[X] My Assistant

[phlapjack77]

Edge doesn't need a cost reduction. It needs some clear guidelines for when it refreshes.

For my part, I would refresh players' Edge as follows:

These are pretty much mostly still GM-fiat though. Anything that a player spends points on yet almost wholly relies on GM-fiat seems like a bad mechanic.

Lionhearted's suggestion of sort of a throwback karma-pool idea for Edge makes alot of these problems go away. Sure it's GM-fiat when you get karma, but it's not something the player spent points on, so there's no room to complain. There's no more Mr. Lucky builds either, a good thing imo.

[All4BigGuns]

Try and re-read what I posted - especially my better-stated edit, but even the original you quoted.

For example, I defined "significant participation". Granted, my re-edit upped the bar slightly, but only because the topic got me thinking more about the idea in general.

And, I defined the third point pretty well. If, in a group of six (GM and five players), you can get thre people at the table to spontaneously applaud you, cheer you, or curse the very ground you walk on (etc) ... refresh a point.

And even if that remains "too" subjective for your tastes ... All4, the entire game is subjective. Every bit of it. Because the GM can over-rule whichever parts she wants, with full line-item veto power. Or add whatever she wants, for that matter. If the GM wants to declare that all trolls look like Sully from Monsters, Inc ...? In her game, they do. Period. End of story. Thank you for playing.

You did succeed in fixing the issue with the second one, but the first should still be changed to "the start of each Session", at least for Edge to be worth what it costs.

All in all though, Epicedion is right. Edge just needs to be dropped down the well and removed from the game entirely.

[_Pax._]

These are pretty much mostly still GM-fiat though. Anything that a player spends points on yet almost wholly relies on GM-fiat seems like a bad mechanic.

The whole game is GM Fiat.

[All4BigGuns]

The whole game is GM Fiat.

Not if run properly. The "Rule Zero" thing is something that should be used very sparingly. Overuse of it is a possible sign of a poor GM. (I won't use it at all, however, as I hold myself to a higher standard when I run than I hold the players to)

[Patrick Goodman]

Oh, c'mon, guys. This is why we can't have nice things!

[phlapjack77]

The whole game is GM Fiat.

You could reduce the whole thing like that, yeah (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But then, why have any rules in the first place if that's the position you take? The point should be to identify areas where (better) rules can make the game better, rather than leaving things largely to GM fiat. Edge seems like one of those places (to me, anyway).

[All4BigGuns]

You could reduce the whole thing like that, yeah (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But then, why have any rules in the first place if that's the position you take?

Exactly.

The point should be to identify areas where (better) rules can make the game better, rather than leaving things largely to GM fiat. Edge seems like one of those places (to me, anyway).

Edge, the Matrix and maybe vehicle combat/chase are about the only areas I think need attention. Changes anywhere else is just trying to fix something that isn't broken.

[phlapjack77]

Edge, the Matrix and maybe vehicle combat/chase are about the only areas I think need attention. Changes anywhere else is just trying to fix something that isn't broken.

I agree with you that these are (seemingly) pretty big areas that need fixing. But it seems like there's tons of other areas that need fixing too, such as Attr vs. Skill (effectiveness, point cost, etc), magic gtfo-ness, spirits being overpowered, hardened armor / damage, the list goes on and on.

I think this isn't an area of conversation pertaining to die pools though, so I'll stop now.

[Falconer]

The whole game is GM Fiat.

Yup... this is what happens when you advance your favorite motif of 'ignore the rules' to it's logical end conclusion.

The GM ignores the rules... and you are subject to his diktats. With not even the paper shield of the rules.

And you wonder why I argue both sides of the fence as a rules lawyer... and do my damnedest to point out broken mechanics. And utterly dislike the 'pat' answer of... if you don't like it... don't use it or Rule 0 it. Not everyone has that luxury... and i choose to argue for them.


As for the other silly notion of yours... it's not metagaming when players spend edge. But it is when a GM uses edge pool for NPCs? When he looks across the table after a roll and askes if you'd like to spend edge on that reaction test to avoid getting shot. Yet he's not allowed the same discretion for a prime NPC. No, rather than playing by the dice... yes I guess he should just 'ignore the rules' and invoke plot armor.

[All4BigGuns]

As for the other silly notion of yours... it's not metagaming when players spend edge. But it is when a GM uses edge pool for NPCs? When he looks across the table after a roll and askes if you'd like to spend edge on that reaction test to avoid getting shot. Yet he's not allowed the same discretion for a prime NPC. No, rather than playing by the dice... yes I guess he should just 'ignore the rules' and invoke plot armor.

