So they take 1 rank in the skill and longshot - I still won't allow it. And I covered explosions in my rule-o-thumb, 'not counting explosions.'



I'd probably use 1/3 of the oppnent's dice pool as the 'threshold' they have to be able to beat with all successes. If they can't do that (4 dice vs. 15, say) no edge for crit success.

Regardless though, I still say the passage is ambiguously worded, possibly deliberately so, so as to allow the GM to rule however he wants for his game. I'm not even going to bother trying to poke holes in further examples, because the rule reeks of 'GM fiat' - not a bad thing in this case, but it's really something for each GM to decide for himself. I'm not asking you to accept my definition of it and use it in your game, I'm just saying that you aren't any more 'right' in this argument than knasser is. Both of you play it in a way that works for you and your players, and that's fine, but, as I said earlier, there is no absolute RAW on this.

Even then, the rules are clear. With one rank, they only get a max of 7 dice, barring any special builds. All you need to do is apply a -7 penalty and ask for a Threshold of 4 assuming an Edge of 3. That, by the book, is impossible; and therefore, cannot be done by burning Edge. There's no reason to come up with house rules and corner case logic, when most of the time, the rules themselves solve the problem for you.

The problem with the summoning/binding example is that the number of successes the other person gets is important in factoring Drain. So, if you allow the burning of Edge on the summon roll, you still need to roll the dice to get the Drain Value. And then, you're faced with the possibility of burning Edge on a Drain roll, to potentially reduce it to nothing. Personally, rather than having to make up a rule, I think it's just easier to allow the burn for Drain.

Regardless of subtle variations in the meaning of the word hope, no-hope means exactly the same thing as hopeless, and both mean impossible. Equating no-hope with low odds is just not proper English.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

Even a strict wording of the passage means that if it is possible for a player to get four net hits (no matter how unlikely), than Edge may be burned for a critical success.

Any other interpretation is a house rule and not RAW.

Side note: The most fantastic example I know of in real life is Nicholas Alkemade, who jumped from a plane at 18,000 feet with no chute and landed with no significant injuries. He literally walked away from the fall.

So...in Knasser's game, he was pushed out of the plane...since if he jumped, he was Metagaming, and would not have been allowed to burn the Edge.


Anyway...Here is kind of my take:

For once, I have to agree with Cain, and find Knassers rather personal vendetta against Cain bad form. I mean..for once, we have a thread where there are multiple people agreeing with Cain on an Edge related matter. That hapens very rarely, so, to me, that is indication of how wrong Knasser is here.

But, I shall look at things from a more analytical stand point:

What is Edge? Edge is, pure and simple, Luck.

The whole Burning Edge for a Critical Success relies on two things: First, what is being attempted must be possible for that character. Second, the character must be able to, with their current Dice Pool, be able to get a critical success.

Let us pause, and look at the aformentioned roll against a Force 12 Spirit. This is an opposed roll, with the Spirit rolling its rating in Dice against the mage rolling his/her magic+summoning skill(plus mentor spirit bonus, plus specialty). So, let us assume here that the Mage is a summoning build, Edge 3, Magic 6, Aptitude in summoning, with a 7 summoning, and the spirit they are attempting to summon is covered by their Mentor Spirit bonus, and their speciality. They are rolling 17 Dice without edge, while the spirit is rolling 12 dice. The Spirit decides to spend edge to add its Edge Pool to the Dice, making it rolling 24 exploding dice. Statisticly, this spirit is going to get 8 success, with 4 of them being 6s, allowing it a statical 1 extra success, or 9 Hits, however, statistically, 4 of those are also going to be 1s, so we have a, by statistical probability, 5 Successes for the Spirit. Are you saying that you honestly believe it is impossible for the player to beat 5 successes? Try this: the player spends an edge, adds his dice. He now spends 16 of his 20 dice for automatic successes. He has 4 successes already. He rolls his remaining dice, he needs to only get 2 successes on those 4 to get a Spirit summoned with 1 Service. If he has even a 2 Focus, this enters the realms of statitical probability. To me, this is very possible.

Now, how do you know that a Force 12 Spirit is beyond anything ever summoned into the World? No..seriously..give me page number in the 4th Edition books that says No-one has ever summoned a force 12 Spirit. Since, nothing that I just listed is impossible for a starting level, 400 BP character(they just sunk a HUGE amount of points into very specific things to do it), it can be assumed that a character with some experience(and Initiation Grades) can do this even more likely....Yeah, it would still not be something casually done, because it is dangerous until you are a Grade 6 Initiate with maxed magic...But, sheesh, summoning a Force 12 spirit, if you live through it, and send it at someone in a fight? Or summon it for healing as a quick summon, not an extended summon? If your enemies survive...that is something that would get Street Rep for....and get everyone who sees you start to summon stopping what they are doing and gunning for you....Sure, the act of using the Edge to do it is Metagaming...but, in universe? You will never be able to summon in combat again...no-one will let you!

