Depending on the type of game, street with tons of grit or nigh on super heroes, the use of Edge does different things.

Generally I take burning edge as an opportunity to allow a character to move in a different direction. A character concept I ran once was a ganger who got double crossed and shot in the back while on the highway, was hit by a semi and left for dead (in pieces) in a ditch. The idea was that a "burned edge" point saw that his old cyberarm happened to have a doc-wagon contract associated with it and through a constelation of screwups he ended up in a clinic getting chromed out to save his life. He wakes up with a few hundred thousan nuyen debt, massive essence loss and spotty memory. Made for great fun.

When GMing I try and inject similar bits of development when a player burns edge. If the game is street level they tend to be on death's door rather than just out and out murdered - if hit by a car, for example, they are broken and spattered but not dead and can awake to considerable medical costs, possible essence loss from injury or the need for cyber replacement of destroyed parts. Negative qualities are also a good way to follow up a burned edge that shouldn't, but does, save a character's life. Some times, depending on the situation, a burned point of edge just saves their life. A sniper firing from a great distance into someone's dome may just get a deflection off of the skull. The player takes a couple of boxes of damage, is knocked prone and is considered to possess a guardian angel. Other times, especially in situations of overwhelming damage and circumstance (a bomb, your car getting hit by an ATGM or something) the consequences are far more dire.

[wanders in late to conversation]

Dammit. I've been telling people that I was the root of all evil. Friggin squirrels have gone and stolen my thunder.

Grow an adorable tail and you can stay in the running.

Players have only burnt Edge twice in my game, both times to survive. I ruled that they were one box away from the end of the Overflow, but stable. My feeling is also that it reduces your maximum Edge (to prevent total immortality) and that you can only burn it if you have the point available to spend.

I likewise always make sure edge permanently is reduced. Like a cat's lives, there is a point when your luck will run out.

Possession by a spirit is a good way to handle burning edge to survive an otherwise impossible situation. Any possessed person gets Immunity to Normal Weapons, which is described as "all weapons that are not magical" with the caveat that any substance you're allergic to still works. So even a Thor Shot can be survived by having a spirit possess you just before it hits. Then the spirit walks off with your body, does what it wants to do, and (maybe) leaves the player to deal with the consequences of "their" actions later.

Of course, if the rock being thrown down is also possessed by a spirit...

...hey, I just figured out how to fix Chicago.

I have a couple of things to say on this subject. The first is to promote the greatest house rule I ever made (not difficult - I've made three). I start all PCs off with their minimum racial Edge (2 for humans, 1 for the rest) and this cannot be bought higher. It rises, similarly to the karma pool in previous editions, as a function of karma points you earn. You get your next point of Edge when you earn 10 karma points, then the next when you earn a further 20 points. After that, you've got to earn another 40 points before you get another precious point. 80 after that and you can see where this is going. The sequence when you actually add it up (10 + 20 + 40, etc), works out at earning an Edge point at 10,30,70,150,270 and 590 karma.

The effect that this has on the game is absolutely great. You avoid a cartoon feeling in the early parts of the game and by the time you get to later levels, your players are used to thinking realistically. It also means that starting characters have a genuine feeling of vulnerability but a character you've invested more time in automatically has a bit more of a buffer against you losing them.

Relating this to the original topic, it means that when you burn a point of Edge, it's really burnt. It's not ever coming back. That's great for low-levels where players could otherwise burn an Edge point and then buy it back cheap.

On the subject of what you can get for burning Edge, it's worth highlighting the following parts of the actual text:


Taking the latter one first, it's pretty clear that you don't get a free restart button you can use at any time. The more severe the situation, the more entitled the GM should feel in heaping on negative consequences. A month in coma, a permanent negative quality, a precious contact is lost, your home blown up or whatever. As far as I'm concerned the latter issue is dealt with.

As regards the first one - getting a critical success, I would say that the intent is to allow characters to survive desperate situations, not abuse million to one chances. The Force 12 spirit for example... Assuming a Magician with Magic, Willpower, Summoning and Binding all of 5 and perhaps a Force 2 Summoning focus and a Mentor Spirit bonus of +2, then even ignoring the initial summoning, the chance of successfully binding and getting a service from the spirit is about 3%, assuming the spirit gets its average number of hits on its resistance test. The likely drain is 16P. Chance of surviving that with 5 Willpower is about 13% assuming you have medical aid on hand ready for when you collapse. Put the two together and you're looking at a 0.3% chance of success.

Is a 0.3% chance sufficent for the GM to rule the player has "no hope of achieving." Sure, why not? If the character violates internal game logic (a person attempting something when they know that "997 out of a thousand magicians that try this will die") by using metagame logic ("My character can burn two Edge points so I'll be fine."), then that character deserves to get flattened by the GM.

The problem is this isn't "impossible", just unlikely. And anytime you'll be burning Edge, it's likely because the situation is already unlikely and desperate. "Impossible" in this case would be trying to summon a Force 13 spirit, since that's above double his Magic. We'd all readily agree that he had zero chance of pulling that off.

Also, Edge makes the calculations unpredictable. If he spent Edge on both tests, saving the burns for later, his possible successes goes up by a decent margin. And there's no cap based on the number of dice he rolls.

I'm not so sure if it's RAW.

But I like the idea of perminantly lowering max edge. However I think they should be able to burn when they don't have a point to spend.

If you don't go that way be sure to tell your players ahead of time.

Nah, the problem is a player that says "There's a three in a thousand chance I could do this so I'm going to confidently attempt it knowing that burning an Edge point will make it happen." My solution is just to say those odds fall under the heading of "no hope" and tell them so. No actual person would gamble their life on 1000 to 3 odds willingly, so unless you have a concrete in-game explanation for Edge that makes is a reliable force, aka, "I'm going to invoke my Powers of Destiny that every person and cop knows they have and can consciously use," then it's not believable for any character to try this unless they were utterly, indescribably driven to it by circumstances. I can't think of any circumstances so desperate that summoning and binding a Force 12 spirit is the best response. Can you?

I know we'll disagree on this Cain (we've done a similar dance before, have we not? ), so I'll just say that the above is obviously the solution to the problem of players abusing metagame rules knowledge which is the real issue, that it works thematically and also add the following support for it for those that need it: If a three in a thousand chance is not sufficient to say that something cannot be achieved, then where would you draw the line? One in five-thousand? One in ten-thousand? If you're willing to grant Edge to anything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics, then you're on your way to running some extremely silly encounters.

And if you do draw a line somewhere, as any GM will have to if a player tries to bend believability out of shape too far, then where do you set it? At one in ten-thousand? One in five-thousand? Or maybe at three in a thousand where we came in where some idiot decides to gamble her life on those odds just because they think the game rules will save them? For me it's the latter. Normally. I'll adjust it perhaps according to whether the player is actively taking on more than their character can handle or whether they're trying to escape from a situation they've gotten themselves into which is too tough for them. The latter gets more sympathy from me because it's not the intention of the player to break the reality of the setting, they're just trying to stay alive.



As I referred to above, I'll make allowances for that, but the example of summoning and binding a F12 spirit is a bad one - it's a twelve hour ritual with the 6,000:nuyen: of materials you happen to have ready. It's hard to think of a circumstance where there aren't better options than that!



Yes, it was a simple analysis that I did, but though it's going into the specific example too much and away from the general point, a Force 12 spirit in my game would be an extremely powerful being and it would have 12 Edge of its own. Unless the magician had taken specific actions to encourage friendliness from the spirit (e.g. saving a forest from development before trying to summon a mighty plant spirit), then such a spirit would be quite likely to just spend an Edge point of its own. You're then looking at maybe 13 hits and 26P damage to soak. The magician's friends will be lucky if they find an eyeball after that!

It's not RAW. But it works extremely well. I have three house rules: the fixed Edge progression, my own weight-lifting rules (because the published aren't realistic) and that you can only have one sprint action in a combat turn. The last one because I think this is as intended and it produces very plausible results in this case, and turns everyone into better than Olypmic athletes if you allow multiples.

I don't like house-ruling, but the fixed Edge is just too good. IMO.

People win the lottery all the time. The odds of winning depend on your local game, but the occasionally run to billions of combinations vs one ticket. Since I see more unlikely events occur every day, I tend to be relaxed about what's possible and impossible. Remember, I'm the GM with an unbroken string of critical botches tracing back to the late-ish 90's. I've personally rolled all ones on 12 or 13 dice. I've also seen players hit a TN of 57 in a game of SR3. So, I think if they have a statistical chance, you should let them roll. The issue I have is that it's an autosuccess mechanic, eliminating the need to roll entirely. That tends to be broken.


If I had my say, I'd grant a roll for each and every circumstance you name. Who knows what'll pop up? When I summoned a Force 10 spirit, no one would have guessed that it'd critically botch both the summoning and binding rolls. Since that character only had a Magic of 5, trying to summon and bind a Force 11 spirit would be impossible, and burning Edge would be rightfully disallowed. But I ended up with two critical successes on the two rolls, *without* burning edge. Grand total, I had 11 services out of that spirit, and no Edge was burnt.

