Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: penllawen on <10-12-19/1009:54>
-
You are a GM. Your players are in a firefight with corpsec while infiltrating a corp facility. One of them - a decker - says they are going to Data Spike the lights in the room to disable them. Their deck's Attack Rating is 10 points higher than the light system's Defence Rating, so there's 1 point of Edge to be allocated.
Which of the following scenarios would you consider to be "Edge abuse" and deny the decker the point of Edge? Select all that apply.
(1) the player says "I need Edge to attack the grunts, so I hack the lights."
(2) the player says "I need Edge to defend against the grunts, so I hack the lights."
(3) the player says "I'm going to hack the lights to blind the guards. Our streetsam has cybereyes so he'll be fine."
(4) the player says "I'm going to hack the lights to blind the guards; they probably have low-light vision but maybe it'll work."
(5) the player knows the grunts have cybereyes via Matrix recon, but says "I'm going to hack the lights anyway. Maybe their cybereyes don't have low-light? Seems unlikely but you never know."
(6) the player hacks the gun of a still-alive grunt.
(7) the player hacks the commlink of a still-alive grunt.
(8) the player hacks the commlink of a dead grunt.
(9) the player says "I'll look for some access codes for the rest of the facility" and hacks the commlink of a dead grunt.
Edit - I should have added a "none of these are Edge abuse" option to the poll. I'll track it manually. So far, there's been 2 votes for that.
-
I don’t see any of them as edge abuse as they are in a firefight. Outside of a fight I’d likely see many of the hack comlink ones as edge abuse but I’m not sure as I haven’t got deep enough into the game yet. I’ve only run test scenarios where I’m less than impressed with 6e so far.
As an aside. Nice thread. It illustrates a issue with the GM will fix it concepts pretty well as all of these are the same thing but in play when asked by a player you aren’t getting multiple choice you are getting one of those and you are making a decision on the fly. And often.
-
Weeee Ive submitted my answers :)
But I think you are missing 1. The "buy 10 cheap commlinks and hack them yourselves to gain edge" or "buy a sudoko game for your commlink and use logic to solve it( with the + edge logic quality".
-
Personally, I don't see any of these as edge abuse. I'd prefer more context, and would likely ask the player for as much, but realistically these are all valid cases in my opinion.
I briefly debated the "Hack a dead NPCs commlink", but as a hacker PC myself you just never know, there might be paydata on it.
-
For reference, here's the meat of the rule regarding edge abuse:
Gamemasters should not
award points of Edge that are not directly part of
an ongoing confrontation, and they should not reward
players who are attempting to game the system. For example, players might attempt to aim
their weapon at an innocent passerby to stack up
on the Edge they might gain from targeting such
a person, or they might try to take multiple looks
at something that isn’t a real opponent when they
have better vision than them in an effort to stack
up extra Edge. The easiest part of this guideline
is to say that Edge should not be awarded to any
player taking an action solely to gain Edge. The
action must play another role in the ongoing confrontation/
discussion/hack/whatever.
Breaking it down:
1) the action should be part of a confrontation. Knocking the lights out to plunge a fight into darkness? Sounds well within the bounds of this tenet. Likewise hacking a dead grunt's commlink in order to find access codes the guard uses to penetrate deeper into the facility may not be part of the COMBAT, but it's still relevant to the conflict of "Us vs Security" in the context of the infiltration. Hacking that same dead guard's commlink just to see if he has porn pics that are of no relevance to the Shadowrun? Now it's not part of the confrontation anymore.
2) Is the player's motivation only to gain the edge point? 90% of the time when this occurs it's inarguably clear to everyone involved. For the remaining 10% of the time, some simple out-of-character discussion about this very rule can clear up misunderstandings.
So, out of the examples above, #1-2 sure looks like a case of violating 2), but might be cleared up with some further discussion. Likewise, #6-8 might or might not be a case of Edge abuse- it depends on what the Player is trying to accomplish. The aim of the action relevant? Or is it just to gain the Edge point? Each might or might not be a case of edge abuse. The rest sure sound to me being sufficiently applicable to the advancement of the mission that they shouldn't be denied Edge.