@ Cain: I freely admit I skimmed lightly over the last few pages and completely missed the point about the drain value on the crit success summon, but since they're permanently losing edge I'd be happy enough to let both rolls succeed automatically (mostly because I couldn't be arsed figuring out variable results off a burned roll).

As for the plane comment, yes, if he was pushed I'd allow him to burn edge. If the plane was about to explode I'd allow edge. If he jumped out recreationally with a 'chute, which then broke, I'd allow edge. If, on the other hand, the player is being a doofus and having their character jump out of the plane with no 'chute for no good reason other than theat they know they can blow edge to live, I'd let them fall to a bloody death. See the difference?

The words 'case by case basis' spring to mind.

I see the difference; it's just it's not RAW, and it's a tad bit unfair.

Now, if you want to stay within RAW, and punish a player for metagaming, you just add more flaws to his character. You can add flaws as appropriate to a character who burns Edge for an ECD; so why not just stay within the rules, and apply more Flaws? Saddle him with the quadrupalegia flaw, instead of the parapalegia flaw you give to everyone else. This way, you stay within the letter and the spirit of the rules, instead of breaking one at a whim.

I would again just like to point out that the Rules as Written requirement for obtaining a Critical Success via Burning Edge is that you must be capable of performing the action - not performing the action successfully.

Having a dice pool of 0 means, in those circumstances, you cannot succeed at a task, not that you cannot perform it. Thus, as long as there is nothing physically preventing you from hitting Corporate Executive #1, you may burn Edge for a Critical Success on your attack, regardless of how far negative your dice pool is.

Of course, we do not run it that way (I believe) - for us, to burn Edge, you must have a dice pool of at least 1, which can still be achieved by using a Long Shot test, so it would almost never come up.

And just for the record, knasser: please calculate the odds of a GM scoring *six* critical botches in a single game, on no less than five dice each time. Long odds happen on a regular basis. I also had a dedicated summoner successfully summon a force 12 spirit. (He didn't have the materials to bind one that big, otherwise he may have tried.)

Apologies for not replying to this thread sooner, it obviously takes some time to go through everything.

Regarding those that are insistent that "no hope" has an explicit and precise meaning of "not physically possible" I simply repeat that common usage of the term includes things that are just statistically impossible - which has been conceded by those arguing - and that there is no superior technical meaning that can be referred to that proves common usage wrong. Firstly, if it was desired to say "forbidden by the laws of physics" or "utterly impossible" there are easy ways to say that. Secondly, at least two authorative dictionaries do not support those pretending that there is an authorative meaning:





In fact, the latter one, by an odd coincidance, exactly uses the phrase "no hope" to mean expectation of fulfillment or success. I would say that those adamant that there is no ambiguity are unfairly projecting their own subjective interpretation onto everyone else and in denial that the phrase allows GM judgement.

It's interesting that Cain has actually agreed with my intepretation (albeit I'm sure accidentally):


But the above is only really important to the side issue of whether or not you can say such an interpretation is RAW, which is why I get it out of the way at the start. The main point I was making since the very start, the one that Cain says he was deliberately ignoring which is irritating as it's the same as deliberately talking at cross-purposes in this case, is that if you don't make this choice to rule on probability, then you allow absurdities in your game.

Of course Cain edited my point so that absurdities became:


Which is where Cain and I differ. I say the GM must choose whether or not to allow such things to be in the game. Cain insists that the GM should not. For certainly he's repeatedly told me I'm being unfair to players in not doing so and I've been told that I'm playing "GM vs. Players" and other things. GM's should make a judgement call according to their own tastes, but my statement that allowing Edge to be burnt for critical successes on the hideously unlikely damages immersion in the game. I've already given it once, but being a good argument, some people have chosen to pass it by. I'll repeat:

If a character attempts something massively unlikely with huge risks, such as the 1000 to 3 chance of binding the Force 12 spirit, likely dying no failure, and they attempt this purely because the player knows that they are guaranteed four net successes through burning an Edge point, then the character's actions are being directed by player knowledge that the character does not possess. When such a thing happens, immersion in the game is damaged. The game nature becomes visible to the characters. The fourth wall is broken, albeit from the wrong side, like an audience member climbing onto the stage. Now whether or not a GM cares about this, is another matter and not for me to tell them, but my reasoning here is very sound. Unless there exists an in-game justification for the Edge Critical Success rule, some sort of "I psychically influence the laws of Fate" ability that people in the Shadowrun world have, then it is metagaming.

Now some care about this and some do not. I do and I've stated that my preference is based on believability rather than game balance. Being unable to really argue against someone's personal tastes, Cain tried to shift the argument:


This is meaningless rubbish. If I give everyone ruby slippers that allow them to teleport home once per session, then it remains balanced - everyone has the same advantage - but it doesn't fit with the rest of the setting, it jars horribly. Balance and believability are not tied together such that encouraging believability inevitably impairs balance. What crap.