The problem is that anytime you grant a roll, you have to allow for the burning of Edge. That's what's broken. You have to be able to say: "This is impossible, there is no roll you can make" in order to disallow the burning of Edge, by RAW.


Wherever is most fun for everyone. If it bends believability all out of proportion, but renders everyone slack-jawed in amazement or rolling on the floor in laughter, I'm going to let it fly.

I can think of one or two. If you know you're facing a Force 10 spirit, summoning and binding a bigger one to deal with it may be your only viable option, for one. Or if you're a possession-based mage, summoning a big one might be your best bet for surviving a really nasty run.

Also, while I know this isn't statistically valid, some players just have "hot streaks" and some GM's have damned unlucky ones. If you know you're having a hot night, and you know the GM is having a bad one, you might as well funnel that into your character, and do something risky. There's no reason to deny the player a chance to roll, or spend Edge. And if that's true, the rules say you also have to allow the burning of Edge.


IMO, that's slightly cheesy. If someone has been abusing spirits, and warned for abusing spirits, then each and every spirit he tried to summon and bind would be blowing Edge. I see no reason why a high-force spirit should be any more or less likely to spend Edge than a weaker one. Like I said in another thread: a Force 10 spirit that is well-treated will cause less trouble than a Force 5 that is mistreated. If one spirit starts to rebel, then all the spirits should start to rebel, right down to the watchers.

I sort-of agree. I think it still leads to the SR3 problem of high-karma characters having way too much of an advantage, but it's better than what we have now.

Ah, but there are millions of people playing the lottery. It's not a long shot that someone will win, you've got to ask when was the last time YOU won?

But this is just thread padding on my part... The important part is this:



You do. You're the GM and you get to say what's possible and not today. My point is that all of us here who are GMs are free to actually say something isn't possible based on it being ridiculous odds. You're problem, as you say, is with the "autosuccess mechanic." I am just pointing out to other GMs that firstly, you can consider outlandish odds to fall under the "no hope" category if you wish, that if you don't do that at some point, the belief of your game is going to take some very heavy hits and that it's not in character for a person to gamble their life on thousands to one odds because a player has some metagame reasoning to apply.

As GM of your own game, you're not bound by that, but I'm laying it on the table as an option for all of us GMs to remember we can use if we wish.



Well I'm just going to call you Mr. Lucky from here on, then.



The rules say the GM has to allow that there is hope of achieving something. As I've pointed out, you have to rule the outlandishly improbable as "no hope" at some point, or else people will be leaping out of aeroplanes every other session and landing on passing dragons who kindly drop them off outside their home. (Then spending four karma and buying up their Edge again). Now if a PC is pushed out of an aeroplane, I might make some allowance, but that a character opens the door, says to his team mates: "I'm sure something will turn up," and steps into the void. Well such a character is asking to be pancaked, and I'll cheerfully oblige them.



As I say, no argument. Each their own. I'm more concerned with GM's feeling pushed into letting their internal consistency get trashed by a PC acting on metagame knowledge, hence offering a supportable means of defense.



I'll challenge you on that. If you know a powerful spirit is coming for you and you have twelve hours to prepare, there are better courses of action than taking a 1,000 to 3 chance of summoning something that will maybe hold it off while you lie bleeding on the floor from the effort.



Nope - you just say the player has no hope of achieving something and let them do something different or kill themselves if they're too stubborn to accept it. Remember, this isn't a case of the GM forcing a player to die because the GM wont allow them to burn Edge, it's a case of the GM not helping them do something that the PC knows is almost certain to kill her.

Everyone has their own game style. Which is why a GM shouldn't be forced into a particular style (e.g. Warner Bros), by a player abusing metagame knowledge.

-Khadim.

In my game (and supported by the stat blocks on the critters themselves), the more powerful the spirit, the more intelligence and will it has of its own. F1 Fire Elementals in my game are as dumb as five year olds and about as manic - vicious or playful little firestarters zipping about the place. A F6 spirit is far smarter than most people you know and it behaves with the depth and foresight you would expect from such a being. Get to something like a F9, and it's a mighty and majestic creature with a hugely strong individuality. All things being equal, I might let things go either way, but PCs can affect outcomes by good role-playing. If a magician passes out through drain but they use spirits only for noble purposes that the spirits would see as positive (e.g. my previously mentioned forest spirit protecting woodlands), then the spirit will likely not stomp the magician, but leave him be. If the magician abuses spirits or treats them as slaves, then the magician might well find the that F9 spirit views service to him not as a simple task to be done with and gone, but as a dishonour that must be fought against with all its will (by spending Edge).

There's no "if one spirit starts to rebel then all the spirits should start to rebel, right down to the watchers." It works according to my flavour as above. A watcher probably wouldn't even bother to spend Edge even if they didn't like the magician - they have little mind and not enough power to resist whether they try or not. More powerful spirits are a different issue all together.

There are millions of people playing the lottery, but trillions of combination, depending on your game. The odds of anyone winning are substantially less than 0.3%, yet people do so every time.


The problem is that once you allow a roll, you acknowledge it as possible. I'll use the same example: Magic 5 mage trying to summon a Force 12 spirit. No roll is permitted, therefore no Edge can be spent or burned. It's just impossible. Magic 5 mage trying to summon a force 10 spirit? Unlikely, but possible. I did it without a dedicated conjuring build; dumb luck took care of the rest.


Heh, you'd be the first. Remember, I always botch at least once a game when I GM Shadowrun.


In 1972, Vesna Vulovic managed to survive a fall from 33,316 feet, without a parachute. You can call it what you will, but stranger things than falling out of a plane and surviving have happened.

If you allow the roll, you acknowledge that it's possible, however unlikely. If you tell them: "Sorry, even with your Magic of 6, you can't roll to summon a Force 12 spirit", that's different and a house preference. You have set the precendent that it is impossible in your game. It's not RAW, but it doesn't have to be.

Heh. Well Google didn't know how many lines (attempts) in total are bought by people each week in the UK lottery, so I can't work out what the odds actually are. But if a 1000 to 3 chance (.3%) is coming up week after week after week, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask to see your figures.



And I don't allow the roll. I understand where you're coming from, and I know you understand what I'm saying as well, but I'll just say it again that I file it under "no hope" and have done with it. If a player insists that it is possible to succeed, really insists, then I'll just hand her the dice and ask her to prove it. She's welcome to try but I'm going to kick her out when its time for bed. Of course the player might resort to maths to prove that it's possible at which point I'll simply re-iterate what I have said here (twice): If no line is drawn at some point against ridiculous odds, then the game becomes stupid. There is a point at which you can look at the chances of something and say it's not going to happen. If you accept that, then for me, a 1000 to 3 chance is good enough to do that with. If you don't accept it, then prepare for ignorant gutter punks to start landing space shuttles and mixing retro-viruses. I'm just laying the choice out for people so that it's obvious how things work. Of course you as GM can say that a 1000 to 3 chance is not sufficiently outlandish to be considered "no hope." You can even, as you do Cain, say that a 1,000,000 to 1 chance isn't unlikely enough. (And yes, I know 1,000,000 to 1 chances come up 9 times out of 10 ). But note the wording: it says "no hope" not "forbidden by the laws of Physics." Or "metaphysics" in the case of spirit summoning, I suppose. It's within RAW (for those that care) to rule out the 1,000 to 3 chance.

And I believe that unless a GM wants a game where the silly happens, then the GM should rule such chances as "no hope." The issue isn't the character being forced into situations where they are unlikely to survive and depending on burning their Edge to survive. The issue is where a character willingly engages in a course of action because metagame knowledge assures them of success. I've said all this before. There isn't really any other way I can say it and be as clear: If you want a technically incompetent gutter punk character on a plane to shoot the pilot and say "I'm feeling lucky, I reckon I can fly this to Atzlan on my own" then you can chose to interpret "no hope" to mean "utterly impossible." You as GM are free to do that. But a GM is also free under RAW to say: "there's no hope of that, you'd better think of something else."



Yes, but these botches have given you something to support your argument. Even when it comes down to luck, you're metagaming, Cain.



Ah, but I bet he didn't step out of the plane deliberately knowing that the Edge rules would save him. And that's my point. I'll be more generous with a player that's just trying to survive. Those that try to convince me their character feels lucky enough to play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun (because, hey - it might jam), well they pay the price.



It is too RAW - as said: the passage reads "you can’t buy a critical success for something you have no hope of achieving." Perhaps I'm just a pessimistic sort, but I call 997 out of 1,000 no hope. At least if you engage in it deliberately. Sorry, Mr. PC. Put a few more points in Logic next time.

If you understand what I'm saying, I suggest we not go around again and again and again. But as always, I am happy to argue with you if you disagree, Cain.

Regards,

Khadim.

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know!) the odds of winning $10,000 in the Mega Millions game (not the jackpot) is about 1:689,065. I can't find how many prizes of this level have been awarded, but let's just say there's been plenty.


Let's say they do it, without burning Edge. They successfully summon and bind a force 10-12 spirit, without killing themselves or having the thing go uncontrolled, but only earned 1 service out of the spirit. Would you allow them to burn an Edge to go to a critical success, and now have 4 services? Or, if you'd seen them do this trick without burning Edge before, would you forbid them from trying again?

