Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Critical Hits...errr?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Dakka Dakka
Kinda remind's my of XP cost to create magic items in D&D.
Yerameyahu
Your example wasn't 'surviving death traps', Cain. It was surviving arbitrarily large amounts of Drain, which the person certainly brought on himself. smile.gif Anyway, the nuke thing is a whole separate issue (incorrectly labeled 'metagaming'), which I believe there's been a large thread about already?

Yes, burning Edge is for avoiding death. It isn't for achieving literally infinite hits on any given test.
Faraday
QUOTE (Saint Sithney @ Dec 11 2010, 03:20 AM) *
I've sometimes though about burning Edge as a means to get programming tasks done in reasonable time.

When you're looking at a three or six month interval test like programming an OS, Virus, or Tacsoft, then getting it done in a single test would be worth it, (if not a huge violation of RAI.)

It's easy enough to get a programming pool in the 20s so hitting a threshold like 24 for a rating 6 virus in a single try is quite possible. Is it worth the burn to save you 3-6 months of work? Plenty times, I'd say yes.

Hell, if you've only got 1 edge then each time you burn it is only 5 karma to buy it back.

Rush the job, programming environment and burn edge and you can have a killer virus in 6 weeks of work. Pretty awesome, IMO.

This is why I have a house rule that reduces your maximum edge by 1 when you burn edge.
Laodicea
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Dec 11 2010, 04:03 AM) *
Kinda remind's my of XP cost to create magic items in D&D.



There's a karma cost to create magic items in SR.
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Dec 11 2010, 09:03 AM) *
Your example wasn't 'surviving death traps', Cain. It was surviving arbitrarily large amounts of Drain, which the person certainly brought on himself. smile.gif Anyway, the nuke thing is a whole separate issue (incorrectly labeled 'metagaming'), which I believe there's been a large thread about already?

Yes, burning Edge is for avoiding death. It isn't for achieving literally infinite hits on any given test.

Why not? First of all, it's theoretically possible, if highly improbable, for dice to explode an infinite number of times. Second, you might need that arbitrarily high number of successes to Escape Certain Death, as in your nuke example. And I wasn't referring to you when I was talking about burning Edge to escape GM-contrived death traps. When it comes down to it, surviving huge amounts of Drain is just a soak test, no different than any other. Do you restrict the use of Edge when a PC is shot?
Yerameyahu
No, if you wanted to escape the nuke, you'd just Burn Edge to Escape Death. That's all. No dice trickery.

I might if the PC shot himself in the face with a tank gun, yes. biggrin.gif
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Dec 11 2010, 02:38 PM) *
No, if you wanted to escape the nuke, you'd just Burn Edge to Escape Death. That's all. No dice trickery.

I might if the PC shot himself in the face with a tank gun, yes. biggrin.gif

If you wanted to be conscious and functional (albeit messed up) after the nuke went off, you should burn Edge on soaking the damage. People in Hiroshima were walking seconds after the blast went off, depending on how far away from the epicenter they were.

And you wouldn't if a troll shot himself in the chest with a light pistol, to make a convincing disguise? For shame.
Naysayer
Hmm, bending the rules to survive a nuclear blast?
Sounds like Fridge Logic to me.
Pa-bum-tsh.
mmmkay
you're a little late on that one
Kagetenshi
Worst part of it is, that's not even what fridge logic means.

~J
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Dec 10 2010, 01:19 AM) *
14,420 Damage!!!!


I would treat a nuke more like FAB, because at some point the normal rules just break apart. There is a limit to how much shockwave the air can transport, and even a normal steel ship's bulkhead can survive a lot of shockwave impact, as was shown in the experiments done on nukes vs. ships. They put sheep and pigs on the ships, and some survived the blast from fairly close range (but of course later died due to radiation.)

Basically surviving a nuke in close proximity is all sorts of random (IF you have appropriate cover), which just means, if someone wants to burn his edge on it, let him. (Arguably someone messed up the scenario, anyway smile.gif ). And give him a huge amount of radiation poisoning afterwards. However, I think there must be a Gene-treatment against cancer somewhere, so...
Rotbart van Dainig
Magic or Cellular Repair should be possible, but you need to be fast.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Dec 12 2010, 09:15 AM) *
Worst part of it is, that's not even what fridge logic means.


Fridge Logic occurs when watching a TV show/movie/reading a book and you stand up to get a beer from the fridge and reflect upon some element of the plot that made sense at the time, but now shouldn't have happened.

For example:

In Inception, when the van went off the bridge ("the kick") why didn't the guy in the hotel (the next dream down) wake up? He wasn't inside another dream at the time: he was two deep and the kick was one deep, it should have woken him up.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Dec 12 2010, 01:30 PM) *
Fridge Logic occurs when watching a TV show/movie/reading a book and you stand up to get a beer from the fridge and reflect upon some element of the plot that made sense at the time, but now shouldn't have happened.

