You can't really use that logic then immediately ignore it. "0" has a specific meaning, too.

Indeed there is. According to the situation, there are things that can or cannot be done.

Ignore what? The hyperbole? Sure I can. The logic is simply that the rules are explained in the English language, and there is no point in explaining every word. Death in this case is obvious, having 0 in an attribute is not obvious otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion.

Yes, because not having any Willpower, for instance, isn't obvious in the English language. Instead, it means you actually DO have willpower. Because that's what 0 apparently means in English. Yes sir. To carry that further, I can say that I have 0 Respect for some people's opinions on the subject and, oh my God, that means I DO have respect for them! All the respect in the world! And I shouldn't treat their opinion with 0 Respect because for whatever fucked up reason, that's not what 0 Respect means.

Acknowledging that the rules don't address the situation is one thing. Actually sitting here and trying to defend it is patently absurd. (But don't worry, I'm sure we can redefine what "patently absurd" means, too, since the rules never go into detail about that either.) Doubly so when your argument gets to be so bloody feeble that it amounts to bullshit like "derrrr, everybuddy noes wut 'dead' means, but no1 noes wut '0' means, derr herr herrrrrrrrr!"

Valium, anyone?

Willpower 0 (or any other Attribute being 0) does not mean having no Willpower, thus "Respect 0" would not mean no "Respect", if Respect was a game term. If you really had Respect 0 for their opinion, you should treat their opinion with Respect 0, not no respect, thus you do indeed have Respect for them.

Acknowledging the rules do not have anything further to say about the situation is one thing, actually sitting there and trying to attack it for not saying something else is quite another. Even worse when the counterargument is so feeble as to link the lack of anything additional to what an in-game statistic at 0 to the lack of an in-game definition of what "dead" means, amounting to "derrr, if u says '0' dont mean anything more, then 'dead' don't mean nothing either, heerr heerr heeerrrrr."

I'm glad to see that an intelligent person like yourself hasn't resorted to petty insults or a straw man argument.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are units with attributes of 0 that are functional and are not stated to have any special function that makes them so. There are some instances where have a 0 attribute is addressed in the books, such as creatures with 0 body not having a damage track or creatures with 0 strength not being able to lift anything besides their own body weight. Besides these instances there is nothing to say that a being with logic 0 is unable to function, nor one with reaction, agility, charisma, intuition or willpower. Certainly there are instances where having a 0 in these stats will be highly detrimental, especially willpower or reaction for dodging spells or bullets, but those characters should still be able to do anything not specifically related to their 0 attribute.

If you insist on having a fluffy explanation for a functional 0 stat character then here you go.
0 Strength - A man with extreme bone density loss who can't lift anything more than his body and a hospital gown without breaking something
0 Agility - A man with severe arthritis who can't grasp a handle let alone hold a gun
0 Reaction - Anyone with enough alcohol in their system. When you're reacting to things 10 seconds after they happen, you effectively can't react to anything at all
0 Body - A cancer patient or someone suffering from extreme starvation whom you could look at funny and they would keel over

As we enter the mental stats, some of these get harder to define as the description of the attribute itself becomes less clear
0 Charisma - someone who attracts no notice in social situations, so far below a nobody that even if what they say is acknowledged they themselves are not. Think bookworm in high school
0 Intuition - an automaton. A being that might be able to regurgitate data but never create it
0 Logic - an insect. Something that relies so thoroughly on instinct that it can't be said to be thinking
0 Willpower - a drug addict. Someone who can't bring up the strength to better themselves, they simply do things because in the short term they are either less uncomfortable or more pleasurable

And your argument can't be as obvious as you seem to think it is or I wouldn't count 4 or 5 people arguing against you with better facts and greater poise.

1. I don't insist on anything.
2. If by "better facts" you mean "jack shit," I agree with you. Since that's all they -- and you -- have.
3. There's far more people who a) agree that the rules don't address the situation (as opposed to individuals such as you who seem to want to say the rules actually SAY nothing happens) and b) agree that the tangential rules that do address the situation are applicable across the board. Since, you know, the spell is "Decrease [Attribute]" not "Decrease [Attribute] Plus Bonus Effect If You Decrease It To Zero But, Apparently Based On Some People, Means You Can Skip Right Past This Bonus Effect Because You Can Have Negative Attributes But The Bonus Affect Only Applies If It's Exactly Zero And Nevermind That Other Spells Don't Work Like This At All; Our Decision To Not Address Negative Attributes Even In This Rule Is Utmost Proof Of The Validity Of This."