Remember, in this case, they have the right to roll and try. Even if you don't think they should be allowed to burn Edge, they have the right to make the roll. It's within both the spirit and intent of the rules for them to try, for whatever reason their character decides. My argument is just that if they're allowed to roll, they have a chance at making a critical success normally. And if there is a chance, they should be able to burn Edge for a critical success.

The odds of summoning such a high force spirit are low, but not impossible. Players can and do have really good dice rolls. And I'm of the school that says: "Let them try." I figure it's better for a player to roll, even at a huge penalty, than it is to tell them "No, you can't." If the fail, they feel like they had a chance. And if they succeed, then they're probably going to be jumping up and down for joy; I'd hate to crush someone after that.


She, but that's beside the point. The fact is, if someone wants to burn a point of Edge to simulate her feat, I have no reason to deny them. You're referring to a variant of the Hit Point problem-- as long as the have Edge to burn, the players feel invincible. If I felt it was a serious metagaming problem, I'd consider applying more Flaws as a result-- Vesna did not escape totally unscathed, she was in a hospital for months, and IIRC she didn't walk for almost a year. The rules give me that right. But since the rules give them the chance to roll, they have the chance of a critical success.

You can simply say "No!" to that case. You can't default to Pilot Aerospace anyway. No default, no roll.

Like I said, what happens if they roll it without burning Edge, and succeed? Or have done the same feat in the past?

If you're feeling really mean, you could say they botched on their critical success, since both are possible. That might solve the problem you're having. But basically, my opinion is that if they have a chance to roll, they have a chance for a crit. If you completely disallow a roll, then it's fair to say that it's impossible.

Oh, one more thing. If you're determined to have spirits resit them, for whatever reason, then the spirits can burn Edge as well. That leads to an interesting matchup. I consider nameless NPCs burning Edge to be the height of GM cheese, but it could be a valid use in someone's playbook.

I can work out the odds of your chosen numbers coming up for myself. What I said was that you also need to know how many entries were made before you can say how likely it is that nobody wins.



Probably. I'd refresh their Edge pool and give them bonus karma as well. If a player gets a 1000 to 3 chance come up, then I have no problem with it.



No - because the chance of doing it twice in a row is now over 1,111,110 to 1. That's even less likely to persuade me to allow a roll.



I think this is the fourth time now. I UNDERSTAND YOU! But a GM does not have to allow a roll if the GM decides there is no hope of success. If it's thousands to one against, a GM is able to say there's no hope. A player with a very poor grasp of probability or delusions of telekinetic power might have hope, but it's the GM that decides. And, again for the fourth time, if the GM is unwilling to rule something as without hope based on ridiculously long odds then they open their game to Bug Bunny style gameplay..

That is all. How much clearer can I make this:

My point is this:


You are repeatedly arguing that you would allow the player to burn Edge. I know this. Everyone knows this. You have said it four times. Now in what way does that at all contradict what I am saying is that the GM has two options as above? You choose option 1. We get it! We know! You've told us! Four times! Look everybody - Cain chooses option 1!

Now for the love of whatever you hold dear, please stop repeating yourself in the mistaken belief that you are contradicting what I'm saying. I have described the choices to people. I have explained the consequences of the former choice. I have qualified and shown how the latter choice remains RAW. What problem do you have with that?



You feel you do not. Others of us do and that reason is for the sake of stopping the game from turning into Stupid: The Metagamingâ„¢. You, like everyone, has a choice. Stop making out that I said people must play my way. I am outlining the choice. You're relentless pounding home of "I choose option 1" is nothing to me. I. Don't. Care. (no offence).





I'll give them karma and let them wear my hat for the rest of the evening. Such luck deserves reward. But they ain't buying Force 12 spirits, not in my game!



I have no problem - I don't allow burning Edge on deliberately chosen impossible tasks. It's metagaming.



A difference in playing styles. A F12 spirit would never be a nameless NPC in my game. I'd ad lib a full history and personality for that level of power. Players gain in my game by having spirits with personality. Example: A beast spirit summoned once (F5) decided it was enjoying slaughtering guards so much (the service they had) that it decided to carry on rampaging around the complex creating a great distraction for the party for the rest of the run. It was just in character for the spirit. Players can get advantages from their relations with spirits, they can get disadvantages. It's all based on their actions so there's nothing unfair about it. Action followed by consequence. They know how it is and they make their choices or not as they wish.

If you believe the odds are so long, they shouldn't even get the chance to roll, that's one thing. But if you believe that they have enough of a chance to make the roll (statistically possible, if however unlikely) then IMO they deserve the chance to make a critical success. Basically, I'm saying that *if* you allow the roll, you have to allow the option of burning Edge. If you're not allowing Magic 6 magicians to roll for force 12 spirits, that's a different matter, and you're right.


Yes, you are the GM. Yes, you may ban highly unlikely rolls if you like. But following the Rules As Written, they have the right to make the roll and blow themselves up. Burning Edge represents that miniscule chance that they succeed.

Let's turn that back on you. If someone wants to burn an Edge to survive a fall from a plane without a parachute, would you allow them under *any* circumstances? Even knowing that someone probably fell from a greater height, and survived? We're talking the "escape certain death" clause here, not the autosuccess one I have more of an issue with.

Now, for the easier question: if you did, and you felt the player was metagaming, would you inflict more penalties on him for being cheesy? I freely admit that I would.

That's fine. But would you allow them to roll at all?

Definitely a difference in playing styles. I'd give more personality to a long-held force 3 spirit than to a brand-new force 12 one. Just because it's more powerful doesn't mean it has more experience or personality.

Yes. I understand. I disagree with you.. The rules say don't allow it where there is "no hope." For me, I am happy to say a 1,000 to 3 chance of success qualifies. Especially, and this is important, when the character is engaging in that course of action willfully because of a player's metagame knowledge.



You are saying things I never said. I have never said do not allow a roll. That is quite clear. What I have said is do not allow a player to claim there is hope of success on any ridiculously outlandish improbability so that they can fudge a success with the Edge rules.



I have already answered this question several times. If a player falls from a burning plane without a parachute, they can spend an Edge point to escape death. They'll likely take some serious repercussions such as broken limbs, damaged organs, etc. Or if I don't think I can make the fall from the plane believable then maybe they'll be rescued by a spirit or a magician which will exact a hefty price for its aid (probably negotiating while they're still a mile up and falling). If a character willingly steps out of the plane because the player wants to spend an Edge point to do something suicidal and get away with it, rather than pursue a course of action that the character would realistically take without that metagame knowledge, then they're going to become pancake. As I've said repeatedly.



It wouldn't arise, I wouldn't allow the roll.



Did I mention not giving personality to a long held F3 spirit? No I did not. I actually provided a characterisation of how I would play the personality of Force 1 spirits, if you care to go back and read my post. However, a F12 spirit has an intellect and a will and a charisma that is substantially beyond what even a magically or technologically augmented person could ever hope to be. This makes it, if you're going to portray it realistically, more likely for its personality to project itself onto the actions its taking and the decisions it makes. Yes - if players wildly piss off spirits and then try and summon one of the mightiest of them, they'd best be prepared that it might resent it and fight back against control with greater than normal might. On the other hand, if they are respectful to the spirits they summon, or summon spirits to perform actions that are in accord with their nature (such as a Beast spirit hunting down their enemy), they may well be lucky enough to find the spirit spends Edge to accomplish that task better. Stop making out that I'm "cheesy" and trying to crush the players in some sort of adversarial relationship. The players know how spirits work in my game. They aren't automatons and they are not secondary PCs for a player. So the players are free to behave with that in mind. If a player knowing that decides that they're going to carry on pissing off spirits, get themselves a reputation for such behaviour, and then try and summon some mighty lord of the astral to do their bidding, then they might get what's coming to them. They were warned. They did it anyway. Not my problem.

Knasser, if you do not want to allow a player to burn Edge for a Critical Success on something they *are* allowed to roll on, that's fine. It is not, however, RAW. RAW, if you have a chance of success, regardless of how small, you may burn Edge for a Critical Success.

That means that if you are somehow reduced to rolling 1 die to bind a Force 30 spirit, you are allowed to burn Edge - the chance of your success may be in the billions to one, but it is still greater than zero.

That's fine, if you disallow a roll entirely. But if you allow the roll, you open yourself up to the possibility of a critical success. If you allow a roll, you essentially acknowledge that there is hope.

Let's try the plane example again. Someone falling from 10,000 meters would be facing roughly 5000 boxes of damage, if I read the falling rules correctly. We can do one of three things:

1. Disallow a roll in its entirety; and by doing so, disallow any chance of burning Edge for an auto-crit;
2. Allow a roll, and if that fails, allow the burning of Edge;
3. Allow a roll, but not the use of Edge.

I think we agree on 1 and 2. It's number 3 where we have difficulty. Now, if you're saying that you'd disallow a chance to burn Edge for an auto-crit on the damage roll, I'm right there with you. That's a case for "Escape Certain Death", I wouldn't allow someone to walk away unscathed. But if you allow a roll *at all*, you've opened up the possibility of success. That's a different can of worms.