-
I don’t see any of them as edge abuse as they are in a firefight.
Personally, I don't see any of these as edge abuse.
I should have added a "none of these are Edge abuse" option to the poll. I'll track it manually in edits to the OP instead. So far, that's two.
As an aside. Nice thread.
Thanks!
-
Is the player fishing for Edge with an action everyone knows has no tactical value? It's abuse. No? Then it's not.
-
Is the player fishing for Edge with an action everyone knows has no tactical value? It's abuse. No? Then it's not.
This.
If the player begins with "I need to get some Edge..." it's not a good sign. But if the action is actually RELEVANT to the conflict at hand, then it doesn't matter if the Player's primary motivation was to gain Edge.
-
Is the player fishing for Edge with an action everyone knows has no tactical value? It's abuse. No? Then it's not.
We've gone around and around talking about general principles and rules of thumb in other threads. But rules of thumb only moderate subjectivity, they do not eliminate it. I want to get specific here to see how different people's opinions vary. Please vote, or otherwise address the secenarios directly. That's what's new about this thread: the specificity.
-
Is the player fishing for Edge with an action everyone knows has no tactical value? It's abuse. No? Then it's not.
We've gone around and around talking about general principles and rules of thumb in other threads. But rules of thumb only moderate subjectivity, they do not eliminate it. I want to get specific here to see how different people's opinions vary. Please vote, or otherwise address the secenarios directly. That's what's new about this thread: the specificity.
As I explained, the subjectivity of this topic renders 5 voting options POTENTIALLY edge abuse. It depends on more than what you have there to say if they would be or wouldn't be.
If you flipped the premise, and said "Which of these are solidly NOT edge abuse", then I'd vote 3-4-5-9 as being clearly ok. 1-2-6-7-8 require more context to say.
For example, #6 is hacking a goon's gun. That's probably not edge abuse, but depending on the context, it COULD be. If the goon weren't USING the gun (he's blasting at you with his AK-97, but you're going after the holstered Light Fire instead) that's strong strike against relevance. It's not completely irrelevant, as the AK-97 certainly could run out of ammo and you don't want him to have a backup weapon! But player's intentions usually aren't hard to divine. If the still-holstered Light Fire is being targeted simply because the AK-97 is better protected, when the AK-97 is clearly more relevant, I'd certainly consider witholding the Edge, sure. It'd depend on lots of other things. Perhaps none more important than the completely out-of-character consideration of "is this player a chronic problem with Edge fishing, or is this the first time I've had to ask myself if this is Edge fishing with them..."
-
I should have added a "none of these are Edge abuse" option to the poll. I'll track it manually in edits to the OP instead. So far, that's two.
Aha, found the Edit poll button and added that as an option.
-
Since there's no way to indicate 'X MIGHT be Edge Abuse', nor options for 'none of the above' or 'it depends', there's no way for me to actually answer the poll. Since there's literally no way for me to vote truthfully on the poll, it means my opinion is disregarded. That means we're still subjective here. Given how the OP has indicated this is a deliberate move and voting is a must, I'll back off as demanded.
-
Since there's no way to indicate 'X MIGHT be Edge Abuse', nor options for 'none of the above' or 'it depends', there's no way for me to actually answer the poll
I added "I'm really not sure" a few minutes ago, in response to posts here. I've now also added "it depends" as requested.
-
Weeee Ive submitted my answers :)
But I think you are missing 1. The "buy 10 cheap commlinks and hack them yourselves to gain edge" or "buy a sudoko game for your commlink and use logic to solve it( with the + edge logic quality".
And then you get so distracted by the Sudoku that you miss the moment you were farming edge for in the first place. ;D
-
Weeee Ive submitted my answers :)
But I think you are missing 1. The "buy 10 cheap commlinks and hack them yourselves to gain edge" or "buy a sudoko game for your commlink and use logic to solve it( with the + edge logic quality".
And then you get so distracted by the Sudoku that you miss the moment you were farming edge for in the first place. ;D
The rigger making the drone fly loop-de-loops!