But I actually object to trying to shift the argument less than I do when what I've said is being misrepresented to make it sound like I'm making judgements on people that I'm not:



I have explicitly said, right from the very start, that GMs can choose how to play. That you feel the need to change my line of "Allow burning Edge on ridiculously long odds and stupid and immersion-breaking things happen in your game." to "Allow burning Edge on ridiculously long odds and INCREDIBLY COOL AND AWESOME things happen in your game." does not mean that I have been calling other GM's stupid for how they play the game. If I say that the game Paranoia is filled with stupidity, does that mean people playing it are idiots? No. A character shooting an arrow out of the air is pretty stupid in that it's stunningly unrealistic, but I have never said that a GM is wrong for playing that style and have explicitly said that I don't have an issue with however people wish to play. DO NOT bait me by trying to make me look like someone telling others what they should and should not like so that it scores petty points for your argument. It is you and others who have been criticising how I choose to play, not the other way around: telling me that I am "unfair to players," that I'm "stifling creativity" and a "dictator GM."

EDIT: End of part one...

EDIT: Part two...

So on the subject of "unfairness":

I apply this equally to all players. It's therefore not unfair in the sense of inequality. If some consider it unfair that I am denying my players a particular style of play, then I'm afraid that's just how it is. I put a substantial amount of work into my game and I would not enjoy it if we were routinely wrenched out of internal consistency by metagaming. My players seem more than happy so it's a non-issue and as earlier stated, I find it far better to deal with these things up front by clarifying the rules, than to just sneak these things in implicitly through my judgement calls.

And finally, to clear up a few loose ends:

I have not. Find such a flat out statement, I guarantee that you have misunderstood.



I'd just like to observe that this is a shift from what I am talking about as it pertains to the Escape Certain Death rules, not the Critical Success rules.

The example is a bad one. If the player is using the Escape Certain Death rules, then they will certainly pick up some serious negative consequences as the book suggests, in addition to losing their Edge point. If we were looking at an example of a Critical Success burning, such as the spirit summoning that began this, then metagaming is a factor. But then with something like the spirit summoning, for reasons explained above, it is almost inevitably metagaming to try this whilst knowing you're just going to spend Edge to get four net hits.

@Cardul: Your summoning example is different to the original one - it's a very optimised for summoning build that considerably reduces the odds of failure, thus changing the issue of allowing or disallowing. Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by: "9 Hits, however, statistically, 4 of those are also going to be 1s, so we have a, by statistical probability, 5 Successes for the Spirit." The 1's don't cancel anything out. Regarding whether the F12 spirit is the most powerful that has ever been summoned, well it may not be, but it's a *very* likely death for the magician in the original example and it is certainly trememdously powerful. Things with Immunity To Normal Weapons 24, generally are.



I'll grant you that I've been pretty pissed off with Cain. But then the replies he kept making were deliberately ignoring my main point for the sake of arguing and misrepresenting what I was saying, deliberately I believe, since it's hard to misunderstand what I had explicitly stated repeatedly across multiple posts.



Cain, you surely know that it is not possible for me to provide you with such a calculation without also knowing how many rolls you made in that game and the size of the dice pools involved. A critical both on two dice is pretty likely. A critical both on 15, much less so. What you ask isn't possible to work out. And as Cardul amply illustrated, the difference between the original example and a dedicated summoner build is significant.

For my own sake, I'm going to have to draw things to a close for myself. I've spent an hour of my time writing all this now, time I could have spent doing something that earnt me money. My reasoning and arguments should be clear to everyone. I'll reserve further replies from myself on this topic to answering any requests for clarification on what I've said / believe.

Thank you,

Khadim.

Language is a funny and often illogical thing. The phrase "no hope" does not simply mean the opposite of hope; if it did just mean the opposite of hope then it would arguably have a range of meanings along the lines of hope having a range of meanings. (As pointed out by Knasser)

However "no hope' as a phrase is used and defined as equivalent to hopeless, or the lack of all hope. If I have any chance of success then I still have a hope, and the roll is not hopeless. In other words, in English "no hope" = hopeless = zero chance (or arguably chance so low that it cannot be calculated)

For Shadowrun, this means that if I am allowed to roll (penalties have not reduced my pool to 0, and the roll itself is not simply disallowed by the rules), than I do have a chance (and because of dice mechanics, it is calculable), hence by RAW I may burn Edge. Anyone is free to house-rule otherwise.

The only RAW point I can see being open to debate (I do not have my books available to double check the wording on this point) is:
When a roll could only succeed if the player spends Edge first (long shot to get past a 0 die pool, or using Edge in advance to get exploding dice).
May a player burn an edge on a roll they also spent Edge on?

No, it says "hope", not "no hope". Nitpick aside, it also doesn't say it's impossible, or even unlikely; it says that you don't expect things to go your way. It's not that I have no chance of winning the lottery, the odds are quite clear. But because I feel I have no hope, I don't even buy a lottery ticket, *making* it impossible.