Here's one I don't agree with. If two characters invoke the same mechanic, they should both get to live. Like I said, I would (and have the right to, as a GM) inflict stricter penalties on the one I felt was metagaming. But both should get the same result out of the same mechanic-- namely, survival. The RAW gives you the right to inflict Flaws as you deem appropriate to someone who burned Edge to Escape Certain Death. But without changing the rules, you can't allow one person to do the same thing as another, and not get away with it. I'm not attacking you, but that is a good way to get hit with charges of GM favoritism. I know you wouldn't actually favor someone, so why make it look that way?

This part, I don't disagree with. However, I still think that mistreating a spirit, regardless of force, should get you into hot water with all spirits, regardless of force. If you've been treating spirits well, why should a more powerful one rebel any harder than a lower-force one? And if he's been mistreating spirits left and right, why should the weaker ones not resist just as hard as the more powerful ones?

Additionally, the question was on burning Edge. Technically speaking, a spirit can burn Edge to critically succeed on its resistance roll. I think this is extreme GM cheese-- you've got an essentially infinite amount of Edge to use. But it is allowable, under the rules.

Oh, and one more thing: What bugs me the most about the burning Edge for a crit rule isn't the autosuccess, it's the critical success. If it were fixed, it'd be much easier to deal with. For example, in another thread, someone posted his table's house rule as "Burning Edge earns you four successes", but not a crit. So, let's see what happens in the case of falling from 10,000 meters:

Player: "I burn an Edge! I get 4 successes!"
GM: "Great. Now what are you going to do about the other 4,996 boxes of damage?"

What do you think of that as a fix?

If a player attempts something that has a 1,000,000 to 1 chance of success, I call that "no hope." The odds are too long, it's not plausible that they will succeed. They have no hope of winning those odds, in my opinion. So I disallow it as the rules say.

Now you say that it is not RAW because there is a theoretical possibility that the 1 in a million chance must occur and that this qualifies as having a hope of success. Your opinion of hope is different to mine, but we're both still playing under RAW because we're both, as GM's, making our judgement call as to what counts as "no hope." And before you respond, consider carefully just how far you would allow this principle to extend. 10,000,000 to 1? 1000,000,000 to 1? It's theoretically possible that a PC will shoot a bullet at a tank shell and hit it right on the nose and kick off a premature detonation that causes it to go bang in mid-air and not harm the PC at all. For burning an Edge point, you've got PC's shooting tank shells out of the air. It's actually just a called shot away to target the shell while it's still in the gun and take out the tank all together. If you are willing to draw a line anywhere based on probability, then you have already followed the same approach that I have. Any difference will be on where we choose to draw that line. A player says to me they want to stand between the tank and target and shoot shells out of the air, then I call that "no hope." The rules don't say "forbidden by the laws of physics," they say: "no hope of success." Call me a pessimist if you like, but I class a billion to one against as falling into that category.

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line of "Impossibly long odds"?

This is not RAW, because the difference between the impossible and the unlikely is very well defined in this case. You have NO HOPE of summoning a force 13 spirit, you can't even roll to try, let alone burn Edge. On the other hand, you have a statistical possibility of getting that Force 12 spirit, even if it's low-- people here have discussed various was of ding so and succeeding. In this case, the rules are very explicit: you may do this, you may not do that.

No, I acknowledge that a player may make a roll. It doesn't mean that I agree with the player that there is any hope of them actually pulling it off. Nowhere in the laws of the Universe does it say that a player rolling a dice affects what I believe. What do I care if the player wants to roll a dice at something that's a thousand to one against? They'll only lose. But I may well care if the player tries to use an Edge point to buy a success on something that I consider to be hopeless.



Either you're reading comprehension is truly dreadful, or you think that endlessly asking the same question will somehow generate a different answer. This is the FIFTH time you have asked me the same thing. My answer is, amazingly, the same! Watch:


Okay, I take it back. It *is* that you're reading comprehension is truly dreadful. I have never said I disallow a roll. I even, because you seem to have immense difficulty with this concept stated absolutely explicitly in my previous reply to you that I haven't said I disallow a roll. Why do you therefore think that I disallow a roll? We do not agree on number 1 - it is not RAW. The player would normally be allowed a roll. It is not the GM's place to start forbidding rolls unless there is some particular reason to do so. I don't consider this to be such a reason.

On number 2, that is the GM's choice. If a player is thrust from a plane against their will, I shall probably allow an Edge point to be burnt to survive. THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN THE PREVIOUS REPLY TO YOU! How can you NOT understand this? I have said this multiple times. I even explicitly gave two examples of how I would describe the results of burning an Edge point to survive. Go and look at my post again. See those funny markings in front of you? Those are something called 'words.' If you look at them long enough, you might actually realise that I talked exactly about what you're asking. IF a character calmly steps out of the plane because of metagame knowledge, then I may be less lenient in deciding what counts as "no hope" and let them die. Serve them right for using metagame knowledge to justify character actions. In fact, a more accurate way of looking at it would be that in the case where it isn't the player's fault, then I make an exception and allow them to burn their Edge point (probably).



See my first point in this reply. Just because I allow a player to roll, doesn't mean I agree with them that they have a hope of success. Although with the shifting of examples, I'll point out that I'm going to be more lenient in cases of survival, rather than of power-grabbing or greed. Falling from aeroplane, perhaps. Summoning world-shaking spirit for the fun of it, less likely.



Why should they? It depends on the characters. Earlier we had a player that decided to summon an immensely powerful spirit confident in the knowledge that even though his character would see it as near certain death, he attempts it anyway because the player knows that using the rules of the metagame, he can succeed and survive. Now we have a character that is forced from a burning plane, hoping because there is no other hope, that some miracle will save her. Treat the two circumstances differently? Sure. They're both no hope situations really, but for the one who's fault it really isn't and who asks only to survive, then I'll bend that a little.



They're not the same result. Your initial example was a player burning Edge to get a critical success on a spirit binding (and gain four services). Your latter example is a poor innocent player just trying to survive. Don't shift you're ground. I've been talking about how I treat these two different cases. Don't suddenly pretend that my basis for difference is dependent on which player I favour.



I'm quite happy to explain to any player the reason their character has just been eaten by a spirit. Please pay particular attention to the paragraph above. You are talking about two very different circumstances which all players can appreciate the difference in.



The weaker ones will be more compliant because they're weaker. I'll still let them cause a little mischief if they're not closely watched, and they certainly wont be performing their services with any great enthusiasm, but they're not going to be especially confrontational to a magician that is much more powerful than they are. The powerful spirits, though, can be a great deal more direct in their emnity. Even if the little spirits use Edge, it probably wont be enough and they might be punished for it. I consider a large component of Edge to mean trying your utmost, and a spirit that's afraid of someone probably wont do that. But the powerful spirits - they actually consider themselves more powerful than the magician a lot of the time (they're immortal, smarter and have greater force of personality than the mage). They're more likely to see a chance to really strike back at the mage in the binding process and to consider themselves to have a real chance of breaking free if they try for it.



I'd be very unlikely to have a spirit burn Edge. I'm not sure what would provoke such an action, but temporary service to a mortal magician probably wouldn't cut it. Short of running some sort of metaplanar game where I explored spirits' motivations in greater detail, I doubt any such circumstance would ever arise in a game I ran.



I don't actually feel the need for a fix, as I've said I'm happy using the "no hope" judgement call appropriately. But if you were looking for a fix, I think the above wouldn't be ideal. It's not a bad thing, but there are some circumstances where four successes would just be a bad bargain because it wouldn't be enough, so it doesn't meet the same functionality as the existing rule. Maybe if you kept it as a success, but not a critical success, so you get one more than you need. There's still abuse possible, but it's lessened. But actually, your system might be better. Is this burn an Edge for four additional successes? That would be better as it would give you a better return on your investment (it's burnt Edge point, after all), but it doesn't let you achieve the ridiculously unlikely things that cause problems. Four additional successes is probably what I would go for.

I think I've got a bit excitable in this thread. Going to go and chill and come back later,

Regards,

Khadim.

Not trying to dodge the question, but it depends. I felt that the 1,000 to 3 chance of summoning that spirit met the criteria. As I said earlier though, I will be more lenient where the player isn't engaging in long odds of their own volition.



If you feel there is a hope of succeeding at the spirit summoning, then feel free to pick up the dice and prove me wrong.

-K.

You've said that you wouldn't even let them try. Or, to take the second example: if someone needed to soak 5,000 boxes of damage, would you even let them roll, or would you simply ask them if they want to burn Edge for an Escape Certain Death? If you agree that they shouldn't even try to roll, then we're on the same page.


Thank you, but I'm discussing the other use of Edge, the autosuccess one I have the most difficulty with. We can discuss ECD as well, though.

That's distinctly against RAW, though. If it works in your games, that's fine; but it is not RAW.


Anytime you allow a chance to roll, you allow for the possibility (however remote) of scoring a critical success. They could theoretically roll it normally. Thus, the unlikely is separate from the impossible.

