Edge and Glitches Options

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Your argument is entirely based on shoddy logic and a foundation of sand. You claim two completely unrelated rules produce a different result. It's not enough to say it's conclusive and authoritative. The problem is there's multiple POSSIBLE readings of the RAW which do not contradict the written rules but which do produce differing outcomes entirely depending on WhEN the result of glitch is determined and if it's 'sticky' with rerolls or not. All of which the rules are entirely silent on.

Okay, you want me to be entirely honest?

While being aware that the rules do not state this one way or the other, I am attempting to comb the text for the assumption that the text is making. In other words, I am attempting to establish intent by finding statements in the rules that can only be true of certain conditions are met in order to establish what these conditions are. This is a slightly different type of reasoning than you find in high school, so I'm not surprised that you don't recognize it.

In essence, yes, I am drawing a connection between two unrelated rules in order to establish a third thing. This is a common thing to do in a number of fields I have pursued, but again, I am assuming you're not familiar with those fields.

I am doing this because, frankly, I find your solution so completely idiotic as to actually cause me physical reaction symptoms. It requires reading quite a lot into the rules, it defies common sense, and--cardinal sin, in my mind--it makes the game less fun by taking options out of the hands of the players. You're arguing for a GM's right to look at a player who rolls poorly, smile, and say, "trololol, TAKE IT," especially in the case of a critical glitch, and I will never abide for people who support such poor play as that. In my hands, Shadowrun would not have glitches at all--but as they are now, they deserve to be played with what I clearly believe to be the intent of the game's designers. That intent is not your perverse reading of the text.

[Cain]

I think if you roll a glitch, you have to spend edge to negate it. on the other hand, if you see using edge to re-roll the entire DP and say that the first roll never happened, then you can argue there is no glitch. the first one makes the most sense imo. just because crap, you screwed up trying to fix your bike, BUT you were lucky enough that it did not frag it up. the other way basicly states that, you screwed it up, rewind time, you did not screw it up. RAW it is, as always, so ambiguous that its w/e. RAI I beleive (through use of commen sense, the bad wording, and what is implied) that you must spend an edge point to negate a glitch.

You spend Edge in either case. The difference is that spending to negate the botch automatically removes it, while rerolling opens the chance of rolling another botch.

That said, I allow rerolls on botches but not criticals. They're separate beasts in my book. And treating them as different really doesn't harm anything, and neatly solves this little debate.

[mister__joshua]

People seem to be getting caught up discussing timings. I know most of this is interpretation, but for what it's worth here's my take on it. The result of a roll (glitch, crit glitch, success etc) isn't determined at any set time. The result is what is shown on the dice, and remains for as long as that is what the dice show. If the dice show a glitch, then while the dice show it it's a glitch. The effects of the glitch aren't determined until the GM explains what happens, so up until this point there is the time to negate the glitch or whatever.

As I play it, if the player chooses to re-roll the dice, then they no longer show a glitch result and so a glitch is no longer carried out.

[Midas]

@Tsuyoshi,

I am sorry to hear that you are feeling physical distress. Take a deep breath and try to relax - you are too close to this argument if the way other people interpret the RAW or play their game is stressing you out.

In a RAW argument (or an argument about differing interpretations of the RAW), arguments about RAI or underlying assumptions are irrelevant. You can use them as justifications for your RAW interpretation, but ultimately they do not prove that your position (or the other guy's) is either right or wrong by RAW.

Your suggestion that the other interpretation people are espousing is an excuse for the GM to f*ck with players is entirely without merit. Under these interpretations a crit glitch can still be downgraded to a glitch using Edge. Furthermore, to my best recollection noone on my side of the argument has suggested that a crit glitch should equal automatic death. Roleplaying games are exercises in mutual storytelling, and for the experience to be fun the relationship should not be antagonistic - the GM shouldn't be out to get the PC (with the notable exception of games like Paranoia), nor should the PC expect to insta-win. I am sorry if you have had experience with bad GMs, but I can safely say we ain't all like that!

[Raiden]

You may re-roll all of the dice on a single test that did not
score a hit

.
56
Note that characters may spend Edge to negate a glitch


twice within the book it states this as THE WAY a character can negate a glitch. implying you cannot negate a glitch by re-rolling dice, as it is possible to succeed at a task, but to still glitch it. after reading all the wording and how and where it is used i STAND by my opinion that you must spend an edge point to negate the glitch entirely, if you NEED to succeed at the test, re roll, you still have the glitch, but you can still succeed.