I've never seen a GM that asks if you want to spend Edge on a test. The GM's rolls are secret, and you have to decide with no information whether to spend Edge or not, but the players' rolls are in the open, so yes it is metagaming for the GM to spend Edge for the NPC.

[Epicedion]

Spending Edge is a metagame decision, just the same as Combat/Spell/etc pools in SR3 -- as a player you're dedicating a limited game stat resource to some in-game task. Something that has no analogue within the game world itself. As a player you're saying "I want this to be easier for my character" so you deduct a point and suddenly it's easier.

[All4BigGuns]

Spending Edge is a metagame decision, just the same as Combat/Spell/etc pools in SR3 -- as a player you're dedicating a limited game stat resource to some in-game task. Something that has no analogue within the game world itself. As a player you're saying "I want this to be easier for my character" so you deduct a point and suddenly it's easier.

Basically the breadth of the GM's knowledge of the situation, the plot and the players' rolls just makes giving Edge to NPCs too much. A challenge is one thing, but Edge can turn a 'challenge' into a TPK.

[Epicedion]

True enough if looked at in those terms, but that doesn't solve the issue that the GM has full knowledge of whether the NPC needs it, but the player will never know if he needs it. This gives unfair advantage (especially if the GM is one of the sorts that overuses "Rule Zero").

That's sort of a dumb issue, because the GM isn't supposed to be out to get the players. This is part of why I find Edge to be a stupid mechanic for NPCs to use against the players -- the GM doesn't need help making things harder for the PCs, and most NPCs are barely worth the notecard they're printed on so it's not like you desperately need them to be able to save themselves. Major antagonists typically get a few get-out-of-jail-free cards anyway so they can escape the fiery crash or whatever.

[sk8bcn]

I've never seen a GM that asks if you want to spend Edge on a test. The GM's rolls are secret, and you have to decide with no information whether to spend Edge or not, but the players' rolls are in the open, so yes it is metagaming for the GM to spend Edge for the NPC.

Yay. I guess you're the kind of rule-player type (the one always able to find the rule and argue about everything). No seriously, can't the GM be honest? I mean I don't need to "meta-game". I don't play against my players.

I can wipe them out any day. I just have to build a situation for this. I could roll 10 success on a die roll, no need to spend edge, I just have to pretend that I did it.

But that's not my game.


I quite do not get why Edge refunding needs such clear guidelines. These are areas were GM is the most likely to house-rule anyway. Back in SR3, I found karma pools growing damn big. Contrary what was written, I ruled out that they would refresh every scenario.

The rest is history.

If, at your table, Edge refresh very often, you'll probably buy only a few. If it refreshes very seldom, you'll probably dump it too. Else you will increase it. Accordingly to the usefullness of the stat (which also depends on the type of games your playing).




About Attribute versus Skill costs, IMO, a fair balance is Attribute cost=3*skill cost. You, then, wanna balance skills and attributes a bit and not overly increase one versus another.

[All4BigGuns]

Yay. I guess you're the kind of rule-player type (the one always able to find the rule and argue about everything).

No, I'm not, and how you get that from the quoted post, I have no idea.

[bannockburn]

No, I'm not, and how you get that from the quoted post, I have no idea.
<snip, a lot of other stuff: main areas: remove edge from the game; bad GMs are bad

To wit: Dumping one stat in favor of others is the very definition of minmaxing.
You claim to build characters with Edge 1 AND a quality that makes it give you even more points, because you think it's useless and will probably not use it. Congratulations, you're a minmaxer and playing the rules. Not that this is a bad thing, but there it is.

As for the rest of your ~20 last posts: I will not even try to refute your points, because it seems pointless to me. Most of your postings lack reflection or make broad claims and are so highly subjective that I can't even find where to begin.
You think edge is useless, for various reasons, and that's fine for you, your table and everyone who agrees with you. The claims you make, however, are not universal, and it would behoove you to try for once and look over the edge of your own plate (is that a thing in English? Well I guess you'll get the metaphor) before posting.

What I will do, is point out a few things:
There are two things that guarantee you (without resorting to GM fiat) to regain edge. One is rolling a critical success, the other is rolling a critical glitch.
However, the same section says

We recommend refreshing Edge at the beginning of each game session, though in some cases it may be more interesting or challenging to only refresh Edge when a full adventure has ended, or when specific goals have been met. One possibility is to refresh 1 point of Edge for each achieved goal, and the rest when the scenario is completed. Alternately, Edge can simply refresh every day.