Let me see if I can paraphrase your example. You said something to the effect of this: you would treat a player who jumped out of a plane, trusting on metagame knowledge (e.g., burned Edge) to save him would not be allowed to survive, while someone who fell from the same plane could burn Edge to ECD. That seems like you'd be attacked for favoritism to me. I don't think that's what you're going for, so what is your goal in this case?

Why? If anything, the weaker ones are more likely to be mistreated, simply because they can't resist as effectively. OTOH, a higher-force spirit who is treated well is less likely to rebel.

If you want a canon reason, note that any spirit, regardless of force, can inflict a binding penalty on the mage. And it's the same penalty, regardless of force. Higher-force spirits do not cause a higher penalty than weaker ones.

If I understood his house rule correctly, it's four additional successes. Which could mean you can burn more than one point of Edge if you needed it; I don't see that as unbalancing.

Okay, but can you give me a ballpark? You've seen roughly where I'd draw the line; but without a frame of reference, I don't know how to debate you properly.

I did. Not on a Force 12, but on a force 10. By sheer dumb luck, the GM botched his rolls, and I critted on mine. The GM was a Dumpshocker named Hatspur; I don't know if he's still here, but you can ask him for verification.

You've said that you wouldn't even let them try. Or, to take the second example: if someone needed to soak 5,000 boxes of damage, would you even let them roll, or would you simply ask them if they wanted to burn Edge for an Escape Certain Death? If you agree that they shouldn't even try to roll, then we're on the same page.

Also, in case I'm not making myself clear: I'm discussing using a critical success to soak the damage from the fall, thereby walking away unscathed. An ECD is a separate matter entirely.


Thank you, but I'm discussing the other use of Edge, the autosuccess one I have the most difficulty with. We can discuss ECD as well, though.

That's distinctly against RAW, though. If it works in your games, that's fine; but it is not RAW.


Anytime you allow a chance to roll, you allow for the possibility (however remote) of scoring a critical success. They could theoretically roll it normally. Thus, the unlikely is separate from the impossible.

Let me see if I can paraphrase your example. You said something to the effect of this: you would treat a player who jumped out of a plane, trusting on metagame knowledge (e.g., burned Edge) to save him would not be allowed to survive, while someone who fell from the same plane could burn Edge to ECD. That seems like you'd be attacked for favoritism to me. I don't think that's what you're going for, so what is your goal in this case?

Why? If anything, the weaker ones are more likely to be mistreated, simply because they can't resist as effectively. OTOH, a higher-force spirit who is treated well is less likely to rebel.

If you want a canon reason, note that any spirit, regardless of force, can inflict a binding penalty on the mage. And it's the same penalty, regardless of force. Higher-force spirits do not cause a higher penalty than weaker ones.

If I understood his house rule correctly, it's four additional successes. Which could mean you can burn more than one point of Edge if you needed it; I don't see that as unbalancing.

Okay, but can you give me a ballpark? You've seen roughly where I'd draw the line; but without a frame of reference, I don't know how to debate you properly.

I did. Not on a Force 12, but on a force 10. By sheer dumb luck, the GM botched his rolls, and I critted on mine. The GM was a Dumpshocker named Hatspur; I don't know if he's still here, but you can ask him for verification.

No I have not said that. I have in fact said, in the very quote you've posted yourself, that I have never said I would disallow a roll. I'm not stopping a player from rolling dice. But I'm not going to grant them Edge burning on something I consider hopeless. How many times can I say this? How many times must I say this before it sinks in? I consider "no hope" to sometimes cover ridiculously long odds, not to mean "forbidden by the laws of physics." You don't. You consider millions to one against to still constitute hope of success and instead complain about the rules that allow the purchasing of a critical success. That's fine for you. All I have been saying is this:



And you endlessly, obsessively, unheedlingly keep telling me in various ways, that you choose Option 1. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING I'VE SAID!. There are two options to a GM. You tell me that you go with the first one. FINE! STOP ENDLESSLY SAYING THAT AS IF YOU'RE CONTRADICTING WHAT I HAVE SAID.

DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND?

There are two options. Got that? Two options? Not one. Not three. Two options. They have the consequences that I have described.

All you keep telling me is that you choose option 1. Again. And Again. And Again. And Again.And Again. And Again. And Again. And Again.

What, in any way, does anything you have said, contradict what I am saying? It does not. Stop trying to argue against a non-existant point.



How many times must I state this, in post after post after post? I have said that I am not talking about forbidding players from rolling. I am talking about not allowing the Burning Edge for a critical success rules in circumstances where I consider it to be a no hope situation. As the rules say. Why do you even bother posting the same question endlessly? "If you agree that they shouldn't even try to roll," I have never said that I will stop someone from rolling. I have said that just because a player chooses to roll some dice doesn't oblige me to change my opinion on something. You seem to be having immense difficulty understanding this. I have said it multiple times and you still ask me the same question! If you ask me the same question one more time we are done here. I don't know what causes you to be incapable of understanding something that is plainly written in front of you, but I am sick of repeating it. A GM, according to RAW, need not allow a burnt Edge in cases where there is "no hope" of success. A GM is free to consider thousands to one odds as "no hope." Read those last two sentences before you decide to ask any more questions. Got it? Do you understand yet? Because this is the fifth time you have asked and the fifth time I have told you the same thing.




I was discussing both. You then took two different circumstances and tried to compare them. I pointed out what you had done and you responded that you weren't discussing one of those cases. Fine, if you don't want - then you can stop comparing what I have said on different issues and trying to show I'm being inconsistent for different players.



If deciding whether something has "no hope" or not isn't a judgement call on the GM's part, then you might be right? Are you saying that it's not a judgement call on the GM's part? One of the most open ended parts of the SR4 rules isn't subjective, you think? How do you decide in your game? WIth eight month exploration of the physics involved?



Yes. You keep saying and I keep responding with the same thing. I may consider ridiculous odds to fall under the category of "no hope." Just because a player rolls some dice, doesn't mean I believe they have any hope of success. And they certainly don't get to pick up some dice, roll them, and then tell me what my opinion is. Do you get this, yet? You must have read me saying this to you at least sixteen times, so far. A GM has two options - choose to draw a line somewhere based on outlandish probability, or allow ridiculous events. Do you disagree that those are the two options? If not, then stop arguing as if you're contradicting me. If you accept that those are two options, then realise that this is what I've been saying to you for the last five posts.

EDIT: Apparently the board limits the number of quoted parts a post may contain. Splitting this up into two parts, therefore...

EDIT: Continued...



Yes! You are starting to understand! I am treating the two players differently! However, in your paraphrasing, you have conflated the two examples. Previously what I was ruling out was the critical success on a task without hope, e.g. the spirit summoning. I'm going to be a lot more lenient in the case of the player who is forced from the plane and wishes to burn Edge to Escape Certain Death. The former is using metagame knowledge to attempt something that is 997 times out of a thousand, going to kill them just because the player knows they can use the Edge rules to gain a critical success. This player gets squished by the spirit. The latter player is presumably forced out of the plane involuntarily (as they know they're going to pick up some heavy side-effects from the ECD rules). This isn't favouritism. It's based on actual behaviour of the player. If a player says: "I want to get to Seattle before the other passengers" and steps out while they're still circling the airport, then I'm not going to be pleased. It's a situation without hope and I have no reason (compassion for a player that's a victim of events) to persuade me to stretch things.



We weren't talking about higher-force spirits that are treated well. We were talking about the ones that are treated badly or, based on a magicians history with its kind, expects to be treated badly. These factors are in the players' control and therefore less of a concern for balance. Same principle as if they found a great dragon living in the apartment below. They know its there and if they choose to play the '50s Goblin Rock collection at full volume at 4:00am, they've chosen to bring the consequences on themselves.



I don't know. It's your rule! You asked me for opinions on it, Yes, I was suggesting just four additional successes irrespective of how many are needed. That would be quite effective in a lot of situations, but wouldn't allow ridiculous events so much. The threshold for shooting tank shells out of the air would probably still be too high to expect it to be routinely achievable.



I'm not sure there is a need to debate. All I'm really putting forth is that these are the two options a GM can choose from and the logical consequences of both. In terms of giving you a ball park, remember that my leniency is swayed by the player's reasons. Escape Certain Death will get away with a lot more than Critical Success on things that the character wouldn't attempt without metaknowledge. Remember that for the former, I can find story-based reasons for their Escape. E.g. If a character sees an incoming cruise missile, maybe they find a disused cellar to dive into or are sheltered by falling rubble, all at the cost of some attribute damage (or they can use a fridge if it's a nuclear weapon *sigh* ). But the Critical Success rules are saying that the player is achieving success on their actual task (rather than finding a story based way of avoiding what's going to happen, they will be meeting it head on and succeeding). E.g. the pulls out their assault rifle and shoots the missile on the nose, prematurely detonating it while it's still far away. Big difference to me. The latter is probably going to be out of luck.



Then I resume calling you Mr. Lucky. What were the circumstances leading to your character attempting such a deadly attempt (and what were his stats?)