A glitch is a mistake, error, fumble, or random
fluke that causes the action to go wrong in some way. It’s possible
to both succeed in a task and get a glitch at the same time.
For example, a character who rolls a glitch when jumping over
something may knock the item over, or land on a nail she didn’t
see on the far side. The exact nature of the glitch is up to the
gamemaster, though we recommend you choose a negative effect
that is dramatic or entertaining, but not disastrous. The
nature of the glitch can be tempered against the number of hits
achieved: 6 hits and a glitch would be a minor setback, while 1
hit and a glitch would be a severe annoyance.
Eyeballi ng Modifiers
Let’s face it: while modifiers help to add
realism to a game, they can also bog down
gameplay when you have to consult a big list
of possibilities and do a bunch of math. If you
seek a sleeker and more fluid style of play, try
one of the following options:
Adjust the Threshold: Rather than counting
modifiers, tell the player to make a standard
test without modifiers and simply adjust
the threshold to account for how you think
modifiers would affect the difficulty. Note
that this only works for Success Tests and
Extended Tests.
Use the Most Severe Modifier: Instead of
accounting for every potential modifier that
could affect a test, quickly identify only what
the most severe modifying circumstance is,
and just apply that one. If it’s a situation
where you feel a lot of additional modifiers
may apply, increase it by 1 or 2 according to
your gut feeling. This should allow you to
seize upon a single modifier quickly rather
than accounting for all of the possible affecting
elements.
For example, let’s say you want a character
to make a Perception + Intuition Test to notice
a clue left in a room. Rather than looking
up the Perception Test modifiers, the GM decides
that the biggest modifying factor is that
the room is dark, and applies a –3 modifier for
that alone. If a lot of other modifiers might
also apply (the character is wounded, the clue
is partially hidden under something else, the
character knows what he’s looking for, etc.),
the gamemaster can simply nudge the modifier
up to –4 or –5 depending on his “eyeballing”
of the situation, rather than looking all of
the modifiers up.
Shadowrun, Fourth Edition GAME CONCEPTS .
.
Note that characters may spend Edge to negate a glitch

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Actually, I think I can--but you'll have to follow my logic, which you have so far seemed unwilling to do.

The first part of my argument addresses the critical glitch side, which I have already proven. I'm just going to quote myself and keep doing this in the seemingly increasingly futile hope that maybe you'll read it this time:

In other words, it's impossible to determine whether a critical glitch has occurred until after any Edge expenditure is resolved, because it's impossible how many hits the test has until then. (Note that the crit-glitch text lacks any mention of the term "dice pool," meaning that hits from Edge incontrovertibly count for determining crit-glitches.)
So critical glitches happen after Edge expenditures for certain. Now, do glitches? There is strong circumstantial evidence that they do:


In other words, in order to totally resolve a glitch, one has to know how many his were achieved on the test--including those added from Edge.

Does this definitively rule out determining that a glitch has occurred at a different time than the success or failure of the test, whether or not there has been a critical glitch, or even how bad the glitch actually is? I suppose so. But I find it almost idiotically unlikely compared to the assumption that all of this occurs at the same time--the assumption that most players would make. Put differently, if this timing is so special, they would have put something in the book about it.

Of course, it makes me look at the following phrase a little harder:

...Since we certainly can't know if the test has succeeded or failed until after Edge is resolved.

How about this, then.

It seems that there is a disconnect between rolling Edge with the Initial Roll and added Edge after the initial roll.

In the first case, it is irrelevant that Edge was rolled with the DP, as it is the initial roll. As such, at the end of THAT PARTICULAR ROLL, you check for Glitch or Crit Glitch. Since Edge was already added, you cannot address the glitch issue, since it is irrelevant.

Now, for Initial Rolls that did not have Edge added (After the Fact Edge Expenditures, if you will). You check for Glitch or Crit Glitch immediately afterr initial roll. You do this, becuase you cannot resolve to remove said Glitches with Edge until it has been checked to exist. Therefore, prior to Edge expenditure, the Condition MUST either exist or not exist.

Now, in my reading. Once a Glitch exists (critical or otherwise), it will always exist unless you use the Ege expenditure to remove said condition. If you elect to reroll with a Glitch condition, the condition still exists, as you have already checked for its existence. Any re-roll results will add hits, but will not remove the glitch condition that already existed.

Since Prior expenditure of Edge in the initial DP is irrelevant to the argument (ie you cannot again spend edge to remove any glitch condition) it is not a requirement that I include its premise in the argument. *shrug*

[KarmaInferno]

Here's how it works:

The Shadowrun rules, once again, are unclear on the subject, so go with whatever version your group is comfortable with.