Or take a real-life example. Yesterday, I looked at my watch, and decided that I had no hope of making the next bus. Now, technically, I *could* have made it in time; if I ran like hell, or hopped on my bike and rode incredibly fast. But the truth was, I didn't want to do what it'd take to make it happen. Thus, "no hope" doesn't mean impossible, or even improbable.


We have a hugely differing opinion as to what constitutes "hideously unlikely", to start with. A 997:3 odds are pretty good in Vegas; certainly I've seen people bet on longer odds and win. Second, immersion should not come at the cost of fun. Third, you've been adamant that GM's who allow it are "stupid", and haven't retracted, rephrased, or even realized that you're being insulting.


Oh, no you don't. First of all, don't try to slip that extra "with huge risks" into this mess. Second, how do you *prove* that the player is metagaming? I've attempted (and succeeded) in summoning large spirits, how can you prove I was going to burn Edge if I failed? What about a dedicated summoner? If they blow it, and burn Edge for a critical success, why should they be punished for it? If not, then what about a non-dedicated summoner?

(Note: My daughter just woke up with a cough. I'll get back to this later.)

As promised, I'm winding down now. So just some minor clarifications:



Nor has anyone says that it does. "No hope" is quite clearly semantically equivalent to "a lack of hope", hope is not present. Does anyone wish to argue with that? Hope, as defined by both the Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English dictionaries is explicitly: "an expectation of success." Nowhere in those definitions does it define hope as "allowed by reality," "physically possible" or other similar things. Therefore no hope = a lack of expectation of success. Common usage also supports this.

MJBurrage has the only potentially valid counterpoint to this in the whole thread so far with the following:


If the phrase, rather than the component words, is officially defined as, or in common usage unambiguously means "not physically possible" then one could argue that this is what the book means. I think it unsupportable to say that there is such a recognized official definition or that if you surveyed people as to what "no hope" means they would predominantly respond: "forbidden by the laws of physics" which is what the argument against me requires. It's wrong to pretend that there is no ambiguity in this phrase. There are a number of ways such a thing could be said without ambiguity if "physically possible" was the desired meaning. E.g. "physically possible." And regarding the last part of the above quote: "arguably a chance so low that it cannot be calculated," please remember that this is what we are arguing about. Cain has stated that billions to one is fine with him, that he considers "unbelievable" events a positive contribution to his game. And that is fine if it is what he wants. But if you agree that at any point along the line of ever reducing chances you will say enough is enough and not allow a critical success to be bought,
then you are in agreement with my main point. Where GM's draw that line is up to them, but Cain has argued that no such line should ever be drawn.

The words are exactly in front of you in the definition: "no" and "hope" right next to each other in that order, given as an example of a lack of expectation of success. Please re-read it. When you say that it does not say "no hope" you are provably wrong by anyone willing to scroll up the page.



Yes, I've been saying that from my very first post, I'd sooner you had actually read that on the numerous occasions I've posted it, but I'll settle for you arriving at the same conclusion a little late on your own. My point, often stated, is that GM's will draw the line on what constitutes hideously unlikely according to individual preference. That is as it should be, none of us can enforce our tastes on others games, although you seem insistant that no GM should draw such a line at all, calling such GM's unfair and saying they are wrong to do so.



What is insulting is you deliberately misreading something I've wrote and repeatedly telling people I am insulting them. I have several times because of this explicitly stated that I don't care how other GM's run their games and that it is all a matter of taste. It is you and others that are telling other people that they are wrong to do so and that they are stifling creativity or creating a "chilling effect." I would ask you to post a quote showing where I call any GM stupid for allowing such things, but you will only post the same quote as before which does not mean that and which I have already answered. So drop this. If you are unable to parse a sentence properly, even when explained to you, then the problem is not mine. I have no problem with any GM playing with such events in their game or not.



The original scenario was a low-power mage summoning a F10 spirit. That qualifies as huge risks since there was a very high probability they would die. Death counts as a huge risk. The term stands. As to the second, I'll probably ask them: "would you do this if you couldn't spend Edge," to which my players would likely respond "no fucking way." I find my players reasonably trustworthy so far. Proof enough for me.

Thanks,

Khadim.

Please stop bickering, both of you.

I'm done.

Cheers,

Khadim.

Peace

Actually, I've very clearly drawn a line: when the rules forbid a roll, then burning of Edge for a critical success is not allowed.

Well, first of all, a low-power mage might not be able to burn Edge at all; if his magic wasn't at least 5, he cannot summon the spirit, Edge or no Edge. Assuming a magic of at least five, I've personally done it without my character dying. I've also provided the stats for said mage, so people here can go over the numbers and tell me how unlikely it was.

Second, what player in their right mind would answer your question, without thinking that it's a trap? On a spirit of that size, spending Edge (not burning it) is par for the course. I would personally think that you're threatening to not allow me to spend Edge on the roll. If you asked them "would you do this if you couldn't burn Edge", you'd get a different set of answers. The most common answer would probably be a "No"; but if they did it anyways and rolled badly enough to die, they'd likely reconsider very quickly.