-
Three of these options are clear edge abuse, while the others are not edge abuse if the player is being sincere with their intentions. However, there are two big questions here:
- Is the player actually being sincere? How can you be sure that they're not creatively justifying their edge abuse?
- Do you really even care if the player is being sincere or not? As long as everyone is having fun and verisimilitude isn't being broken, is there even a problem with "edge abuse"?
-
Edge is the system to SR6. It is exploitative within the mechanics of the game both on a meta level and in confines of the game world. Some archetypes and actions overflow with means to generate edge from their actions, while others suffer horribly from a difficulty in ability to generate edge without taking actions that don't really have much to do with their archetype, concept, or play style.
Because of that, I personally have no problem with generating edge by any means necessary. If I had designed this system, I would have made the edge attribute cap at 3 for all metatypes, added a quality to increase that cap by +1, and had every character's edge pool refresh to its cap every new scene. You'd still need to generate some edge to get to the 5th tier stuff, but you would no longer even have the concern of people trying to game the system that was designed to be gamed but that is for some reason considered abuse.
For folks that like the edge system, that's cool, and I hope it works out for you and your group(s). Using the term "abuse" for folks wanting to utilize the core system and having their character take actions that will allow them to utilize that system is laughably ludicrous, however.
-
Three of these options are clear edge abuse, while the others are not edge abuse if the player is being sincere with their intentions. However, there are two big questions here:
- Is the player actually being sincere? How can you be sure that they're not creatively justifying their edge abuse?
- Do you really even care if the player is being sincere or not? As long as everyone is having fun and verisimilitude isn't being broken, is there even a problem with "edge abuse"?
1. If your table is populated by friends you know, yes you can tell when they're just blowing BS to try to justify Edge abuse. Granted, this is more of a problem when you play with people you don't know (Cons, SRM) so honest communication is good.
2. Actually, yes. The broad application of the edge mechanic makes it important that it not be misused. It's one thing to say that bricking the guard's gun caused an edge point that you then used to make a completely different guard reroll a success in his dice pool, which then in turn made his shot miss you. IIRC you're one of the people who rather dislike that mechanic. If not, I apologize for mischaracterizing your dislike of 6we. Regardless, there ARE others who feel that's a leap too far for suspension of disbelief. Me, I think the tactical relevance means it's within that suspension of disbelief: maybe their Small Unit Tactics is now thrown out of whack since the mook A lost his primary weapon. Or maybe Mook B was simply intimidated by Mook A's gun being taken out. Either way, it's a BIGGER problem for suspension of disbelief if the edge point you spent to make Mook B miss was gained via Analytical Mind from your working on a Sudoku problem mid-firefight. The stuff you did to gain Edge HAS to be relevant.
-
maybe their Small Unit Tactics is now thrown out of whack since the mook A lost his primary weapon. Or maybe Mook B was simply intimidated by Mook A's gun being taken out.
Is it
(a) the responsibility of the player to come up with these narrative links between cause-of-Edge-gain and effect-of-Edge-spend? What happens if they can’t think of one? Is the use of Edge disallowed?
or
(b) the responsibility of the GM to come up with one? What happens if they can’t think of one?
Either way, it's a BIGGER problem for suspension of disbelief if the edge point you spent to make Mook B miss was gained via Analytical Mind from your working on a Sudoku problem mid-firefight. The stuff you did to gain Edge HAS to be relevant.
What if the samurai gains two points of Edge while shooting someone, then uses them to give one point to the mage, who astrally projects and uses that point while fighting a spirit?
-
maybe their Small Unit Tactics is now thrown out of whack since the mook A lost his primary weapon. Or maybe Mook B was simply intimidated by Mook A's gun being taken out.
Is it
(a) the responsibility of the player to come up with these narrative links between cause-of-Edge-gain and effect-of-Edge-spend? What happens if they can’t think of one? Is the use of Edge disallowed?
or
(b) the responsibility of the GM to come up with one? What happens if they can’t think of one?