-k

[Raiden]

I completely agree with that tymeaus

[almost normal]

How about this, then.

It seems that there is a disconnect between rolling Edge with the Initial Roll and added Edge after the initial roll.

In the first case, it is irrelevant that Edge was rolled with the DP, as it is the initial roll. As such, at the end of THAT PARTICULAR ROLL, you check for Glitch or Crit Glitch. Since Edge was already added, you cannot address the glitch issue, since it is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, that too is debatable. Under strict reading of the rules, edge dice added to a roll add to the general dice pool, and not the specifically phrased 'Dice Pool', the latter of which determines whether a glitch is rolled or not.

By the rules, there exist modifiers which change the amount of dice you would throw, but not the amount of dice that would theoretically exist in your Dice Pool. Since edge isn't a DPM, it can't have an impact on the status of a glitch. Its extra dice would contribute nothing towards checking hits against a critical glitch, or additional dice to balance out dice showing a 1.

I'll add that it's the portion of the rules in this particular debate that I like the least, and I'll probably house rule it away anyway.

Crap, I forgot to add latin, Uhhh... Veni, Erigo Infernum, Cede!

[Raiden]

well as he stated it is still irrelevant. CARPE NOCTURNE

[Dakka Dakka]

Under these interpretations a crit glitch can still be downgraded to a glitch using Edge. Furthermore, to my best recollection noone on my side of the argument has suggested that a crit glitch should equal automatic death.

The problem is not the critical glitch meaning instant death it is the failure meaning death. If reducing a critical glitch to a normal failure glitch were the only option on a roll that showed half the dice pool of 1s and no hit, you'd have tests on with Edge expenditure is entirely pointless. If other options were available but would not remove the status of a critical glitch, you would produce two kinds of critical glitches (those without hits and those with hits only on edge dice), which has no basis in the rules.

Why I think the other interpretation is wrong is this: dice don't produce successes/failures/glitches, rolls don't produce successes/failures/glitches, but tests do. Only when tests are concluded can the result be determined without producing results that are clearly against the rules.

Let's say someone rolls 1,4 on a test and opts to spend Edge. Remember, there is no rule forbidding any of the uses of edge (except for those that obviously don't apply to that kind of test like rolling Edge with the rest of the dice or getting extra IPs)
-Crit glitch downgrading is clear under any interpretation, but would result in a failure.
-If you reroll non-hits and then roll at least a hit, either the critical glitch must automatically be negated or you have an illegal critical glitch. If instead you say the result then becomes a regular glitch, you do something that the rules do not give you permission to do.
-If you roll Edge dice afterwards, you obviously modify a roll. As I proved already, this must be a dice pool modifier (SR4A p. 61 A Note on Modifiers). If you say it's not, you again do something that is not in the rules.

In the case of a regular glitch rerolls must negate the glitch because the 1s are not there anymore, and keeping 1s is never mentioned in the rules. keeping the hits for the Edge reroll however is explicitly mentioned.

Long story short, conclude the test before determining the results.

[Draco18s]

Long story short, conclude the test before determining the results.

Notably, the edge spent to negate a glitch could(!) even be spent after the GM has described the glitch. "Nope, I thought I'd be ok with the glitch, but no, I'm spending Edge to negate that effect. It's too detrimental to my goals."

So this interpretation of when glitches are determined is the strongest.

[almost normal]

So this interpretation of when glitches are determined is the strongest.

Choosing to use edge doesn't change the 'stickiness' of the glitch, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Alea iacta est.

[Falconer]

Okay, you want me to be entirely honest?

While being aware that the rules do not state this one way or the other, I am attempting to comb the text for the assumption that the text is making. In other words, I am attempting to establish intent by finding statements in the rules that can only be true of certain conditions are met in order to establish what these conditions are. This is a slightly different type of reasoning than you find in high school, so I'm not surprised that you don't recognize it.

In essence, yes, I am drawing a connection between two unrelated rules in order to establish a third thing. This is a common thing to do in a number of fields I have pursued, but again, I am assuming you're not familiar with those fields.

Maybe in soft liberal arts and things like law with their current penchant for relativism (no absolutes and redefining words to mean whatever they say they mean). But not in any of the hard sciences or engineering I can guarantee you that.

Any such conclusion in a hard science or actual 'logic' exercise would need to be proved. Which you cannot do as the rules are nebulous.