So yes, I will continue to have 0 Respect for the people trying to argue that absurdity. But it's okay. I can have 0 Respect for you and still have utmost respect for you. Neither the rules nor the English language say otherwise.

I can see you're having a tantrum. I'll wait until morning after you've had your nap and you're not so cranky before trying to have an actual conversation.

I wouldn't waste your time waiting. Instead, if you insist on trying to defend this stupidity, try to find a real argument that doesn't revolve around "the rules don't say anything about it."

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Relevant text bolded for clarity. Willpower 0 does, in point of fact, mean having no willpower. Respect 0 does, in point of fact, mean having no respect.

I haven't heard you mutter a single statement with more basis than "the rules don't say anything about it" or "if it happens in a spell then it must apply to all situations" but if you're putting the burden of proof on me I'll argue as I can.

The rules specifically address this issue in Running Wild in relation to small animals with Body and Strength scores of 0 and again in SR4a in relation to mini-drones which have a Body of 0. This thread is about what happens when an attribute is reduced to 0, and if there exists creatures with stats that are at 0 that haven't become incapacitated then it follows that it is possible for anything, regardless of size, to have a stat at 0 without becoming incapacitated.

Your example of the reduce attribute spell causing its target to become disabled upon reaching 0 in an attribute doesn't follow as it is a specific instance of a spell effect. Magic also allows for a human being that has been deconstructed and turned to goo to be reconstructed as if nothing happened. I wonder what would happen if you tried that same trick with more mundane means? Just because the spell reduce attribute says something happens because of magic doesn't mean that the same thing will happen if done with drugs.

Having an attribute go from 1 to 0 is no different than having an attribute go from 5 to 4, it just means 1 less die to related tests. You can make up whatever rules you want about the effects of a 0 attribute on a character, a GM is God at his own table, but here where the literal statements of the books are the only facts we have to argue with I can only say that the argument of "an attribute being reduced to 0 disables a character" has no basis outside of "because you think so."

The thing is that there is no source ever which specifies that attribute loss to 0 does not cause incapacitation. There are cases where attribute loss is mentioned, but reduction to zero is not mentioned or apparently considered, however, every single case where attribute reduction to zero is specifically mentioned anywhere in the book, the result is incapacitation until the effect wears off.

Why couldn't a hit of whatever drug put a weak minded/willed/whatever person on the nod for the duration of its effects?

The thing is there is no source ever which specifies that attribute loss to 0 does cause incapacitation. There are cases where attribute loss is mentioned, but reduction to zero has no additional effect, however, every single case where attribute reduction to zero is specifically mentioned anywhere in the book, it also specifically mentions incapacitation in addition until the effect wears off.


Your entire argument is based on the assumption that if something is not listed, it must be so - which is, put simply, moronic. There are zero rules calling out attribute reduction to 0 causing incapacitation, outside specific effects.

Rules as Written, unless the effect causing the reduction to 0 also calls out incapacitation in such an event, it does not do so. I don't give a rats ass how you run it in your game - if it differs from this, it is a fucking House Rule.



Edit: To give something of an example, the rules state that only Adepts & Mystic Adepts with the Astral Perception power, & Magicians are capable of astral perception. Thus, unless specifically stated otherwise (such as the Deepweed drug), you cannot astrally perceive unless you are an Adept or Mystic Adept with the Astral Perception power, or a Magician.

The rules do not state that reducing an attribute to 0 causes incapacitation. Thus, unless specifically stated otherwise (such as the Decrease Attribute spell), having an attribute reduced to 0 does not cause incapacitation.

What does the Reduce Attribute spell do? It reduces attributes. What happens if an attribute is reduced to zero?

Over and over this is said - across books, across skills and across incidents.

Additionally, every time the words "reduced to 0" are used, they are associated with disruption, death, nullification and incapacitation.
I don't see an "in addition to" clause anywhere ever in relation to it. It's always a statement of fact. If X is reduced to 0, then ______.

