need to be something terrible that would make a character unplayable (like if the character already had Spammed, don't give him Sensory overload syndrome, or he'll be a heaping pile of seizure every 15 minutes) but something simple that could make him interesting. Such as give him incompetent (pilot groundcraft) if he's not the party driver. This way your not killing a character concept, but he will now be bumming rides from everyone or taking the taxi. And you know, it always seems like when crap goes down, its never the driver who is in immediate position to drive so someone else jumps behind the wheel until the driver can jack in.

[forgarn]

Sorry... was using your post for emphasis. Did not come out the way I wanted. I was trying to counter those that said that losing the point of edge was enough.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

Sorry... was using your post for emphasis. Did not come out the way I wanted. I was trying to counter those that said that losing the point of edge was enough.

Sorry, I forgot the sarcastic tag. I was more making a point that one could argue any way they want, when it comes down to it the DM makes the choice, I agree with everything you wrote, including the quoted text.

[Krishach]

if the mage was sustaining a spell himself, the spell can be sustained after cast out of line of sight. Casting it in the first place requires line of sight. Sustaining Foci in contact with his body will continue to sustain the spell on it while in contact with his body, until he dies. Continuing the spell shouldn't be a problem.

As for the consequence: I agree with the general consensus that a negative quality should be merited. It is normally required, but as you mentioned everyone there is newbie, I'd suggest leniency. Unless, as previously stated, he did something stupid that, as a new player, he was DIRECTLY told not to do. Otherwise, newbie armor applies, I should think.

[Warlordtheft]

Hmm, make posessing the sustaining focus a geas for him. I.E. he needs it to perform his magic without penalty. Perhaps because of his near death experience he believes that only the magic in the focus keeps him alive.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Hmm, make posessing the sustaining focus a geas for him. I.E. he needs it to perform his magic without penalty. Perhaps because of his near death experience he believes that only the magic in the focus keeps him alive.

Ouch... But that could indeed work. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[StealthSigma]

Hmm, make posessing the sustaining focus a geas for him. I.E. he needs it to perform his magic without penalty. Perhaps because of his near death experience he believes that only the magic in the focus keeps him alive.

Even better. Tell him that the sustaining focus in question must be kept on his person without changing the sustained spell or else he dies for realz.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Note that this does not mean the character gets off scot free. The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death. In fact, the character should suffer most of the consequences of the action that would have killed her; 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. A character who uses Hand of God should be incapacitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call.

Can anyone please highlight the word "Quality" in that paragraph? Because I cannot. (Hint: It does not appear in that paragraph.)

While it mentions, vaguely, consequences, the only consequences it actually prescribes beyond the loss of Karma that losing a point of Edge represents is, quote, "A character who uses the Hand of God should be incapcitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call."

So put the character out of the game for a while, and if the time until the character would again be in a position to play is going to be more than one session, let them bring in a backup characters. Do not - I repeat, do not shovel a shit sandwich down the player's throat.

[StealthSigma]

Can anyone please highlight the word "Quality" in that paragraph? Because I cannot. (Hint: It does not appear in that paragraph.)

While it mentions, vaguely, consequences, the only consequences it actually prescribes beyond the loss of Karma that losing a point of Edge represents is, quote, "A character who uses the Hand of God should be incapcitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call."

So put the character out of the game for a while, and if the time until the character would again be in a position to play is going to be more than one session, let them bring in a backup characters. Do not - I repeat, do not shovel a shit sandwich down the player's throat.

You're looking for the word quality when it doesn't need to be there. The rule states that the character should suffer the majority of the consequences of what would have killed him. If the character suffered an injury due to what amounts to massive spinal damage, then the Quadriplegic negative quality is a direct consequence of the action that would have killed him and should be given.

[Ruby]

Reading this thread off to my husband and we thought. "Can a player have 0 edge?" Otherwise everyone's making some good arguments.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You're looking for the word quality when it doesn't need to be there. The rule states that the character should suffer the majority of the consequences of what would have killed him. If the character suffered an injury due to what amounts to massive spinal damage, then the Quadriplegic negative quality is a direct consequence of the action that would have killed him and should be given.

There are, of course, other alternatives to the Quadraplegic/Paraplegic Negative Qualities. They should suffer consequences, not necessarily the harshest possible penalties. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ShadowDragon8685]

You're looking for the word quality when it doesn't need to be there. The rule states that the character should suffer the majority of the consequences of what would have killed him. If the character suffered an injury due to what amounts to massive spinal damage, then the Quadriplegic negative quality is a direct consequence of the action that would have killed him and should be given.

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

Bollocks to that.

You use the Hand of God to retain a character for continued play, not to retire them as a cripple and make a new character anyway.

You're already losing Karma, which (depending on how much Edge you had,) can be a loss of anything from 10 to 80. That's pretty goddamn harsh already.