Which is why my position has always been that there are a few possible readings all of which are valid by RAW. The rules are incomplete. There has been no prior commentary by line devs like Synner/jmardy or the FAQ to clarify the issue and establish an official position.


My only argument for any particular reading is stating my own preference for only allowing a glitch to be removed by spending edge to remove it because in my experience glitches are already exceedingly rare and they add a lot of spice to the game. One memorable one for me was glitching a summoning check... the GM pullled up a spirit which had a lot of pluck and was entirely unhelpful... including deciding to be loud and obnoxious when I was trying to sneak and blowing surprise round of combat. Not fatal by any stretch an annoyance and something which made everyone at the table laugh.

I am doing this because, frankly, I find your solution so completely idiotic as to actually cause me physical reaction symptoms. It requires reading quite a lot into the rules, it defies common sense, and--cardinal sin, in my mind--it makes the game less fun by taking options out of the hands of the players. You're arguing for a GM's right to look at a player who rolls poorly, smile, and say, "trololol, TAKE IT," especially in the case of a critical glitch, and I will never abide for people who support such poor play as that. In my hands, Shadowrun would not have glitches at all--but as they are now, they deserve to be played with what I clearly believe to be the intent of the game's designers. That intent is not your perverse reading of the text.

Why thank you... it's so nice to know I could send such a thrill up someones leg and cause such physical discomfort.

I'm starting to understand all those folks collecting all those precious care bear tears.

You make glitch synonomous with bend over and take it... when it's not. Even critical glitch doesn't need be that bad. The problem is that it is a story mediated by a GM and dice results. Not all stories are successful. Yet many expect victory to just be handed to them... maybe it's part of that everybody wins menttality they put in schools today. Glitch or critical glitch is not synomous with character death... even having a heavy pistol blow up in your hand is only soaking a 6P (5P pistol +1EX) damage shot and needing to find a new gun... for most chars... that's only 1-2 points damage after armor.

When I was in school... particularly in my logic... shoddy logic like tieing two completely unrelated rules to invent a third which meant anything I wanted would have gotten me a failing grade. Similarly trying to make any kind of assertion like this in hard science/engineering course would have been impossible without substantial experimental data showing a clear correlation.


Just to draw an analogue... on why when things are determined is so important. Because it's entirely related... Some GM's only allow edge to be spent before final success or failure of test is known. You roll your reaction pool to avoid getting hit and get 2 results... do you let it ride or pay the edge now and mabe not get hit or just save it for the damage soak roll if it wasn't good enough? He's over there with a poker face hiding his dice. Others allow edge to be used afterward. Frankly, I've found it works either way. This is almost the exact same argument... either the glitch exists or doesn't or is undetermined when the decision to spend edge after is made. The RAW is silent on this matter so you can't make a conclusive argument like you keep trying to do. Just as the RAW is silent on if the edge can be spent after the opposed results are known or before it is known.

[Draco18s]

Choosing to use edge doesn't change the 'stickiness' of the glitch, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

If edge can be spent so late that the GM has already said, "your gun has jammed" and ignore the effect, then you can spend edge before all the dice have even been rolled and still negate the effect for that roll.

Therefore it is not necessary to know when a glitch is determined in order to know if edge can be spent to negate it.

And thus, that rule cannot be used as a factor to indicate when that determination occurs.

I.e. because the rule does not indicate which step it can be spent in, but can be spent in all of them to the same effect, it is irrelevant (and useless) to use it to say "this is when glitches are determined" when figuring out of the other options factor into the glitch-determination at all.

[almost normal]

If edge can be spent so late that the GM has already said, "your gun has jammed" and ignore the effect, then you can spend edge before all the dice have even been rolled and still negate the effect for that roll.

I think you're reading into it too much. There is only one use of edge that specifically interacts with glitches, and that's downgrading the glitch itself. The rules say you can do that after the GM tells you what the glitch ends up doing. This doesn't imply that edge is now treated as a DPM (Though it does imply you hate your GM if you ask him to think of a suitable glitch and then tell him it doesn't happen. Srysly, making up glitches on the fly is hard (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) ).

[Draco18s]

(Though it does imply you hate your GM if you ask him to think of a suitable glitch and then tell him it doesn't happen. Srysly, making up glitches on the fly is hard (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) ).

No, no it doesn't. I said I could.

As for the rest of it:
We've made our arguments and they are sound.

I see your argument and I see how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree with it.

[almost normal]

Sorry, I meant the plural YOU. While I think the intent was to provide understanding between GM and Player, it feels more confrontational then anything. Demanding something be created for you just to reject it? Not cool.