If you can provide a simple case of something being reduced to 0 anywhere in the books where the fact that it was reduced to 0 has no distinct game effects, I will concede to your dispute of this rule, which I believe is quite clearly stated in the first instance where it was a likely outcome. However, until then, I'll will accept the above quote to be a rule just as written and the "Reduce Attribute" spell to be exactly what it says on the tin rather than the "Reduce Attribute and, in Addition, Paralyze or Incapacitate if That Attribute Should Reach Zero" spell.

If your initiative is reduced to 0 due to wound modifiers and such penalties, you also cannot act.

Also, Nerve Strike.

Actually yes, it's quite common to say someone has zero willpower, when in fact they do have SOME willpower. It's called an exaggeration. Also, in real life death is a clinical term, while 0 or 5 Willpower is not.

The relevant part is instead the part that I specifically underlined because the rating of Attributes are along that of a scale. Thus Willpower 0 does not in fact mean having no willpower. And Respect 0 does not mean having no respect. Zero, when refering to Attributes in such a case, is more appropriately the portion I have underlined.

In fact, I think that these other meanings of the word zero are also be valid with respect to Attribute 0.

Everything that is mentioned in SR4A describes attribute scores in terms of characters including ranges (which by the way is 1-6 plus or minus racial mods to the max...not the min). Everything else is based off this description, so we have a comparison. For example, an alligator has a Bod and Str of 7. This means that it is better than a human (without enhancements) which would definitely be correct. The Great White has a Bod and Str of 10 which is comparable to a non-enhanced maxed out Troll. Again correct.

Now going the other way on this, a cockroach has the Bod and Str of 0. The is below the min of human. So what happens if a human has the Bod Str of a cockroack? Well, we don't know because RAW specifically states "critters" in this discussion (Running Wild, pg. 24 - Critter Attributes). And since it mentions critters and drones specifically, then following Mu's argument metahumans cannot have an attribute because there is no rule that says they can, just like there is no rule that says a 0 attribute can cause incapacitation except in the case of Reduce Attribute.

As for the 0 stat being the beginning of the attribute scale, not as described on pg. 82 of SR4A
which shows that the beginning of the attribute scale is in fact 1. So 0 would mean none not the beginning of the scale. Now, if we were talking about critters or drones, then yes it would be the beginning, but we are not. We are talking about metahumans.

We are talking about Attributes, not just metahuman Attributes, in fact, because we are talking about Attribute 0, it is thus clear we are not talking about the normal human attribute range. I concede that RAW does not explicitly state that Attributes begin at 0 though or that Attributes cannot be reduced to below 0. Which brings me to the point whether Attributes can be reduced to 0 if the game mechanic in question does not mention (directly or otherwise) such a case.

That would be my question as well. So if that is the case (except in the situation where it is mentions, an attribute cannot become a 0) this whole thing is a moot point... 3 pages of a moot point.

What, you don't like exercises in futility? I like that interpretation, that an attribute can't be reduced lower to 1 through any means other than magic. It would make Hurlg make more sense.

If it's impossible to lower attributes below 1 by non-magical means, then it seems to encourage characters who already have attribute=1 to use whatever drugs offer a malus to that attribute. It's not like their score could get any lower, right? This doesn't necessarily make that an incorrect interpretation, but it does make it distasteful for me. If that turned out to be the actual intention of the developers I'd probably house rule it away in my games.

I don't understand how this 'interpretation' is not itself a transgression of Muspellsheimr's adherence to what he considers the letter of the law.

Oh no, I'm not saying that's RAW, just that I liked the interpretation. That's probably how I would rule this issue if it ever came up in a game I was running.

I'm with Dr. Funkenstein on this one, net-rage and all.

P. S. Except you, Toturi. No net-rage there. I understand that your interpretation of this game, especially through the lens of Dumpshock, is . . . unique.

Uhh just going with something else here.

Temperature of 0 does not mean absence of temperature. ANd thats as RAW as it can ever get.

OK now someone will come up with the Kelvin scale, which is well actually saying that 0 is absence of temperature. But then again since you are allowed to have a negative attribute rating were not dealing with a scale that only allows positive attribute ratings.