This edition of Shadowrun is closer to being a cooperative storytelling game than any other, barring Anarchy. My philosophy would be that the onus is on the player, however I wouldn't be averse to helping a player struggling to come up with a rationale for relevancy when in reality what's desired is the Edge point. It not only prevents "NO!" from dampening that player's fun, it helps enhance everyone else's fun in being given cues in how the action is indirectly helping them, too. Maybe if you just wanted edge and went for Data Spiking the easiest DR around, I might guide that player towards the lightbulb so the player playing the Sammie can brag about how his low light vision is going to be useful now, and everyone can build tactics accordingly. The entire exercise is to put more roleplaying into the game play.
Either way, it's a BIGGER problem for suspension of disbelief if the edge point you spent to make Mook B miss was gained via Analytical Mind from your working on a Sudoku problem mid-firefight. The stuff you did to gain Edge HAS to be relevant.
What if the samurai gains two points of Edge while shooting someone, then uses them to give one point to the mage, who astrally projects and uses that point while fighting a spirit?
What about it? If he got 2 points of edge for shooting guards, instead of irrelevant passers-by, it's a good and proper thing? If you're looking for how to leverage that to being tactically relevant to the mage in astral space: perhaps the edge spent against the spirit represents the spirit being revulsed/affected by its allies being gunned down. Kind if a mini-Background count thing, since BGCs aren't covered yet. Or maybe it's just a manifestation of simple morale: Sammie's doing better, so it's infectiously inspiring the Mage as well. Think of momentum in any team sport ever.
-
Penllawen, those counterpoints were masterful. I don't think I've seen a rebuttal that clean in a long time.
Nothing against SSD or his perspective (I respect both!).
-
This edition of Shadowrun is closer to being a cooperative storytelling game than any other, barring Anarchy.
From what we have seen I agree with that assessment. One of my primary concerns with that is the possibility for it to cause more disruption from disagreement than to actually promote what appears to be the cooperative storytelling goal.
Sitting with a group of players you are familiar with is unlikely to be a problem most times, but I genuinely worry for folks with strangers at cons and game days if there are poor compatibility gaming styles present. Yeah, that always had room to become an issue, but I believe the system now exacerbates that possibility because of how vital edge is to the system functioning. Such as it is, anyhow.
-
This edition of Shadowrun is closer to being a cooperative storytelling game than any other, barring Anarchy. ... The entire exercise is to put more roleplaying into the game play.
I can respect that, and I've no aversion to narrative-first games (we often play one-shots in The Sprawl when a member of our ongoing Shadowrun campaign can't make the session. And I enjoy it a lot.) However, personally, I find it a bit jarring to mix these small narrative-first ideas in with the rest of 6e, which I find to be still very much a crunchy and simulationist RPG. They're two great tastes. For me, they don't taste great together.
If you're looking for how to leverage that to being tactically relevant to the mage in astral space: perhaps the edge spent against the spirit represents the spirit being revulsed/affected by its allies being gunned down. Kind if a mini-Background count thing, since BGCs aren't covered yet. Or maybe it's just a manifestation of simple morale: Sammie's doing better, so it's infectiously inspiring the Mage as well. Think of momentum in any team sport ever.
OK. I think that's perhaps a bit unsatisfying, but maybe it's a reasonable catch-all fallback. Although: how does the mage even know the sammie just shot someone if they're astrally projecting at the time and distracted fighting a spirit a few hundred feet in the air?
This is only one example, of course, of a wider issue, which is the question I asked earlier: what if no-one at the table can think of any vaguely plausible link? Edge flows around the table. There's going to be many ways in which you cannot narratively bridge cause and effect, not least of which is every time a character transitions from meat/mana/matrix space to a different environment but carries Edge with them, earning it in one space but spending it in another. If your judging criteria for "this is good use of Edge" is "this is narratively satisfying" we're back to: what do you do when you simply cannot satisfy the narrative? What do you sacrifice - the narrative cohesion, or the mechanical effect the player is trying to use?
And while we're on it: I've asked about when the mechanical cause-effect link is clear but narrative one is not. What if the mechanical link is unclear too? If a character starts a scene with 2 Edge, earns 2 points shooting someone, receives 1 point from an ally decker who earned it hacking, then spends 4 points on a spellcasting roll - how should the narrative reflect that? (I have no idea.)
Penllawen, those counterpoints were masterful. I don't think I've seen a rebuttal that clean in a long time.