Regards,

Khadim.

Gah, I had to leave work before I could finish my reply, and world war three broke out in the meantime.

Knasser, part of the problem is that you're misusing the term "no hope". A 1 in X billionths of a chance is still a chance, "no chance" means 0. You shouldn't accuse people of having a reading comprehension problem when you're the one misusing the language.

As for your actual points, this seems to come down to a problem I see alot in gaming: Players who try to cheat and GM's who try to force them to behave. Too often I see GM's on this forum who think it's their job to keep their players on a choke collar and actively curbstomp their fun under the guise of "keeping them in line". The GM may be god of the campaign world, but his role is to be a referee, not a jackbooted enforcer. The goal is to have fun, and the desired level of realism varies from group to group.

You talk alot about GM's being "forced" into a looney toons style of play, but if that's what his player's want he should either accommodate them or find a new group--likewise with the player who wants to make things less (or more) realistic than the rest of the group is comfortable with.

What you're talking about is changing the rules to punish a style of play, or because you can't find a suitably believable explanation for one of the core mechanics. I find that most "broken" rules are really an example of the GM not being able/willing to keep up.

First off, burning edge is not cheap. You're trading a minimum of 3 karma, usually several times that, and you lose the ability to spend that point to save your hide later. You can buy it back, but since you only get 2-3 karma a session you end up using all your karma just to get back to where you were instead of advancing. What if you could burn other stats to auto-crit a related roll? Would burning a point of body to pass a soak test or burning a point of strength to lift a car off somebody seem unbalanced to you? Considering you can use edge to enhance pretty much any action, I'd say burning edge hurts you more than that would.

If your players are burning edge every session, and keeping it at 1 so they can buy it back afterwards, you should step things up so that burning edge is required to get them through alive--they have no business complaining about realism if they're critting longshots all the time. (In fact, you usually can't burn to crit a longshot, since longshot dice don't explode, limiting them to [Edge] hits)

If a player wants to jump out of an airplane and "hope it works out", fine--the shadows attract lots of mentally unbalanced types. First they'll probably have to spend an edge point to make it mathematically possible (via exploding dice), then burn edge to crit their soak roll. Then they land in the middle of a firefight, and find themselves facing down a small army. Congratulations, your game is now Afro Samurai--which is fine if that's what everybody wants to play. If not, tell the offending player to shape up or ship out, but don't change the rules just to "munchkin-proof" your game. First off, that's impossible, secondly, it punishes all your players just to keep one who's a disruptive influence.

That's my take anyway, maybe "disruptive players V.S. dictator GM" is how your group likes to play it.

The line doesn't say "no chance." It doesn't say "forbidden by the laws of physics." it says "no hope." For me something millions (or billions as Cain is talking) to one against qualifies. Every GM can make their own judgement call as to what "no hope" means and I've explained where I draw mine. Shooting tank shells out of the air for example, qualifies. As to accusing people of having reading comprehension problems, all I have said all along is that there are two options as follows:


Cain's endless points are all exactly the same - that he chooses to go with option 1. He has so far been incapable of realising that all his statements that he chooses option 1 do not in anyway contradict my saying that there are these two options a GM faces.



For me, I like a passing semblance of realism. Players shooting tank shells out of the air would spoil both my fun and the fun of other players who enjoy a realistic game. What do you object to in that?



Note the "if." When have I ever said that other GMs must play in a particular style. I laid out two logical options and the consequences of both. I said a GM shouldn't be forced into a particular style of play, did I not? That's even what you quoted. The group should decide what sort of tone and style of game they want to play in. It shouldn't be forced by a rule and players using metagame knowledge.



The rules already punish certain styles of play. That's inherent. If you want to single-handedly be fighting hordes of minions with an axe, you can do that in D&D, but not Shadowrun. The rules affect style of play, that's just how it is and there's nothing inherently wrong with rules affecting style of play. As to "punishing," if a player plays against the nature of the rules, that's their informed choice. They know that they'll run into problems, just as a player who chose to create an office clerk with no combat skills knows they'll run into problems. A player that willingly steps out of aeroplanes or tries to shoot down tank shells in flight is asking for trouble. They know that. They all know that. So why is it "punishing" if they choose such trouble deliberately.



I offered several examples of how I handle Escape Certain Death. The Critical Success rule however does not allow for alternative explanations. If a player chooses to spend the point to shoot the pilot of an overflying jetliner, then that is what they have succeeded at.



My interest isn't in game balance. It's in flavour and realism. Though your examples are bad ones. Would spending an attribute point for four services from a spirit more powerful than any yet seen in the Sixth World sound worth it to you?



That sounds like a recipe for exactly what I have said I don't want: Shadowrun: Warner Brother's Edition. I prefer to just make it a non-problem.



First off, it's not changing the rules. I have an opinion on what qualifies as "no hope" which at some point you would almost certainly agree with yourself. If someone leans out of an overflying passenger jet with a telephoto lens and throws a medicine ball at their enemy that they can distantly see a couple of miles below, would you allow them to burn their Edge point to get four more successes than they need to hit the guy? Your stated adherance to anything not outlawed by physics as qualifying as having "hope" of success, leads to this. At some point, you would almost certainly draw a line. And that is what I am saying I do.

Secondly, it doesn't punish all players. It only prevents those who would use metagame knowledge to do things that their character would never do without that knowledge. I'm fine with that.



I treat my players like whipped dogs, and they like it.

Not getting into the almost flame-war...

But 1 in 1,000,000 chance of success is actually significantly greater than your average Mega Millions lotto drawing chances of winning.

Knasser, I have to agree with Cain. If the roll is allowed by RAW (IOW, the chances of success are >0 ), then usage/burning of Edge should be allowed too.

Now if someone metagames to achieve that end and uses the Escape from Death clause, remember, you have the final say over their final outcome. Sure they can live through it... but will they want to? That *IS* supported by RAW.

It's pretty simple: "No Hope" = "No Chance" = "0 Chance". Not "1 in 1,000,000" Any mathematical probability is greater than "no hope". We're not talking about game mechanics here, we're talking about the language the book is written in. Saying "for me, this qualifies" is a house rule plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not RAW, no matter how much you try to twist the language.

To put it plainly, your opinion on what "no hope" means is incorrect.

That being said, I don't think you're trying to have a rational debate about this anymore. Most of your rebuttals in the above post are obviously flawed and seem to exist solely for the sake of argument, so I'll just clarify two points before leaving this thread:

1) You say your group doesn't want to play that kind of game. If this was true, a house rule nerfing the edge mechanic wouldn't be necessary, as they simply wouldn't use it in the situations you have banned. My group, for example, has only had a player burn edge once, and then only to survive a fatal amount of drain when the TM failed his roll to compile a sprite he should have been able to handle easily, and the sprite rolled a critical success. As over the top as we play, we haven't ever used edge to auto-crit, or to survive a stupidly foolish action. The TM in question got some pretty bad penalties for his survival. In fact, we've been debating killing him ourselves because the negative qualities have made him such a liability to the team.

If your players are burning edge so frequently that you felt compelled to make a house rule to stop them, it implies they do indeed desire that style of play. You describe a GM being "forced" into a certain style, which implies that the majority of the group is pressuring him. If it's just one person going against the rest of the group, they should be ousted, player or GM.

If your player's aren't doing this, the rule is unnecessary, and I wonder why you bothered to make it.

2) One person's metagaming is another person's roleplaying, it depends on your motivation. If you're playing a crazy, daredevil character who relies on luck to get them out of impossible situations, burning edge on a regular basis makes as much sense as a samurai-themed character using his blades skill. On the other hand, even a con roll might be metagaming if done by a pornomancer. It is the player's intent that makes it metagaming, not their action. This distinction is very important, because by limiting actions you limit the variety of characters your group can play, and risk stifling creativity and forcing everyone into stereotyped roles in order to avoid bringing the GM hammer down on their heads. This is what's known as a "chilling effect".

There are people who like the rules you impose on them, and people who just don't speak up. A good GM should make sure he's not forcing his players to have his kind of fun.

[edit] Added quote, I'm done here. [/edit]

Lets take the absurdity further just to make a point. Say I want to kill the CEO of Ares... There is some possibility that at any given second he's outside, walking without overhead cover. It's absurdly long odds, but that makes it *theoretically possible* that if I pull out my sniper rifle and fire it nearly straight up, it's trajectory would bring it back down to earth in the exact location and at the exact time that the CEO happened to be there. The odds of hitting anyone when randomly firing a rifle in the air like that might be a hundred thousand-to-one. And the odds of it hitting the specific person you were wanting to hit would be many billion times worse than that. But there is some infintesimal possibility that it could happen. If I had a player who took this approach to assassination, I'd let him fire his gun in the air and roll his intuition + skill against a threshhold of 2 billion, and he'd fail. If he wanted to use edge so his successes exploded I'd allow it - and he'd still fail. If he wanted to burn edge to get a critical success because "hey - there's a > 0 chance it could succeed", I would not allow him to do so. In this, I'm in agreement with knasser.