For example:

In Inception, when the van went off the bridge ("the kick") why didn't the guy in the hotel (the next dream down) wake up? He wasn't inside another dream at the time: he was two deep and the kick was one deep, it should have woken him up.

Right. In contrast, hiding in a fridge to survive a nuclear blast doesn't produce the trademark "delayed reaction"—its implausibilities are immediately apparent. Just because a fridge still appears doesn't make it fridge logic.

~J
Draco18s
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Dec 12 2010, 01:46 PM) *
Right. In contrast, hiding in a fridge to survive a nuclear blast doesn't produce the trademark "delayed reaction"—its implausibilities are immediately apparent. Just because a fridge still appears doesn't make it fridge logic.


The "hide in the fridge" makes sense because it was a 1960s "lead-lined" fridge. He'd survive the radiation. The absurdity which becomes readily apparent is that he survives being hurled several hundred yards while riding inside it.
Kagetenshi
I'm not remotely convinced that the lining would attenuate the radiation of a 1950s-era nuclear blast to survivable levels, but fortunately (as you say) we don't need to solve that problem to immediately find the overall premise absurd.

~J
Draco18s
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Dec 12 2010, 03:07 PM) *
I'm not remotely convinced that the lining would attenuate the radiation of a 1950s-era nuclear blast to survivable levels


Possible, but not being a nuclear physicist I can accept (willingly suspend my disbelief) that there is enough lead.

Fridge Logic are those things that you accept during your willing suspension of disbelief long enough for the plot to take hold and progress, and it is only in retrospect (usually after the movie finishes) that you realize that it shouldn't have worked. The stuff you notice at the time is a plot hole or perhaps just an obvious lamp shade.
Udoshi
QUOTE (Saint Sithney @ Dec 11 2010, 02:20 AM) *
Rush the job, programming environment and burn edge and you can have a killer virus in 6 weeks of work. Pretty awesome, IMO.


This is how shadowrun megacorp programming Wageslaves work.
Program, program code code, CRUNCH CRUNCH BUG BUG PATCH done phew, break, DO IT AGAIN.

At 5 karma every month or two, its no wonder why working for a corp sucks the life out of you smile.gif

Aaand now you know how SOTA rolls work.
Yerameyahu
Cain, how is troll/chest/light pistol the same as face/tank gun? smile.gif
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Dec 12 2010, 12:57 PM) *
I would treat a nuke more like FAB, because at some point the normal rules just break apart. There is a limit to how much shockwave the air can transport, and even a normal steel ship's bulkhead can survive a lot of shockwave impact, as was shown in the experiments done on nukes vs. ships. They put sheep and pigs on the ships, and some survived the blast from fairly close range (but of course later died due to radiation.)

Basically surviving a nuke in close proximity is all sorts of random (IF you have appropriate cover), which just means, if someone wants to burn his edge on it, let him. (Arguably someone messed up the scenario, anyway smile.gif ). And give him a huge amount of radiation poisoning afterwards. However, I think there must be a Gene-treatment against cancer somewhere, so...


In practice I completely agree with you. Firstly, I don't think I'd ever put my players in a position where I could insta-kill them on a whim. If they were even near a nuclear weapon, it would have to be part of some sort of over-arcing plot in which I would give them at least some sort of out, unless everyone knew it was the last session and they wanted their player to have an awesome last stand or something like that.
Otherwise, why would I put my players, with whom I have been telling this story and whom I presumably like, in a situation like that?

The only other reason I can think of is if the players are so intent on going off the rails that they abandon the story and run off to get a nuclear weapon for some reason, probably to be ornery. If that's the case, then a nuclear blast would do plot damage.

The nuclear blast calculation would only come into play with arguing with rules lawyers(like the guy who claimed he could soak it) who would insist he could soak a nuclear blast and demand the rules be followed.
If folk want to get technical, I can get technical, I just don't like it. Unfortunately, that's a tool you have to have in your arsenal.


Naturally all this can be avoided by following the first rule of role-playing: Don't game with dicks.
Putting your players in a situation where a bad roll could wipe out their characters OR a player insisting he has such a bad-ass at his disposal he could survive an atomic bomb should be avoided.
Yerameyahu
Wheaton's Law! smile.gif

I agree that the point is not 'why is there a nuke in this example?'. The point is a potential 'tool' for players (or, I guess, Prime Runners and things?) to claim arbitrary hit numbers, and there's no way that's a good thing to have lying around. Again, if anyone ever wants to survive something, that's what Hand of God is for.
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Dec 12 2010, 07:45 PM) *
Cain, how is troll/chest/light pistol the same as face/tank gun? smile.gif

They're both soak rolls. biggrin.gif

QUOTE
The point is a potential 'tool' for players (or, I guess, Prime Runners and things?) to claim arbitrary hit numbers, and there's no way that's a good thing to have lying around. Again, if anyone ever wants to survive something, that's what Hand of God is for.