Heh, thanks! I do work at these posts :D I'm not just busking it.
-
If you're looking for how to leverage that to being tactically relevant to the mage in astral space: perhaps the edge spent against the spirit represents the spirit being revulsed/affected by its allies being gunned down. Kind if a mini-Background count thing, since BGCs aren't covered yet. Or maybe it's just a manifestation of simple morale: Sammie's doing better, so it's infectiously inspiring the Mage as well. Think of momentum in any team sport ever.
OK. I think that's perhaps a bit unsatisfying, but maybe it's a reasonable catch-all fallback. Although: how does the mage even know the sammie just shot someone if they're astrally projecting at the time and distracted fighting a spirit a few hundred feet in the air?
This is only one example, of course, of a wider issue, which is the question I asked earlier: what if no-one at the table can think of any vaguely plausible link? Edge flows around the table. There's going to be many ways in which you cannot narratively bridge cause and effect, not least of which is every time a character transitions from meat/mana/matrix space to a different environment but carries Edge with them, earning it in one space but spending it in another. If your judging criteria for "this is good use of Edge" is "this is narratively satisfying" we're back to: what do you do when you simply cannot satisfy the narrative? What do you sacrifice - the narrative cohesion, or the mechanical effect the player is trying to use?
Well, if the Sammy and Mage are sufficiently distant that we've entered "We Split the Team" territory, maybe the GM just might say the Sammie can't shuffle edge over to a not-present character. OTOH, if they're still close enough to count as not being in different scenes, the emotional energies can seep from one fight to the other just fine, even if there's no LOS?
And while we're on it: I've asked about when the mechanical cause-effect link is clear but narrative one is not. What if the mechanical link is unclear too? If a character starts a scene with 2 Edge, earns 2 points shooting someone, receives 1 point from an ally decker who earned it hacking, then spends 4 points on a spellcasting roll - how should the narrative reflect that? (I have no idea.)
Since you don't like mixing your narrative with your crunch, then don't mix them. The edge flow can just as easily be a purely abstract and out of character mechanic that needn't necessarily BE explained in roleplay. If this is the case, it goes back to my point about edge abuse being there to stop stupidity like solving a Sudoku puzzle or hacking the coffee maker from positively affecting tactics: it's easier to swallow the pure abstractness of Edge flow in a fight if it's not flowing from tactically irrelevant things.
-
Weeee Ive submitted my answers :)
But I think you are missing 1. The "buy 10 cheap commlinks and hack them yourselves to gain edge" or "buy a sudoko game for your commlink and use logic to solve it( with the + edge logic quality".
And then you get so distracted by the Sudoku that you miss the moment you were farming edge for in the first place. ;D
The rigger making the drone fly loop-de-loops!
IT WAS WORTH IT!!! new time record on very hard!!!
Im sure the B&E expert I was supposed to sit on overwatch for would agree.... if she was still alive :'(
... but I think I made a whoopsie :-\ I might have answered what I saw as NOT edge abuse, so I got it mixed up. Sorry.
-
... but I think I made a whoopsie :-\ I might have answered what I saw as NOT edge abuse, so I got it mixed up. Sorry.
loooool
I've been scratching my head trying to make sense of it! More fool me for not ticking "responders can change answers" I guess :)
-
Well, if the Sammy and Mage are sufficiently distant that we've entered "We Split the Team" territory, maybe the GM just might say the Sammie can't shuffle edge over to a not-present character. OTOH, if they're still close enough to count as not being in different scenes, the emotional energies can seep from one fight to the other just fine, even if there's no LOS?
Let's assume they are definitely together; the mage is duelling a spirit that was coming to toast the runners, say. And they just happens to be zooming around as part of that fight, but a few hundred feet is a fraction of a second away in the astral, so that seems ok to me. Still very much the same combat, just happening across two realms.