In the end i like the idea of extending the "Not allowed to sac points when at rating 1" to cover drugs. No not that im unable to drink Hurlg when at Logic 1, but rather that the negative logic doesnt go into effect. Since drinking Hurlg would be a willing act, and thus the negative logic a sac. Ok i know that is a pretty holey arguement, since it would allow Hurlg as a weapon, when fprcing someone to drink it .

And to sum it up, some people should stop behaving like 10 year olds.

"I have zero respect for you."

"I have zero dollars."

Look up the definition of zero, which has been said previously.

And thanks for not reading my post.

Yes Zero means nothing. Maybe. Learn to Read, then post. Then we wouldnt need this circle.

Hey, I can read, lookit me. Now, if you could spell, that would complete the circle.




I don't believe you can go into negative Fahrenheit intelligence. Precedent to prove this?

Uhh ofc you cant. But then IQ due to its nature of being a quotient doesnt have any type or unit attached ot it, its simply a number. Its also having a 0 that is absolute. No negatives for that one. You basically could have asked i want 3 fahrenheit of cars? Quotients are numbers nothing else.

But the difference is that logic or any other attribute is not defined as an absolute scale or a relative one. Or being simple quotients fwith the middle being 3 (something i feel being suggested with softmax being 5 and minimun being 1) for that matter.

And please point out my mistake, if you want to do so anyway, next time ill add a disclaimer that im not a native speaker, and wont find every typo i make. Might even be an actual misconception about the language.

Nope. That's 100% not accurate.

Mus said that there is no rule prohibiting such a thing. Not one time, anywhere, ever, does the book mention such a thing occurring, so it's certainly not "allowed" so much as not explicitly disallowed. According to all the rules which show up, it goes to 0 and then, kaput. It mentions nothing of less than zero. Is it an omission or a wall? I'd say the latter. Sort of like how you can't use an extinguisher to put out a fire and then have it turn into an anti-fire that reconstitutes previously-destroyed materials. Zero is the point at which there is a change of state. In this case from a functional scale to complete non-function.

So, your whole ridiculous argument with the temperature is... well.. pointless.

If you want to rule that an attribute can't be dropped to 0 by chemical means, that's your choice. I feel like the rules are clear enough to support the alternative, and if you'd like a real world example, go and get a dog (a legit example of a log 1 character) nice and drunk and see if it can still function in any meaningful way. I don't see a Logic 1 Ork being completely paralyzed by the beverage, but disoriented and functionally incapacitate, for sure. I mean we're talking about a beverage for Orks which causes 8S unresisted damage. That's not just a glass, that's a bottle. That's drinking until you can't drink anymore.

Except negative Kelvin is not colder than absolute zero, if anything, you can make the claim that it's hotter than anything with a positive K temperature.

Saint Sithney you are right, im just playing devils advocate right now. My only problem is that the kaput rule only appears on the magic subchapter of spell grimoire. As such its 100% applicable to magic. Drugs i dunno. Its like having a rule about cars show up in the magic section.

If there is a rule, that attributes cant become negative, ofc then my whole point is moot. Cause then like the Kelvin temperature scale 0 means absence of.

And thanks Walpurgisborn for running straight into my argument. I never claimed to say anything about negative Kelvin. Convoluted sentences I write, i dont claim to be a physicist.

Respect 0 != 0 respect

There are other definitions than the ones that help your argument, which has been said previously.

Here has been my point on this all along. Using Mu's logic on this whole thing (that being that if there is not a rule that say incapacitation happens at a 0 in metahuman attributes, unless it is the spell... and after all that is what the OP originally asked for... then you cannot be incapacitated) what you get is: there is no rule that says you can have an attribute at 0, unless it is the spell, therefore you cannot have an metahuman attribute at 0, unless it is the spell that does it.

I have previously cited where RAW specifically states that the range for normal attributes (mental and physical as opposed to special attributes like magic and resonance) for metahumans is from minimum 1 to maximum 6, except where the racial modifiers alter the maximum (in case you missed it, it is SR4A pg. 82).

Mea culpa, I read it wrong, I thought you were making a claim about negative Kelvin. It does exist, put only occurs in environments in which there are limits on the amount of energy that can be held by the system. Additional energy will flow out of the system, regardless of the temperature of the environment that energy is flowing into.