I really don't get why it is so very difficult to use one of these suggestions.

At my table, I use the specific goals approach and a lot of GM fiat to refresh edge, as it is, in our opinion, far too useful to refresh at the start of each session. See what I did there? This is a personal opinion, that's diametrically opposed to yours. It is not more or less valid than yours. It is what works for us.
However, it is also what a lot of the people use that I've met over the years, so I can deduce that it is a somewhat common opinion.
Basically: You spend edge at my table, you'll get it back if your character has time to rest, fulfills his goals and whatever other suggestions are found on p. 74.

Now, a digression to illustrate my point:
In this thread it has been said that refreshing edge is too much relying on GM fiat. It's also been said that the whole game is GM fiat. Both are, in my opinion, not true.
The game in itself is not GM fiat.
The rules provide a foundation upon which the GM builds his campaign, his one shots, basically everything that uses his imagination. That part is GM fiat. I think I'm not leaning too far out of the window if I say that most people agree that this is not a bad thing. This dude is the one providing their fun by creating the world, after all. The GM presents an adventure, we try to succeed in it, his plan tries to thwart our efforts. As basic, as you can get, of course.
Now, why is it suddenly a BAD thing, when the same dude you use as a referee, uses his views and sense of fairness to arbitrate when you get back edge? Why not trust the guy or gal to be fair not only in creating your fun but also in rewarding or punishing you? It's not a thing I will ever understand.
Your GM is usually not some kind of moustache twirling evil guy who's out to get your character, you, your dog, your grandmother and the free world. And even if he was, his power is only in the game world, so you could just ... you know ... get up and leave if you're not enjoying the game.

Based on this line of thinking, I'll refer to your point of "Bad GMs use edge badly and thus it should be removed from the game".
This is utterly ridiculous.
In the same vein you could say "Bad players use X badly and X should be removed from the game".
Does the fact that people build pornomancers as fringe case example warrant a removal of charisma from the game?
Or do trollwalls mean that body should be removed from the game?

I'm sorry, but no. You cite fringe cases to remove edge from the game, you cite fringe case to remove cyberware for adepts from the game and I could probably go on if I were to look up some of your other postings over at jackpoint.
I get the distinct impression that you've had a lot of bad GMs in your life as a gamer. You don't trust the GM, you want complete creative control, and demand complete insight into the GMs stories and plans.
I don't know why bad GMs flock around you, but could it be that your standards are impossible to meet? This is a rethorical question. I don't have a real basis to have real insight into your reasoning over the internet and I don't know you personally. But maybe try to reflect on some of these questions for yourself, instead of dismissing them out of hand.

Re: NPCs use edge.
See above, GM fiat. NPC usage of edge does not make edge useless in itself. It does, when the GM is bad. But then you already have other problems.
My NPCs use edge in ... not a lot of cases. Mooks don't even have edge. Prime runners and other powerful entities have a varying attribute and will use it, but usually defensively. I'm not out to kill my players, but I will let a BigBad use his edge to soak more damage or to flee. I've let spirits use edge against binding if their force was over the summoning character's magic attribute, but this happens so infrequently that none of my players have really had problems with this. Enemies will use edge to the same degree as prime runners will. Sometimes in a blue moon, an NPC will use edge to sneak up on characters.
I feel like I'm doing it right, since no one's been complaining.

Also, interestingly, players in my circle of acquaintances will raise their character's edge, use it and even burn it, and it's the odd man out that only has 1 in this attribute, and then usually only as a character concept, not because the player thinks it's useless.
My own characters usually don't start with less than the average for their metatype (so 4 for humans, 3 for everyone else).
I dislike the concept of karma pools of 3rd and earlier editions, since a lot of players had so much karma that they would just reroll everything.

In conclusion:
I think Edge is a wonderfully diverse mechanic that makes the game WAY more interesting. Edge is more finite than karma pools and I like that.
If you think it's useless, use it as a dump stat, but don't complain when your character crit glitches and / or dies.

[phlapjack77]

The game in itself is not GM fiat.
The rules provide a foundation upon which the GM builds his campaign, his one shots, basically everything that uses his imagination. That part is GM fiat. I think I'm not leaning too far out of the window if I say that most people agree that this is not a bad thing. This dude is the one providing their fun by creating the world, after all. The GM presents an adventure, we try to succeed in it, his plan tries to thwart our efforts. As basic, as you can get, of course.
Now, why is it suddenly a BAD thing, when the same dude you use as a referee, uses his views and sense of fairness to arbitrate when you get back edge? Why not trust the guy or gal to be fair not only in creating your fun but also in rewarding or punishing you? It's not a thing I will ever understand.
Your GM is usually not some kind of moustache twirling evil guy who's out to get your character, you, your dog, your grandmother and the free world. And even if he was, his power is only in the game world, so you could just ... you know ... get up and leave if you're not enjoying the game.