Please see upthread where I posted dictionary definitions of the term 'hopeless' which is equivalent to the phrase 'no hope.' Only one of several definitions of the word / phrase actually means 'impossible.' It is open to interpretation.



And knasser (and I), have drawn a line elsewhere. After the last few pages of discussion, we're obviously at a point where we're going to need to agree to disagree.

As I posted earlier, when most people say: "It's hopeless", they mean they don't want to put in the effort to make it possible.

For example, yesterday at the park, my five-year old daughter decided to race me down the path without saying "Go!" until she was at full steam. I'm an old fogey, so I thought to myself: "I have no hope of beating her." Now, I'm not *that* handicapped, so I probably could have caught up with her. I have grown-up legs, after all; it'd be like a troll chasing a human. Truth was, I didn't want to bother. By doing so, I made it so I had no chance, because I didn't try.

However in Shadowrun, when you're burning Edge for that critical success, it certainly does mean that you're trying! You are putting in the effort to make the impossible, possible. The whole thematic point of burning Edge is to achieve something you couldn't normally do! So, the "no hope" clause isn't a reason to forbid something if it's possible, albeit unlikely.

Actually, there is a third line that can be drawn, that is reasonableness.

Is it reasonable for a character to burn a point of edge to summon a high-force spirit? Yes, it is. Probabilities aside, a point of Edge is a huge resource expenditure far greater than the value of four services from any spirit, even one at Force 12. I don't see any point in denying such a costly purchase.

On the other hand, there is one particular roll that a character can legally make that is simply unreasonable to succeed at. This roll is for what I refer to as the 'One of these days, Alice' leap. Simply put, the threshold for a jump is determined by the distance that one is attempting to jump. There is no set limit on the jump distance that one can attempt. So, we can attempt to vertical jump of 384,403 kilometers in the general direction of the moon. Under the "If the roll can be made" interpretation we can burn Edge to critically succeed. Since jumping does not have a time interval, this happens in a single IP. The character, of course, dies from falling damage calculated from the point where the moon's gravity becomes stronger than the Earth's. But that's beside the point. The leap itself is absurd and if we have a sufficient number of IPs we've broken the lightspeed barrier. It is also a very useful tactic for infiltrating space stations.





You see, the first use of Edge is reasonable. The second use of Edge is unreasonable. That is the best place to draw the line.

That is not a flaw in the Edge burning rules, it is a flaw in the jumping rules.

I never said it was a flaw, just a quirk of how they interact under a certain interpretation. There is nothing wrong with playing an anti-satellite troll; I think that it would be a fun character type to play in a certain type of game. Nevertheless, a GM must apply a standard of reasonableness to such things.

I was addressing MJBurrage's point - I agree with your interpretation of the phrase, but it's abiguous as to wether it is deemed hopeless by the character or by the GM. Both could be argued for, and both have different implications.



This is where I draw the line too, but, like knasser, I'm more inclined to take other extenuating circumstances into accout (wether or not the player is obviously metagaming, for example).



It's not actually a flaw in either of them. The jumping rules allow you to jump as far as your skill will allow - this is reasonable. The ege burning rules allow you to get a critical success unless there's no hope of achieving the action you are attempting. A character with no pistol skill who's almost dead burning edge for a critical success to hit a moving target in the head is feasible - there's a chance, albeit small, that the bullet will go where he wants it. A character with no jumping skill burning to leap from one skyscraper roof to another is also feasible - he may normally be a crappy runner, but adrenaline does wonders. A character jumping to the moon, or trying to kill someone they can't see 3 miles away by arcing the bullet is not - the first is literally impossible, and the second is so stupidly unlikely that it leaves suspension of disbelief lying dead in the gutter.

The edge burn for crit success rules are deliberately vague so that the GM can allow them for dramatically appropriate and cool uses, but not for stupid or metagame-y ones.

Having just read the rules on jumping, I note that there are maximums unrelated to hits as follows:

• Running horizontal jump – "The maximum distance a character can jump horizontally is equal to her Agility x 1.5 (round up) in meters."
• Standing horizontal jump – "The maximum distance for these jumps is equal to the character’s Agility in meters."
• Vertical jump – "The maximum distance for these jumps is equal to the character’s Agility ÷ 3 in meters."

So no jumping to the Moon regardless of Edge use or burning, since jumping more than the limit is impossible.

EDIT: cross-post with Muspellsheimr

Forgive me if I am repeating something here, but I just started this thread and worked through to about page 3 of the entries, and thought the following discussion I had with the Powers That Were a while back might support some position on the high Force summoning and burning Edge issue:

************
Question 2)

In SR4, on p.68 it says that burning a point of Edge can be used to “[a]utomatically achieve a critical success on one action. The character must be capable of carrying out the action – you can’t buy a critical success for something you have no hope of achieving.�

What happens if, in an opposed test, both participants choose to burn a point of Edge? Do the two burned points nullify and require an actual roll of dice?