It's also to pull off the quasi-impossible. Again, no amount of burned Edge can allow you to summon a spirit with a Force greater than 2x Magic. But burning Edge could net you 4 services on the binding roll, and allow you to survive the drain. There's other tools in place if this gets out of hand, but for the most part, it's not inherently broken when done sparingly.
Yerameyahu
I agree with that. It depends entirely on the use, not the tool. Well, the mechanical technique, anyway; if the player is the tool, then it's still his fault. smile.gif
Saint Sithney
QUOTE (Faraday @ Dec 11 2010, 11:35 AM) *
This is why I have a house rule that reduces your maximum edge by 1 when you burn edge.


Way I understand, that's exactly what burning edge is. twirl.gif
Do you mean natural maximum, so that a single character who burns edge takes a lasting luck scar and eventually just croaks after burn 6/7?
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 13 2010, 06:52 AM) *
There's other tools in place if this gets out of hand, but for the most part, it's not inherently broken when done sparingly.

Given the new attribute costs, it's in fact a pretty bad deal for characters with high Edge.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Saint Sithney @ Dec 13 2010, 08:57 AM) *
Way I understand, that's exactly what burning edge is. twirl.gif
Do you mean natural maximum, so that a single character who burns edge takes a lasting luck scar and eventually just croaks after burn 6/7?

Your interpretation of what "maximum edge" means isn't unreasonable in and of itself, but using it would mean that "maximum edge" means the same thing as just "edge". Given that, it's pretty clear what was intended (though I admit having an attribute that can be partially spent does complicate the issue).

~J
Faraday
QUOTE (Saint Sithney @ Dec 13 2010, 07:57 AM) *
Way I understand, that's exactly what burning edge is. twirl.gif
Do you mean natural maximum, so that a single character who burns edge takes a lasting luck scar and eventually just croaks after burn 6/7?

Yeah. You lose a point of edge *and* your natural maximum decreases by one. It's my usual "cost" for burning edge. In the case of HoG, I will sometimes waive it if the near-death was dramatic enough or just a case of truly bad luck.
Yerameyahu
Works for me. It should leave a scar that can't be fixed with as little as 5 Karma. smile.gif
Rotbart van Dainig
What's the point?

Even in Warhammer Fantasy D6, Fate Points were not limited. And it doesn't get much grimmer than that.
Yerameyahu
I posit that it does: start with your example, and then make it grimmer. biggrin.gif Limit the fate points, whatever those are. Ding, grimmer!
Jareth Valar
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Dec 13 2010, 04:34 PM) *
What's the point?

Even in Warhammer Fantasy D6, Fate Points were not limited. And it doesn't get much grimmer than that.


But in Warhammer Fantasy (1st or 2nd ed) you can't just raise your Fate Points by spending experience points.

And Yerameyahu, Fate Points are allot like Edge, you just start with 1-4 *depending on race) and they are awarded by the GM and are RARE in most games.

I don't lower the max with burning one, but if my player can't explain a "plausible" reason for the effect, then I don't allow it.
Cain
QUOTE (Jareth Valar @ Dec 13 2010, 02:32 PM) *
I don't lower the max with burning one, but if my player can't explain a "plausible" reason for the effect, then I don't allow it.

That negates most uses of Escape Certain Death, then. Not what I'd want in my games, personally.
Jareth Valar
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 13 2010, 06:16 PM) *
That negates most uses of Escape Certain Death, then. Not what I'd want in my games, personally.


Not as much as you might think. I'm not talking about "reasonable", but at least "plausible".

Example: To avoid a low yield nuclear blast:
Dis-allowed: "I burn an edge to Avoid Certain Death...because at the last minute an alien space ship beamed me aboard." huh-uh. Maybe if I was running Stargate or something, but as is, nope.

Allowed: "I burn an edge to Avoid Certain Death...Hey! Didn't you say there was an old lead lined refrigerator nearby?" pushing it, but plausible. 1:1,000,000 but plausible.

I love it when people come up with BScientific reasons for things. I ran for a techy player one time who was a master of pulling pseudo-BScientific nonsense out of thin air. He sometimes even got a bonus for making us stop and say, "Is that really possible?" even though we all knew he wall full of it.