They're also being forced to sit out a "reasonable" amount of time, which could be anything from no time at all, OOC, if they HoGged during the climactic encounter, to months of real time if the group is stuck in a period of intense action where several game sessions take place over the course of only one game-time day. So they've not only taken a testicle-hit to the Karma, they're taking the follow-up jab to the Karma opportunity cost of all that Karma they don't get to reap.

And you want to start heaping on negative qualities after that?

I said it before, I'll say it again: Bollocks to that. If you're going to go down that route, give the player compensating qualities of equal BP value - like if a magician gets Cursed, then he should also get Guts or something. That, too, can be a "consequence" of what happens to him - after all, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Reading this thread off to my husband and we thought. "Can a player have 0 edge?" Otherwise everyone's making some good arguments.

Edge is a special attribute, so I would say, yes, a character can have 0 Edge. They're the Unfated, the Unfavored, not-the-chosen-one. It won't kill them, but it won't be there to save them, either.

There are, of course, other alternatives to the Quadraplegic/Paraplegic Negative Qualities. They should suffer consequences, not nercessarily the harshest possible penalties. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And I think here is the crux of the problem - terminology.

The paragraph species consequences.
"Penalty" is not a synonym of consequence. You can be shot through no wrongdoing or outcome of any choice of yours - it isn't a "consequence," it just happened. And being filthy rich is a "consequence" of winning the lottery, either.


Consequences do not have to be penalties. If you're going to start adding on Qualities to represent the life-changing whammy of using the Hand of God, don't just look in the shit sandwich half of them. There's another half, too.

[All4BigGuns]

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

Bollocks to that.

You use the Hand of God to retain a character for continued play, not to retire them as a cripple and make a new character anyway.

You're already losing Karma, which (depending on how much Edge you had,) can be a loss of anything from 10 to 80. That's pretty goddamn harsh already.

They're also being forced to sit out a "reasonable" amount of time, which could be anything from no time at all, OOC, if they HoGged during the climactic encounter, to months of real time if the group is stuck in a period of intense action where several game sessions take place over the course of only one game-time day. So they've not only taken a testicle-hit to the Karma, they're taking the follow-up jab to the Karma opportunity cost of all that Karma they don't get to reap.

And you want to start heaping on negative qualities after that?

I said it before, I'll say it again: Bollocks to that. If you're going to go down that route, give the player compensating qualities of equal BP value - like if a magician gets Cursed, then he should also get Guts or something. That, too, can be a "consequence" of what happens to him - after all, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.




Edge is a special attribute, so I would say, yes, a character can have 0 Edge. They're the Unfated, the Unfavored, not-the-chosen-one. It won't kill them, but it won't be there to save them, either.



And I think here is the crux of the problem - terminology.

The paragraph species consequences.
"Penalty" is not a synonym of consequence. You can be shot through no wrongdoing or outcome of any choice of yours - it isn't a "consequence," it just happened. And being filthy rich is a "consequence" of winning the lottery, either.


Consequences do not have to be penalties. If you're going to start adding on Qualities to represent the life-changing whammy of using the Hand of God, don't just look in the shit sandwich half of them. There's another half, too.

Agreed on all points. Especially the last one, but far too many seem to think that only slamming an All-You-Can-Eat-Buffet of Negative Qualities on someone is the only way to "balance" being able to use HoG.

[StealthSigma]

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

I like the strawman you built.

And I think here is the crux of the problem - terminology.

The paragraph species consequences.
"Penalty" is not a synonym of consequence. You can be shot through no wrongdoing or outcome of any choice of yours - it isn't a "consequence," it just happened. And being filthy rich is a "consequence" of winning the lottery, either.


Consequences do not have to be penalties. If you're going to start adding on Qualities to represent the life-changing whammy of using the Hand of God, don't just look in the shit sandwich half of them. There's another half, too.

Getting shot is a consequence of someone aiming a gun at you and pulling the trigger. Being filthy rich IS a consequence of winning the lottery. A consequence is simply the logical end point of an action or a series of action. Further, a penalty is also a consequence albeit one forced on you that you wouldn't otherwise face. Para and quadraplegism are consequences that can occur from significant spinal injuries. Amnesia is a potential consequence from head trauma.

That said, you asked where in the rules it permitted giving negative qualities when burning edge. I pointed it out. The wording is there. If a negative quality is a logical consequence of the circumstances that killed the character then it is permissible to grant it. The GM has carte blanche do whatever he pleases as long as it is a logical consequence of the circumstances that lead to the death. Yes. That can mean quadriplegism. It can mean phobias. It can mean lowered attributes. It can mean lost limbs. It can mean irretrievably lost equipment.

All that being said, I do not agree with GMs jumping to the most punitive consequences from burning edge unless it is agreed upon beforehand that the game will be particularly hardcore. I would probably stop playing under a GM that chose such a route for myself or any other player.