Yeah, in that case, they just cancel each other out.


These questions come up for me as both a player and a game master, because if Edge can be used for both parts of a magical skill test that involves a success test and a drain test, it would be possible for a player to generate a character who, in her first action ever in a Shadowrun game could –guarantee- success in the summoning and binding of a Force 12 spirit! All she would need is enough skill and attribute values to have a chance to succeed, small though that may be, and 4 Edge points she is willing to burn (for each action, one point to buy success in the action, and one point to survive the terrible drain).

4 Edge points may seem like a lot to spend for one spirit, but Force 12 is a very powerful spirit, with a huge range of powers and optional powers available to it. The assumption of “4 or more net hits� for a critical success (SR4 p.59) means that after summoning and binding using burnt Edge points the spirit has at least 8 services owing to the PC (SR4 p. 179-180). And then there is the fact that rebinding the spirit holds much less danger for the PC than the original binding (SR4 p. 180-181). So, once summoned and bound, the Force 12 spirit could be kept up forever for the PC as long as she manages to resist enough drain to bring the physical damage low enough not to kill her (ie. down to 9 boxes or less, assuming she has no buddies around to stabilize her). She could keep trying and failing and healing until she got some more services.

Sure ... but what GM would allow this? There are many ways in which you can play with the numbers and come up with ways to break the game ... but you're breaking the game. It's the GM's job to not allow flagrant violations of the spirit of the rules in these cases. Sure, maybe summoning a Force 12 spirit could be the pivotal act in some plot climax, but just doing it cuz you can tweak the rules that way doesn't really count much for actual roleplaying.

Of course, the spirit has Edge as well. In SM p. 95, the issue of spirits using edge is addressed. It is not likely, according to the guidelines there, that the Force 12 spirit would bother to use Edge to resist the original summoning, and would wait to watch the pipsqueak magician toast in her own drain, but it probably would wise up and use Edge to resist the binding. That’s where the question of opposed uses of burning Edge comes up. Seeing that the rookie magician is willing to burn Edge, the spirit (with INT and LOG of 12!) would have no problem understanding that it was in for permanent servitude unless it burned Edge too.

Yep.


:: Rob Boyle ::
Shadowrun Developer for FanPro LLC
info@shadowrunrpg.com ~ www.shadowrunrpg.com


**********

Peter

Of course, NPC's burning Edge is more than a little bit cheesy, since the GM has an effectively unlimited supply.

As far as continually rebinding the spirit goes, it only works so long as you can earn karma faster than you're using up services. It costs 9 karma, minimum, to replace 2 points of lost Edge. When burning Edge for a crit, you only net 4 successes; thus, four services. It takes two or three sessions to earn 9 karma, depending on the game. But basically, it amounts to one or two services per session if you want to keep the spirit. That's really not too bad, considering. And besides, one can burn through four services in minutes.

So, net result: said character will never advance again, all to keep up a trick she can only use once or twice a game. That's not nearly as unbalanced as it originally sounded.

Oh, and one other thing: I still maintain that a spirit who is well treated is less likely to rebel, regardless of force. If you have Spirit Affinity with this force 12 spirit, have been taking good care of it, interacting with it, and so on and so forth-- it's going to be less likely to rebel than the force 3 spirit who you have Spirit Bane with, and have been mistreating.

Since failure on rebinding doesn't cause the spirit to become uncontrolled, the need to succeed only extends as far as surviving the drain of the attempted rebinding (which, granted, may be difficult). Therefore, Edge is not needed for every rebind attempt. So, the Karma cost of rebuilding Edge is not an issue.

I agree that maintaining good relations with a spirit increases the likelihood of good behaviour on the part of the spirit. The point I was making in the question to FASA was about a raw rookie getting a powerful tool. in SM, page 95, it says, "Spirits can also use Edge to assist their resistance roll to the original summoning, but will generally not do so unless the discrepancy in power between them and an impudent conjuror is large...:. Such a discrepancy surely would exist between a Force 12 spirit and a 0 Karma conjuror. I see it as right and proper to play the spirit as being affronted, angry and prepared to nuke the wimp.

Now, some Immortal Elf or Great Dragon doing the same conjuring, I can see your point. Where the boundary might be between the two extremes of experience in conjurors that delimits the spirit's choice would have to be up to the GM.

Peter

I might agree with "using Edge", but I'd definitely disagree with burning it.

Also, once again, I'll point out that there are other factors involved. In Parliament of Thieves, which I ran last weekend, our dedicated summoner successfully called forth a Force 12 spirit. Because he was such a powerful conjuror, and because he had Spirit Affinity, I thought it'd be excessive of me to use Edge against him. Even with 0 karma, the right Spirit Affinity should count for a lot as well.