Ahh no problem man, you posted something which is beyond my knowledge. im a physician, so i can grasp 0 Kelvin, anything below that is above my head. Now that sounds funny.

I don't know if I like that interpretation. Wouldn't that mean that elves could never have less than 3 Charisma?

Its the ears trust me, its the ears.

... and Trolls can't have less than 5 Bod and Str... yup. But that's the way logic works. You can't apply it in one place and then completely ignore it in another. If you can logically say that "if you are incapacitated with the spell when your attribute drops to 0, then if your attribute drops to 0 with a drug you are also incapacitated (which I believe is the case)" then there should be no need to apply my interpretation above. However if you cannot, then the above interpretation is all that is left, unless you apply this to only those things you want to and ignore it for the rest in which case we are talking house rules. And that is an entirely different subject.

It's kind of disappointing how often that happens around here, and worse how justified people seem to be in doing so all the while shouting "RAW" and the like. I guess, technically, it is "RAW." I mean, it's written somewhere. You just have to ignore the rest of the writing and the implications thereof...

All right then, house rules. This comes up in a game where your logic 1 troll takes a swig of hurlg. How do you handle it?

He sits there with his head spinning due to being drunk/stoned off his ass? Hurlg is crazy powerful and full of a buttload of hallucinogens. The problem is your argument doesn't really account for a toxin resistance test, meaning it should take longer for an ork or any other high-Body character to be affected. But once affected, I see no reason why they shouldn't be affected. Especially since he already has limited mental facilities to begin with.

There's also a massive difference between opposing a general rule (attribute 0 = incapacitation), and opposing specific uses of those rules (hurlg incapacitating people).

Everyone needs to stop taking these little snipes at each other (including Patrick and Doc on the previous page). I would love to log in one of these mornings without having to take some sort of mod action. Please?

I agree that there's a difference between opposing general rules and specific uses of those rules, I'm wondering about the latter. I think everything that can be said about the "attribute hitting 0" argument has been said, at least for the purposes of arguing RAW. I'm wondering about how this works conceptually. Even if it does take longer for a Troll to realize the effects of Hurlg than a normal person, it still happens that when Hurlg does kick in on a low Logic Troll, they pass out, whereas an average human who binge drinks Hurlg is going to have one hell of a headache but will be able to remain conscious throughout the drug's duration. And since when did being drunk/stoned off your ass become a barrier to hitting people? Last I checked, alcohol encouraged violence. And Hurlg isn't full of a buttload of hallucinogens, just nutmeg. A lot of nutmeg that produces a hallucinogenic effect. Finally, yes, I've stopped arguing RAW because I don't think that'll solve the issue. I'm wondering now what GMs here would do if the Body 12 troll in their party just got out drunk by a Body 2 office worker who happened to have decent Logic because the drug rules are wonky.

Alcohol is a depressant. Unless you are prone to violence it usually causes people to fall into a depressed mood and then fall a sleep.


I would say:

Take that you scummy Bod 2 human!! They may be logically unimpaired, but physically they would definitely be impaired.

Depressant is a CNS effect, it down regulates central nervous system functions. It doesn't necessarily (although in many cases, does in actuality) foster a depressed mood.

Tell that to the 40% of convicted rapists who said they were drunk when they committed their offense. Or to the police who had to put down the riot over the UEFA Cup Final. Alcohol causes normal people to do stupid things and people prone to violence to do insane things. You may not make good judgements when you're drunk, but since when did good judgements have any part of a bar fight? That's why it's not conceptually obvious to me why lowering someone's Logic should cause them to be unable to move or fight, it just doesn't make sense. That's why, RAW or not, I would house rule that dropping an attribute to 0 does nothing to disable a character and I'm wondering if others feel the same.

Does alcohol actually have such a hefty modifier?

Also alcohol depresses the inhibtive functions of your brain. So if it generally prevents you from doing stupid things, it wont do so when under the influence. So you finally manage to talk to that amazing girl. Or beat up some random guy.

Yes, alcohol makes you pass out too, but normally not that fast. You could have a time related modifer to it. If they drink enough, they pass out, after Body Hours or so ^^.