This does, however, create a dangerous area where it's entirely up to the game master to determine what is - while statistically, theoretically possible - not practically possible and not a valid use of the 'edge for critical successes' rule. I'm glad it's never come up in any of my games.

The reason why I haven't responded to this point is because you're (probably unintentionally) saying that anyone who doesn't follow your preferred style of play is is playing a stupid game. So, why don't you take a deep breath, and rephrase? (Oh, and the same thing applies to the Warner Bros. comments.)


I started moving from one example to the other because the first seems to be overly exciting you. I don't want you to have an heart attack; so please, settle down?


In most cases, a simple check of the rules will suffice. Again, trying to summon a force 13 spirit, with Magic <= 6? Impossible. Trying to shoot Lowfyr in his home with a pistol? Out of range = Impossible. Are you seriously saying you'd let people roll, and then disallow the burning of Edge? I hope not.


You set "no hope" at all as less than certain poker hands.

In this case, you can punish the two players separately, within both the letter and spirit of the rules, by inflicting more penalties on the metagamer. Why should you break a rule when you can accomplish a similar thing within the rules?


No particular reason, other than being attacked by a bundle of Force 5 spirits. Her stats, IIRC, was Magic 5, Binding 4, no foci, and Edge 6.

I do not play in your game, so I do not give a shit how you make your rulings. What I do have a problem with, is you arguing the Rules as Written. You claim we have different definitions of no chance of success - very well. Just know that your definition is also different from that of the English language. If it is statistically possible, regardless of the odds, then it has a chance for success, by definition.

Very true. You could indeed shoot the CEO of Ares. Whether or not that kills him is another issue entirely. I'd let it hit the target.

Why?

Hit != Success

You also forgot one minor detail. Hand of God. Perhaps Mr. CEO's player (read: GM) decides the CEO spends 1 Edge to get exploding dice to resist the damage or perhaps to invoke Hand of God to escape certain death.

Just because one party expends Edge to achieve a nearly impossible action in no way prevents the other party from doing the same.

So sniping that CEO... Great! Critical Success. That's 4 hits over what was needed to hit (key words here). Now as CEO it is NOT unreasonable to expect he has protections on him, around him, body guards, body doubles, etc.

What exactly stops the CEO from spending 1 Edge to get a Critical Success to avoid being hit? Or to get exploding dice on the damage resistance test?

You can't use (critical) Edge to see if you killed someone with a gun shot. All it's doing is helping you to hit them better than without Edge.

Your example is not 'Spend Edge = Win!'

As a personal preference, I would rather not play in a game where a character can shoot blindly in the air and hit a target when he doesn't even know exactly where they are. Or where 8 gangers with no firearms skill, Intuition 1, and Edge 1 can perform that stunt simultaneously and completely exhaust the CEO's own defensive use of edge, leaving the 9th ganger a guaranteed hit. YMMV.

Once again: According to RAW, out of range = Impossible to hit. Also, if you need more successes than you have dice on a Longshot test, that = Impossible. So, in both those cases, you can easily say "No", point to an actual rule, and be done with it.

To take this further, even if you hit someone with a critical success, that doesn't mean that they critically fail on their damage resistance test, which is a separate roll. They might have enough soak dice to safely absorb the shot.

The rules themselves are pretty clear on what is possible and impossible. No need to make it up.

Actually, I didn't bring it up before, but with how Burning Edge is written, you can do so with a dice pool of 0. The only requirement is that you can perform the action - not that you can succeed in it.

So, if you can fire your weapon at that range, & there is nothing to prevent the bullet from arriving at the target, you may burn Edge for a critical success, even if your dice pool is 0. You cannot, however, burn Edge for it if the target is out of range, as you cannot ever hit something that far away.

Similarly, regardless of your dice pool, you may burn Edge for a critical success on a Spellcasting Test against a target you have the appropriate Magical Link to. If you do not have the Magical Link, then you are unable to cast the spell at all, and cannot burn Edge.

Have you ever heard of the term "statistical impossibility?" There is a point at which even mathematics says 'whoa, fuck that!' Which is to say nothing of the english language, which is so loose it has bits dragging along the floor. Corrollary: dictionary definitions of 'impossible' range from "incapable of having existence or of occurring" to "totally unlikely."

Theoretically possible != statistically possible.

Yes, and the odds of a planet developing and sustaining life are in that category. The odds of scoring 5,000 successes on a limited number of exploding dice is awfully good in comparison, and yet here we are.

There's a whole lot of falsehoods and misconceptions being thrown about in the last X posts. Not least of which is:



I don't know how Cain worked out what the odds of a planet supporting life are (must have access to some interesting sample data the rest of us don't), but it's worth noting that whatever the odds of a planet supporting life are, the Universe gets to roll a [u]very[/u large number of times. And so logically, any lifeform on a planet must view itself as a statistical anomaly. It's called the Anthropic Principle and is in no way a rebuttal to Platinum Dragon's point which was stating how something theoretically possible can be considered "no hope." Cain's reply is only yet another restating of his position that if something is theoretically possible then it's good enough for him. We know that. It's been said many times. We are still not in agreement with it.

Other rebuttals that have been made which are flawed or inappropriate are such as this:


That in response to Apathy stating a preference against what I'll call the Impossible game for short (not meant to be derogatory, I'm just describing a game where billion to one chances can be routinely achieved by characters). Cain's rebuttal is flawed because it focuses on him adding some details of his own (e.g. saying the player's weapon is out of range) so that Cain can show they don't apply. Who is to say the weapon is out of range? Any character could launch a ballista rocket a good 5,000m. Even if you fire it straight up, that still gives you a 2,500m radius which isn't bad if you can shoot anyone regardless of visibility just by getting within 2,5km of them. Or what if a player builds a trebuchet which can fling rocks for miles? Or - and this is best yet - you could actually just refer to my earlier example which is exactly the same in principle, in which someone drops a medicine ball from q plane at someone they see with a telescope miles below. The issue is the same but oddly enough, when I raised it, Cain said that this was fine and an acceptable use of the Critical Edge rules because it wasn't a "no hope" situation. When Apathy raises the same issue in different words, Cain feels the inclination to make up counters to show why it can't be done. I do wonder why the inconsistency in his position, but I rather think it's just a reflex to argue against whatever points are made.

The second flawed rebuttal is this:


This shows a continued failure to be able to understand the other person's point of view. The objection is not one of game balance (or at least not solely or always), but of tone and believability. That the target gets a soak roll is irrelevant to the issue of people shooting each other by aiming into the air and wishing very hard. For those, such as Darthmord, who see the issue as being one of balance, then he (Darthmord) is indeed correct and there are RAW counters that he can use. But Cain is not getting (or pretending not to get) that this is not the issue for myself and the others who have stated preferences based on flavour.

Now as to the argument itself:


I don't believe that I have said anyone should play in a particular way. I was very clear at the very beginning that I was listing two options that GMs could take and outlining the consequences thereof. I have latterly used the phrases "Warner Bros" and also "stupid, immersion breaking things." I can see that people might infer from these that such a style of game isn't to my taste. And oddly enough, they'd be right which is why I used such phrases. But they are accurate. A game where assassins work by dropping medicine balls out of aeroplanes or shooting rockets into the air at random is quite clearly more cartoonish than realistic and a game where characters use metagame knowledge (i.e. doing something that is absurdly, colossally unlikely in preference to something remotely feasible because their player knows they can use the Edge rules to bend reality to their will) is immersion breaking. Anything where the rules bring about results that are at odds with the internal consistency of a game is immersion breaking. That is quite obvious - it draws you from one level (the character's viewpoint) to the player's. But I have not anywhere said that a GM is wrong for playing in such a manner and if there's any uncertainty on this, I'll say it plainly: Anyone can play in whatever style appeals to them and I don't judge anyone for it.

But my reason for repeatedly stating my position was because Cain has repeatedly been trying to argue against a position I don't hold and worse, trying to make it look like I hold such a position so that he could argue with it:

I stated the following:


There's no doubt that this has been what I've been saying all along. It's very clear. It's repeated in every other post of mine. You can allow the Critical Edge rule on ridiculous odds, or you can not. The consequences of not doing so are as above. It's that simple. I have never said a GM cannot go with Option 1. It's right there in what I've written. But I'm being told that I am telling people how to play their games? Hardly accurate.

Almost all of the things Cain has been saying amount to one thing: that he chooses to go with Option 1. And almost my sole point is that as a consequence, his player's characters can achieve ridiculous and immersion breaking things. Yet he just keeps on saying that he goes with Option 1. I really don't care. I only care that the consequences are what I say they are. If we will cede that single thing, then he has agreed with me and he can stop challenging what I say because I'm saying almost nothing else.

The only area where this is an actual dispute (rather than Cain's continued arguing against a position I have not stated), is whether calling a statistical impossibility "no hope" is RAW or not. Platinum Dragon used the term and Cain and Rad have both stated that they consider "no hope" to mean explicitly physically impossible. Rad putting it as follows:




and Muspellheimer as:


I don't know who appointed you both absolute arbiters of the English language, but the book does not say "statistically possible" as Muspellheimer puts it and does not say "without a mathematical probability" as Rad re-phrases it. It just says: "where there is no hope of success." Has no-one here ever heard someone say "there's no hope" to describe a situation other than one where the laws of physics themselves prevent the outcome from changing? Really? Is the term that absolute? Is this what everyone means when they say there's "no hope?" Do you say "wait - it's statistically possible for the atoms in these manacles to spontaneously oxidise letting me break them? Of course there's hope!"