I don't think your post was directed at me specifically, but it does touch on things I've said about GM fiat a few posts above, so I'd like to respond (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

At it's basest, everything in the game can be considered GM fiat. Your character's Toughness PQ is only useful when you get attacked, something the GM fiats (?). Your magic is only useful if the GM decides not to constantly use wards / mana level stuff. Your allergy to silver will only ever come up if the GM introduces it in the game somewhere. Etc, etc. If we're able to move past this and accept this, we can move into the area where we talk about having actual rules.

If you trust your GM as much as you say, why have rules at all? Why have a Pistols skill, when you should trust your GM to say "Yeah, you've got a clear shot, your character is "really good" with pistols, so...yeah, you hit." There are games for free-form storytelling like this, but SR isn't one of them. SR has rules, and that's one of the many reasons we're playing it. We can (within reason) decide the outcome of situations using rules, skills, dice.

So if we've established that having rules is a good thing, then I hope we can move on to see that when areas are identified as relying on GM fiat, that there's the possibility that taking away the GM fiat and adding rules could be a good thing. Probably a good thing. Definitely a good thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) In the area of Edge, when a player spends honest-to-goodness resources on Edge, it seems it would be better to have a real mechanical rule on how often the Edge is usable.

Speaking about the karma pools, I agree that if Edge accumulated too quickly based on karma it can get too easy to reroll things. But that's also fixable by adjusting the rate of Edge increase. Wasn't 2nd edition like every 10 points of karma was 1 pt in the karma pool or something? That seems too high, but it can be tweaked to make the idea workable and not overpowered.

The rest of your post, I heartily agree with.

(sorry if this post is incoherent or has a weird tone, I'm trying to practice getting my thoughts across with the written word)

[bannockburn]

If you trust your GM as much as you say, why have rules at all? Why have a Pistols skill, when you should trust your GM to say "Yeah, you've got a clear shot, your character is "really good" with pistols, so...yeah, you hit." There are games for free-form storytelling like this, but SR isn't one of them. SR has rules, and that's one of the many reasons we're playing it. We can (within reason) decide the outcome of situations using rules, skills, dice.

So if we've established that having rules is a good thing, then I hope we can move on to see that when areas are identified as relying on GM fiat, that there's the possibility that taking away the GM fiat and adding rules could be a good thing. Probably a good thing. Definitely a good thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) In the area of Edge, when a player spends honest-to-goodness resources on Edge, it seems it would be better to have a real mechanical rule on how often the Edge is usable.

I think, in general, we agree. Rules are important to provide the foundation upon which the adventure is built. Do not take control over the shot away from the player, or you just force the group to sit there and here you prattle and tell them your story instead of involving them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (Exaggerated for dramatic effect)
I just tried to illustrate that there ARE in fact several suggestions on p.74 to handle edge refreshment. It's not as if it's pure GM fiat. But where it is, trust the guy (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Edit: But since this isn't really pertaining to the topic of the thread, I'll leave it at that.

[Patrick Goodman]

I've never seen a GM that asks if you want to spend Edge on a test. The GM's rolls are secret, and you have to decide with no information whether to spend Edge or not, but the players' rolls are in the open, so yes it is metagaming for the GM to spend Edge for the NPC.

That's a quality control issue with the GMs you've played with, then, not a rules issue. The GM's rolls are as secret as he wants them to be, but with few exceptions, at my table at least (and those of dozens of GMs I've played games with over the past 30-odd years), most of them are pretty open. Most of my players can see my dice unless it's critical for the story for them not to.

It's a roleplaying game. It's not a competition, as you make it out to be in most of your posts. Seriously, man, what is your issue with GMs?

[Epicedion]

That's a quality control issue with the GMs you've played with, then, not a rules issue. The GM's rolls are as secret as he wants them to be, but with few exceptions, at my table at least (and those of dozens of GMs I've played games with over the past 30-odd years), most of them are pretty open. Most of my players can see my dice unless it's critical for the story for them not to.

It's a roleplaying game. It's not a competition, as you make it out to be in most of your posts. Seriously, man, what is your issue with GMs?

It helps to think of the other posters as a haphazard collection of misanthropic shut-ins.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It totally didn't refresh each session. If it refreshed each session I'd have spent all four.