[edit]
Considering that said spirit gets 24 dice to resist binding with, and the fact that this drain is going to be Physical, said conjuror will, on average, be staring down 12P, more damage than a Panther XXL. That's certainly survivable, but still highly dangerous. If the spirit rolls better than that, the DV could go way, way up; easily to the point where the only way to survive is to spend Edge for a critical success on the Drain test. At any event, if you don't burn Edge, you're not likely to get any additional services out of the spirit; your only guarantee is to burn Edge if you don't get any in the first place.

So wait, I can't have anti-sat trolls? And I was planning to ask Squinky to draw up a picture of a troll taking down a LEO communications satellite with a giant sword.

The principal of reasonableness, however, does still apply. Some actions are just insane. I don't think summoning a powerful spirit is, mainly due to the karma cost.

I agree, Cain, it should count.



Actually, Cain, you underestimate the average Drain Value. With 24 dice, the average hits are 8, which doubled lead to a Drain Value of 16P. So, yeah, you have to be seriously risk-friendly to try this. Let's look at a conjuror who has WISDOM and *OTHER ATTRIBUTE* totaling 12, one focus-sustained, appropriate Increase Attribute at 3 and, hell, a Mentor bonus of +2, and the conjuror gets 17 dice, which gives her about 6 hits. Oops. THEN she -uses- not burns Edge to re-roll failures and live.

One hell of a way to make a living, I agree. But a PC up for wielding a nearly unstoppable force right out of 'school' might just take such risks. I would be willing to try playing such a PC, but I believe that the GM would rightly have the Force 12 spirit resist her right at the start. Even if she is kinda cute. "Listen, kid, come back when you have the right to talk to me." If she is Affine, the spirit may just Engulf/swat unconscious/Fear/... her instead of squashing her. Or maybe interrupt her attempt to Bind it and tell her, "Look, I am NOT going to let you do that, cutie, so quit it or you will fry yourself."

Peter

My bad.


This is probably a difference in play styles. While I'd consider having the spirit use Edge on a new PC, I wouldn't do that to a new player. They're just getting a feel for the system; me modeling powergaming is probably not a good thing. I'd be afraid that they'd think the way to succeed in Shadowrun is to munch out a dice pool.

Of course, that leads to the future issue of: "I did it before, why can't I do it again?" That's why I believe in RPing it out. How people treat their spirits should be the guide, and not just power levels.

Ahhh... new PLAYER is a totally different thing from rookie PC in my book too. Sorry for not making that distinction clearer from the beginning.

If one can burn a permanent Edge for a Critical Success, why can they not spend an Edge for a regular success, or even a hit?

Well, how many regular successes is a point of Edge worth? Remember, it would have be of some level usefulness that is comparable to critical success. Otherwise, the 'no-brainer' would be to go for Critical Success.

Yeah, but that leads to the discrepancy of: "I could do it before, why can't I do it now?" We both agree that springing a surprise like that on a new player would be bad, but what happens once that player has a few runs under his belt? He might say something like:"They didn't rebel when I was just starting, why are they rebelling now that I'm an initiate?" And he'd be right. How would you deal with that?

I would try to prevent the situation from arising in the first place.

At a table at Gencon it may be difficult to discriminate between a new player and a reckless experienced player, but in a home game I would warn the new player - on his first attempt at something glaringly stupid- that there are ramifications he may not have considered (something along the lines of the Common Sense Quality). If he insists on continuing the course of action, I would let the scene play out. If the likely result occurred, I would fudge it to keep him alive somehow, hopefully making it uproariously funny for the rest of us. I know Shadowrun is a game of 'glass cannons', but it is a game, and a new player deserves a bit of coddling. I would be clear in the debriefing that such coddling would not continue. If he tried the same stunt again... "Well, I warned you..."

Some players don't care if their PC dies as long as the cinematic effect is impressive. Over beers afterwards it can be a great story. Assuming I know the player well enough, I would be happy to make his PC's death entertaining.

It is harder to decide what to do in the situation of a game at a convention, where you don't know the players. In the milieu of the Sixth World, the stupid die young, and the Shadowrun game is promoted as an excursion into a dark and deadly place. Not knowing the player, I would give her something along the lines of, "Are you SURE you wanna do that?" Or, if you want to be snarky, "Exactly how long have you been playing Shadowrun?" If she went ahead with her decision, I would let the dice fall as they may, in deference to the potentially experienced players there who may know better. Of course, now as I say that, why didn't they do something to convince her to be more cautious? Well, maybe they were giving the player the respect to run her own PC.

Hmmm.. this sounds as if I would give more leeway at a home game than at a convention, when it may be more likely that new players get exposed to the game at a convention. Would getting squashed the first time in turn a new player of Shadowrun on or off? The problem for me is that in a convention situation there is no chance to follow up on being kind to a new player with demonstrating the actual consequences of rash behaviour if it is continued. And the other players may themselves be disaffected by overly protective treatment of someone who did something self-destructive. Certainly we don't want to fall into the trap of that other game, in which a certain convention campaign turned into Monty Haul on steroids. One of the many aspects of Shadowrun that attracted me in the beginning was just that gritty, dangerous nature that made success feel earned.