The book doesn't say "forbidden by the laws of physics." It says "no hope" and that's plenty subjective enough for a GM judgement call. You can choose to draw the line otherwise but don't pretend that people don't use such terms for things that are simply statistically improbable because they do. And definitely don't pretend that you have some more precise and correct meaning than common usage because no-one does. Not for something like this. If it said "forbidden by the laws of physics" then you could interpret this in formal terms, but "hope" is inherently subjective unless you're telling me you can measure it now.

EDIT: Running afoul of the quote block limit. So the rest of this reply is in the next comment.

Second half of comment...

So that just leaves a couple of personal sleights against myself and my group, ranging from the good natured:


I have a TWO squash matches tomorrow... so I consider arguing with you a nice cardiac warm up, so don't worry about having my death on your conscience.

to the less humerous:


I assure you that is not the case (neither trying to avoid rational debate, nor, imho, being obviously flawed. ). I believe that all the points I have made have been rational and clearly argued and if you feel there are any that were not clear, or were simple ad hominims or something, please point them out. Arguing for the sake of arguing? Well, I stated my case at the outset so technically everyone else is arguing with me for the sake of argument. But I don't actually mind, so long as people are addressing my actual points.

As to these;



Firstly, you've misread things. You are now talking about the Escape Certain Death use of burning Edge which I've explicitly stated I have few issues with. Primarily we're talking about the Critical Success rule which is less to do with survival than it is to do with allowing a character to confidently attempt things that a character couldn't normally achieve. As regards the necessity of clarifying a position on a rule despite a group wanting to play in a particular way, well there are several things. One is that as GM, my feelings also matter and if I want to create a certain tone for a game, then this is one way to do it. But also, wouldn't you agree that if you're going to aim as a group for a particular style then making this explicit at the outset is good for preventing disputes and ill-feeling later on. And wouldn't you also agree that it helps situations when a new player, or one of those episodic satellite players suddenly appears in the group, it stops them from suddenly warping the tone against everyone else's wishes. That is ultimately what rules are for - to ensure that everyone is playing by the same agreed conditions.



They're not. It hasn't arisen at all. I just feel for the reasons above, that it's good to make things explicit and agreed upon in advance sometimes.



Incorrect. It could be well be one new or visiting player, or one very disruptive long-time player.



I would prefer to find other situations. Throwing someone out of my group is a last resort.



Not if the game maintains a level of realism. The issue is not a character that relies on luck, but a character with luck that is reliable. And lets call a spade a bloody shovel, here: We're not talking about someone taking the odd long chance, we're talking about assassination by shooting blind in the wrong direction from 2km away. That may be absolutely fine with some groups, but for those that don't want it, it's a problem.



Actually, this is incorrect, With the Critical Success rule, a character attempts outlandish things purely because their player knows they can use the Edge rules. Example, our intelligent and experienced mage that happily takes a 1,000 to 3 chance of dying, purely because the player intends to spend an Edge point. It's a direct intrusion of the player's knowledge into the actions of the character. Unless of course that character tries such things when they don't have Edge to burn. But that latter case is a problem that resolves itself pretty quickly.



I think you're wildly exaggerating. The only restriction it places on character "types" is on a character that takes thousand to one chances frequently which I don't really consider a type. I can't really picture many actual character concepts being stopped by that.

Anyway, that's my take on things so far.

Regards all,

Khadim.

Part of the issue seems to be the word hope, which does mean "A wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of its fulfillment." it also means "The desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible to attain."

An argument based only on the first definition, could take "no hope" to mean "unlikely". However hope also means the second part of the definition. Combine that with how powerful the second use of burned Edge is "escape certain death", and it becomes clear that the meaning of "no hope" is "impossible".

So by RAW, if I could succeed at the task on a dice test (no matter how unlikely), than I may critically succeed by burning a point of edge.

The problem many have is not really what may be done by burning an edge, but how easy it is to replace the burnt edge. The simplest solution (as noted by others) is simply to have max edge also go down when a point is burnt. This solution is not explicit in RAW but could be argued to be implicit in the wording "permanently reducing his Edge attribute by 1".

If one can only do something a handful of times ever, one will not do it lightly.

As for NPC's burning edge, I have always assumed that Grunts and Lieutenants could not burn their group edge—no individual edge, no burning—although looking now, I cannot find RAW for or against this. Now Prime Runner's do have individual edge, but the hand of god rule says they have to burn all of it (not just a point) to survive certain death. All of that implies to me that only player characters may burn a point of edge to any effect.

It seems to me that, since the RAW does not explicitely state it, this is open to interpretation. It could be one or the other, or some middle ground in between those two extremes. You've arbitrarily created a binary choice and picked one of the choices based on context and seem to be saying no other choice is possible. I disagree.

The objection is indeed one of game balance, because balance and believability go hand in hand.

No, you're not saying that anyone should play a certain way. What you're implying is that if they do play that way, they're stupid. You're not a troll, so please back off for a moment and take a deep breath? Please?

No, you just made it clear that you think they're stupid.

In addition to it being an Either-Or fallacy, I'm coming to realize that you have no idea how biased your comments really are, so let me rephrase them. I do *NOT* follow your Option 1. I do, however, follow *my* Option 1:

See what a little chance in phrasing can do? Would you still stick to Option 2 if it were put this way?

And besides, you keep missing the fact, when faced with long odds, there are indeed *three* things that can happen:

1. You can allow the roll, and the burning of Edge.
2. You can disallow the roll, and thus, disallow the burning of Edge.
3. You can allow the roll, but disallow the burning of Edge.

Those are your options. I take it that you prefer to go with Option 3?

You also ignored the question you yourself had asked. Namely, the stats on a mage that successfully summoned and bound a Force 10 spirit. As you can see, it's not a dedicated conjuring build; the only remarkable stat was her Edge. If she can pull off both the summoning and binding, why do you think it's such an unlikely feat?

And to answer a charge you never explicitly raised: Despite what you think, the odds of a given individual rolling well are no different than that roll showing up in the first place. Dice do not have memory, nor do they have telepathy with each and every other die on the planet. The odds of making a particular roll remain the same, no matter who is rolling it or how many rolls are being made.


Yes, and technically, they're wrong. The implication of "no hope" doesn't mean it's impossible, or even that improbable; it means someone's given up trying. Observe you and your refusal to burn Edge on a chance as high as 0.3%! By that standard, you couldn't burn Edge to win a poker hand!

Which we do have issues with. You've flat-out stated that you would disallow the burning of Edge for ECD if you felt the player was metagaming. That's blatantly against RAW. You could, if you so choose, apply more penalties to the offending PC; the rules give you that right. But to simply disallow it in one case, but not another, is cheating.

Ahem. Luck, by definition, is unreliable.

I'll go with the statistical definition, simply because the rules are pretty clear as to what's impossble and what isn't. It's not hard for things to go into Longshot territory for these sort of rolls, and then your number of successes are capped at your Edge in dice. If that's not enough successes, then it fails, Edge or no Edge.

Those odds are derived from the number of planets we know of without life vs. the one(s) with - it's a statistical construct. Considering the macro-scale universe is largely deterministic, if you knew all the variables at the time, the odds of life evolving on earth were probably fairly good. That said, we actually have no idea what the odds were because we don't know enough about how the universe came to be where it is, we've just taken a stab in the dark - with the caveat that we really have no idea.

Regardless, if someone left a bottle of milk in the fridge and burned edge to have it elvolve into a flesh-eating virus, I wouldn't allow it. If someone breathed in the general direction of their opponent and burned edge to cause a chain reaction in the molecules of air around them to spontaneously create a vacuum I wouldn't allow it. Both of these are theoretically possible, but both are what we call 'statistical impossibilities' - the odds of them are so inconcievably miniscule that they can be safely assumed to never happen.

I agree with knasser on this - while the dice may theoretically allow it, some things are just never going to happen.

As a rough rule of thumb, I'd say if you can't succeed by having all your dice turn up 6's (not counting explosions from edge) then you can't burn edge for critical success (though I might be more lenient for dramatic last-ditch-efforts).

That said, I'm not going to try and tell you not to use it that way in your games, but I'd encourage you to at least admit that the passage is vague enough that it's really up to the individual GM to decide where the limit is; there is no absolute RAW in this case.

Once again, everything you mention is already disallowed by the rules. If someone doesn't have a skill in biowarfare, or aerodynamic physics, they can't do it since the skills don't allow defaulting. Your rule of thumb is fine, but what happens when the dice do explode?

The example that this whole mess started with was allowing Edge burns on an opposed roll; namely, summoning or binding a spirit. With exploding dice, it's entirely possible that you can beat whatever the opponent rolls, no matter what they roll.