We refresh every session. Works out really well.

[sk8bcn]

No, I'm not, and how you get that from the quoted post, I have no idea.

Well it was just how it looked like. At least how I perceived it.

"We recommend refreshing Edge at the beginning of each game session, though in some cases it may be more interesting or challenging to only refresh Edge when a full adventure has ended, or when specific goals have been met. One possibility is to refresh 1 point of Edge for each achieved goal, and the rest when the scenario is completed. Alternately, Edge can simply refresh every day."

To me, as GM, this is enough. Guidelines are pretty clear and I'll do accordingly to my preferences. It could be even writen like "GM must refresh pools under these X conditions" I could change it accordingly to my own tastes (alongside with players. I'm always willing to hear their own tastes/points of view).
To summarize: I'd overrule this anyway if unsatisfied.

As a player, I wouldn't care for the same reasons as stated above (let's play within GM envisionnement with my own taste expressed).

The only case I'd like, as a player, to get clear rules about it is for arguing with GM and tell him: "look the rulewriters themselves tells to refresh this way your pool. Your technique is too slow/quick/overpowered..."


That's where it came from. In thruth , I don't know how you are. It was not a personnal attack. I play with pleasure with some of my players that are rule lawyer and handle the situation pretty well. I think it helps me to better my GMing.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I've never seen a GM that asks if you want to spend Edge on a test. The GM's rolls are secret, and you have to decide with no information whether to spend Edge or not, but the players' rolls are in the open, so yes it is metagaming for the GM to spend Edge for the NPC.

Just becasue you have never seen it does not mean it does not exist.

Our GM's always ask us if we would like to spend Edge in a situation that we think is important (Players or GMs). They will also let us know if the expenditure of Edge is not a necessity. He rolls, I roll, I don't like the outcome of my roll and say I want to spend Edge. The GM says that it is not necessary, that the roll I had was a success. He will not stop the expenditure of Edge if the player insists, but he does mention if it is not a necessity. *shrug*

[sk8bcn]

If you trust your GM as much as you say, why have rules at all? Why have a Pistols skill, when you should trust your GM to say "Yeah, you've got a clear shot, your character is "really good" with pistols, so...yeah, you hit." There are games for free-form storytelling like this, but SR isn't one of them. SR has rules, and that's one of the many reasons we're playing it. We can (within reason) decide the outcome of situations using rules, skills, dice.

So if we've established that having rules is a good thing, then I hope we can move on to see that when areas are identified as relying on GM fiat, that there's the possibility that taking away the GM fiat and adding rules could be a good thing. Probably a good thing. Definitely a good thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) In the area of Edge, when a player spends honest-to-goodness resources on Edge, it seems it would be better to have a real mechanical rule on how often the Edge is usable.

First a disclaimer: I don't know what "fiat" means. I've taken it as "personnal view". If that's not the case, I may have misinterpreted some points.


IMO, you make a mistake there. It's not because a GM defines an interpretation of a rule or house rule something that such a rule is unfair.

You pointed out that it's a good thing to have a rule for pistols. I agree. However, I wouldn't be mad at my GM if he modified armor, damage or added a penetration value, whatsoever. I'd express my opinions on his rule and then let him decide what he want to do.
Likewyse, if he says Edge refreshes every game session, it would be ok too.

But it's not about having a rule or not. He HAS one. It doesn't change every day depending on his mood. So no, it's not proven that having a clear rule by RAW would be better (ps. I'd probably overrule it anyway (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ).


To me, Edge refreshment is too closely linked to the GM-ing style. A heavy in action-GMing requieres more refreshment. Heroic style requieres regular refreshment. On the Edge-GM-ing style requieres low refreshment. Heck, even between two same-style GMing, the average length of a session makes a difference (with group A, length of session=4h, Group B=8h). That's typically a zone where rules shouldn't be written in stone.

[sk8bcn]

Just becasue you have never seen it does not mean it does not exist.

Our GM's always ask us if we would like to spend Edge in a situation that we think is important (Players or GMs). They will also let us know if the expenditure of Edge is not a necessity. He rolls, I roll, I don't like the outcome of my roll and say I want to spend Edge. The GM says that it is not necessary, that the roll I had was a success. He will not stop the expenditure of Edge if the player insists, but he does mention if it is not a necessity. *shrug*

I do the same usually.

Oh and 95% of my rolls are open. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) i'm sometimes scared myself for the result when the life of the character is on the line.

You might feel bad when something awfull happens. But it's such a great feeling when the character win on the edge (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)