So, maybe "plausible" might have been a poor word choice. At least make it sound interesting and not make me nuke my "suspension of disbelief". Still subject to my OK that it can be used, but YMMV.
Cain
If you're Ms. Londa Cannon of Ohio, being beamed aboard the mothership for a photo op with Elvis isn't out of the question. biggrin.gif

But seriously, the nature of rules is to be objective. You're suggesting a subjective replacement: "If it sounds interesting". That's not fair if the player has trouble coming up with interesting details, and has no bearing on rather or not it's dramatically beneficial to your game.
Rotbart van Dainig
That's probably why RAW makes the GM explain EcD, with whatever rationale he likes.
imperialus
QUOTE (Karoline @ Dec 9 2010, 11:04 AM) *
"And you fail to stop the timer, the nuke goes off and you all die. Sorry guys."
"Wait, how much damage does it do?"
"I don't know... like 100 lets say."
"Okay, I'm going to roll to soak."
"What? You can't possibly... alright, if it makes you feel better, go ahead."
"And I'm going to spend edge to get an automatic critical success. I soak all the damage with 4 points to spare."
"....How much edge do you have?"
"3 left. Why?"
"4 more secondary explosions go off."


You don't even need secondary explosions...

First survive the initial gamma ray burst
Then survive the pressure wave
Then survive the heat wave
Then survive the reverse pressure wave
Then survive the firestorm for as many rounds as is necessary to escape it.
Then survive the radiation poisoning.

Or just don't stand next to a nuke when it goes off.
Jareth Valar
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 15 2010, 01:57 AM) *
If you're Ms. Londa Cannon of Ohio, being beamed aboard the mothership for a photo op with Elvis isn't out of the question. biggrin.gif

But seriously, the nature of rules is to be objective. You're suggesting a subjective replacement: "If it sounds interesting". That's not fair if the player has trouble coming up with interesting details, and has no bearing on rather or not it's dramatically beneficial to your game.


beret.gif (Thinking cap)

Never been a problem before. Only ever had 3-4 characters in ALLOT of years ever need to use the rule. Never had one NOT come up with wild and interesting ways around things.

Hell, I have a hard time keeping them FROM wild and interesting ideas. If someone couldn't explain it or are fresh out of ideas (not likely with my group wobble.gif ) I probably wouldn't deny them it's use. I've never been that evil a GM.
Cain
QUOTE (Jareth Valar @ Dec 15 2010, 06:26 PM) *
beret.gif (Thinking cap)

Never been a problem before. Only ever had 3-4 characters in ALLOT of years ever need to use the rule. Never had one NOT come up with wild and interesting ways around things.

Hell, I have a hard time keeping them FROM wild and interesting ideas. If someone couldn't explain it or are fresh out of ideas (not likely with my group wobble.gif ) I probably wouldn't deny them it's use. I've never been that evil a GM.

I've only had one player use it in over twenty years, and that was under SR3. Ironically, it was being at ground zero when a nuke went off. Pony nuke, so not as big of a deal.

However, I have had a lot of uncreative players. Not bad players, mind you, just unimaginative. Just like it's unfair to penalize uncharismatic players who want to play faces, you shouldn't penalize uncreative players with something so subjective.
Jareth Valar
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 15 2010, 10:44 PM) *
I've only had one player use it in over twenty years, and that was under SR3. Ironically, it was being at ground zero when a nuke went off. Pony nuke, so not as big of a deal.

However, I have had a lot of uncreative players. Not bad players, mind you, just unimaginative. Just like it's unfair to penalize uncharismatic players who want to play faces, you shouldn't penalize uncreative players with something so subjective.


I wouldn't, just never had that blessing/curse/situation of uncreative players. They all like the idea. Gets to be kinda like a game almost at the table. Then again, I allow commentary/help from the peanut gallery on this sort of thing.

I tend to run LONG continuous campaigns, and nobody wants to really loose a character they've been playing for years.

And I know what you mean about the face thing.....*shudder*, I still have the scars. wacko.gif wobble.gif eek.gif wink.gif It was, shal we say....memorable, like when you personally witness a 27 car pile up while watching a tornado slowly play with a trailer park.... nyahnyah.gif
Stahlseele
Another silly thought . .
You can dodge explosives right? O.o
So do a critical success to dodge the nuke going off nyahnyah.gif ^^
Draco18s
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Dec 16 2010, 07:01 AM) *
Another silly thought . .
You can dodge explosives right? O.o
So do a critical success to dodge the nuke going off nyahnyah.gif ^^


Dodge only increases the scatter. nyahnyah.gif
(You're going to need a huge number of successes to move the nuke 1 mile!)
Dakka Dakka
So? Spend Edge to get the theoretically infinite number of hits, and then burn Edge to get the threshold +4.

More silliness, can you move the nuke by dodging unto your enemy?
Draco18s
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Dec 16 2010, 11:30 AM) *
More silliness, can you move the nuke by dodging unto your enemy?


That's how dodge rolls roll, by RAW. ;D
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012