[Draco18s]

Demanding something be created for you just to reject it? Not cool.

Hold on, where did I even imply that it was a demand?
I didn't say "What's the glitch effect? Oh? Well, I spend edge, ha, take that."
I said, "I can live with a minor glitch. Wait? THAT'S what you're going to do? No thanks, I spend edge."

[almost normal]

Hold on, where did I even imply that it was a demand?
I didn't say "What's the glitch effect? Oh? Well, I spend edge, ha, take that."
I said, "I can live with a minor glitch. Wait? THAT'S what you're going to do? No thanks, I spend edge."

lol, ah fuck.

Im not implying you are an asshole.

I'm saying I can see a situation where someone, WHO ISN'T YOU, could be a total dick and have the full backing of the rules.

[Draco18s]

I'm saying I can see a situation where someone, WHO ISN'T YOU, could be a total dick and have the full backing of the rules.

Then the GM stops making up new ones. "Your mother dies." "I spend edge, then" "Moving on."

[almost normal]

Then the GM stops making up new ones. "Your mother dies." "I spend edge, then" "Moving on."

Yes. Which is why I don't like it. It's confrontational between player and GM.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Maybe in soft liberal arts and things like law with their current penchant for relativism

...Which is really what's being discussed. As you should know if you're actually as schooled as you claim, mathematical results don't have "intent;" that form of logic is not going to give you the best results when talking about a set of rules (laws, even). What we're doing in even discussing RAW versus RAI has clear analogues to constitutional textualism versus originalism. I stand by my assertions.

[Midas]

The problem is not the critical glitch meaning instant death it is the failure meaning death. If reducing a critical glitch to a normal failure glitch were the only option on a roll that showed half the dice pool of 1s and no hit, you'd have tests on with Edge expenditure is entirely pointless. If other options were available but would not remove the status of a critical glitch, you would produce two kinds of critical glitches (those without hits and those with hits only on edge dice), which has no basis in the rules.

I have no objection to use Edge to get vitally needed hits on a crit glitched test, and have no objection that you could get a crit glitch with hits. It's no stranger than a glitch with no hits.

All uses of Edge are exceptions to the normal rules. Longshot gives you a chance where the rules say you have none. Going first in initiative lets the REA 3 INT 3 guy impossibly act before the REA 9 INT 5 bad guy. Downgrading a crit glitch we have already covered.

Why I think the other interpretation is wrong is this: dice don't produce successes/failures/glitches, rolls don't produce successes/failures/glitches, but tests do. Only when tests are concluded can the result be determined without producing results that are clearly against the rules.

What I am saying is that the test result has already been determined, and use of Edge to reroll or negate a glitch takes place after this. The language and grammar used in both uses of edge supports this: you cannot reroll non-hits until you have established what hits and nonhits are, and you "negate" a glitch rather than "prevent" it.
In response to your 1-4 question
Crit glitch: Spot on.
Reroll: I do not see a crit glitch with hits as "illegal".
Edge Dice: "May modify the outcome of a test" does not mean DPM. The reroll is a separate roll alltogether.

In the case of a regular glitch rerolls must negate the glitch because the 1s are not there anymore, and keeping 1s is never mentioned in the rules. keeping the hits for the Edge reroll however is explicitly mentioned.
Long story short, conclude the test before determining the results.

If a glitch reroll is a separate roll, the ones are still there, and nixing the original roll is never mentioned in the rules either. The rules say that hits from the edge reroll are added to hits from the original test, which also completely fits my interpretation of events.

Conclude the test before determining the result, and then, if necessary, use Edge to subvert the results before determination of outcome.

[Midas]

Notably, the edge spent to negate a glitch could(!) even be spent after the GM has described the glitch. "Nope, I thought I'd be ok with the glitch, but no, I'm spending Edge to negate that effect. It's too detrimental to my goals."

So this interpretation of when glitches are determined is the strongest.

This is irrelevant, and does nothing to reinforce Dakka's position. If anything it undemines it, as it clearly disbunks his "conclude the test before determining the results" mantra - the results have been determined (there is a glitch), the GM has described the glitch, and you can still use Edge to negate it.

If you are trying to claim that this implies that you can use Edge to negate a glitch before it has "been determined", it does no such thing. There is a step between "determining results" (result: there is a glitch) and the GM "describing the glitch" (resolution: the glitch is this), so your rules quote does not infer anything about being able to negate a glitch before it has been determined.