One way out of this conundrum is to have tables for rookie PLAYERS, where it is made clear that learning the game and finding it fun supersedes teaching the consequences to the last degree. Other tables then can be as dark and deadly as many of us love. Not all conventions can afford that luxury.

Alternatively, it may be up to the GM to discern early in the game how his players are disposed towards the gritty nature of Shadowrun. And to make that nature clear at the start to new players. In the long run, a player will have to learn. And your point, Cain, is fair. If a player is treated one way in the beginning, and has no sense that it is because of his newness, then why would he not expect the rules to be the same later?

So, what about the player who has "played since the 70's and I've saved the world 7 times?" I would be as assiduously fair as with any other experienced player. And revel in having the Force 12 spirit consume her PC graphically. Or, if the miracle happens, clap her on the back and say, "That was awesome! Don't expect it to work out every time, but that was awesome!" Either way, then I would share the story over beers afterward. And then sit at home nights earning my GM stripes figuring out how to deal with the monster.

Peter

I kept up on this thread till Cain and Knasser got into their big debate, so forgive me if I touch on something that they did. But here is how I would run it.

If the character has the ability to roll a critical success on the test (i.e. in the case of summoning a spirit, they are rolling at least 4 dice) then they can burn edge to get a critical success. If they need to spend a point of edge to make a longshot test, then thats their edge use on the test, and I would not allow them to burn the edge.

As far as damage resistance tests, same thing. Try to summon/bind a stupidly strong spirit in comparison to you and burn your edge on the summoning test. Now you're looking at however much drain. 20, or whatever. Unless you have 24 dice or more to resist with, you can't burn an edge to critical, because you can't critical. You can spend edge to explode your 6's, or re-roll failures if you want, but thats your edge use on that test, so you can't then burn it to critical.

I can't find/think of any situation in which thise causes broken uses of edge to come up, while still allowing burning it for those dire situations.

I'd let it be burned on any test. The fact is the price in karma to regain that point of edge is likely to exceed the karma gained for the run if the person has a decent edge pool anyway, and if they don't, they'll have to burn lots of edge just to keep from dying.

My point exactly. When someone comes new to gaming, or any particular game system, how their first game turns out will forever color their expectations of the game; and possibly gaming in general. I was in a lot of Monty Haul OD&D games in the 70's, and it's taken years to undo some of that damage.

I wouldn't want a new player to get either impression: that summoning a Force 12 spirit is easy, or that Shadowrun is a game where, if your dice pool isn't big enough, you'll get squished. So, there has to be a middle ground-- obviously, there is, because new players and newcomers both can leave a Shadowrun table with a good feel for the game. In my mind, allowing a burning of Edge for a critical success on the spirit summoning, binding, and various Drain rolls isn't going to be a big deal. They'd have to blow 4 points of Edge at maximum, which is a lot for any character, and will take forever to earn back with karma.


Technically speaking, you *can* burn Edge after you've spent it. The rules are very clear that burning and spending Edge are not the same thing at all. If that's your house rule, then that's great! But according to RAW, you can spend then burn Edge.

I'll also point out that if someone botches the drain test, they're going to be burning Edge anyway, for an Escape Certain Death. In both cases, they're burning Edge to survive the Drain roll, so what's the difference?

You know...I never thought of dying from bullets or from failing to resist drain to be "escape certain death." Because it is not "Certain death." ECD for me is: You are pushed off the roof of the Corporate Court, you are dropped into a threshing machine, or you are ejected from your vehicle as a Banshee is right over your head. In other words, things where death is so certain, that there is no Damage Resistance Test being made. Certain Death means no reasonable chance of survival. If you fail to soak the drain on summoning that Force 12 spirit, and you had 10 health boxes, that means you had 3 or 4 body. So, you would, assuming you do not need to soak more then 12 drain, be unconcious, and in your overflow, but...you would still be alive. If you successfully summoned the spirit, well...I guess one of its services is going to be: carrying you to a hospital.

Yes, you can. I was stating my houserule in order to curb abuse of edge on tests.

If someone botches their drain test, as cardul pointed out, they're not guaranteed dead yet. They still have overflow to bleed through. But, the difference is that edge isn't spent on the resistance test, its spent to avoid dieing. After the resistance test fails.

Just so we are getting it straight, in the example of the Force 12 spirit, the average DV from a Binding would be 16P. So, it would be a rare magician PC that could absorb that without reduction and still be only on Death's door.

Body 6+ could do it. Or less if they have some full cyberlimbs. Less also if they have trauma damper/platelet factory.

It's likely with a legal combination of an Edge of 6, Willpower 5, Drain Stat 5, and Summoning Focus 2, to take the drain down to 9 boxes and still live to talk about it. So, burning a point of Edge only means that you don't take any damage on your drain test.

Unless of course the Spirit spends Edge also.

Spending Edge doesn't mean it's impossible for you to soak the drain with exploding dice. It just makes it less likely.