Again, the "well the mage just feels it y'know" handwave feels a bit weak, given that you've established this as your bar for what is and isn't Edge abuse:
The broad application of the edge mechanic makes it important that it not be misused. It's one thing to say that bricking the guard's gun caused an edge point that you then used to make a completely different guard reroll a success in his dice pool, which then in turn made his shot miss you. ... Me, I think the tactical relevance means it's within that suspension of disbelief: maybe their Small Unit Tactics is now thrown out of whack since the mook A lost his primary weapon. Or maybe Mook B was simply intimidated by Mook A's gun being taken out. Either way, it's a BIGGER problem for suspension of disbelief if the edge point you spent to make Mook B miss was gained via Analytical Mind from your working on a Sudoku problem mid-firefight. The stuff you did to gain Edge HAS to be relevant.
(emphasis mine)
The way I read this was "Edge abuse is when there's no feasible narrative link between what you did to gain the Edge and how you chose to spend the Edge." Is that not what you intended to say?
Because -- and this is my real point -- it seems to me there's lots of scenarios where the mechanics suggest Edge was earned via a relevant action (ie it was done as part of the same scene) but the narrative suggests it was not relevant (eg. Edge was earned via a physical action and spent on an astral one, or any one of a ton of variations of that.)
And -- I know I keep asking this but I don't think you've answered -- what do you do when this happens? Allow the Edge use, or not? Prioritise the narrative, or prioritise the mechanics?
Since you don't like mixing your narrative with your crunch, then don't mix them.
Don't worry about me -- I want to understand how you are playing this at your table.
The edge flow can just as easily be a purely abstract and out of character mechanic that needn't necessarily BE explained in roleplay. If this is the case, it goes back to my point about edge abuse being there to stop stupidity like solving a Sudoku puzzle or hacking the coffee maker from positively affecting tactics: it's easier to swallow the pure abstractness of Edge flow in a fight if it's not flowing from tactically irrelevant things.
So the thing I don't understand is: what's the narrative difference between "the decker solved a sudoku and now I shoot better" and "the emotional energy from the street sam shooting someone made the mage astrally fight a spirit better"? Both seem equivalently weak to me. But you'd allow one and not the other, correct? Why?
-
The way I read this was "Edge abuse is when there's no feasible narrative link between what you did to gain the Edge and how you chose to spend the Edge." Is that not what you intended to say?
No. that is not what I was saying. When I said "the stuff you did to gain Edge HAS to be relevant" I was talking about things that contribute Edge have to advance the plot/mission/victory in the fight. If it did none of those things, it wasn't relevant. If it wasn't relevant, it didn't satisfy this line in the rulebook (which I already quoted once upthread):
"Gamemasters should not
award points of Edge that are not directly part of
an ongoing confrontation..."
If it was not relevant, you don't qualify for Edge.
It doesn't matter if you can't come up with a reason why your doing X helps someone else do Y. If X furthers the team's goals, then it's relevent. Solving Sudoku puzzles is not helping your team win a fight, or infiltrate a site, or convince a NPC to tell you a secret you need, or etc. If the only benefit from solving the Sudoku puzzle is triggering Analytical Mind and generating an Edge point, then the GM is encouraged to withhold that award.
I'm honestly kind of confused why this is apparently all so controversial.
I want to understand how you are playing this at your table.
Does the action, if it's going to be successful, actually help the team complete the Shadowrun? Yes? Ok, no reason to withhold Edge. Even if you are primarily concerned with gaining Edge. OTOH, if the action doesn't contribute to the plot/fight/success of the mission, then why do you want to do it? Just to gain edge? Yeah, no edge for you.
-
I'm honestly kind of confused why this is apparently all so controversial.
It's because some of us see a lot more grey areas than you seem willing to acknowledge - and we don't see easy ways to swiftly build communal understanding around exactly which shades of grey are white enough and which are not, which is a particularly acute problem when playing with strangers.
If it were simple and clear, the answers to the poll would be in agreement with each other. They are not.
Consider:
(9) the player says "I'll look for some access codes for the rest of the facility" and hacks the commlink of a dead grunt.
If you flipped the premise, and said "Which of these are solidly NOT edge abuse", then I'd vote 3-4-5-9 as being clearly ok. 1-2-6-7-8 require more context to say.
Gamemasters should not award points of Edge that are not directly part of an ongoing confrontation
I think it's extremely debatable that looking for access codes you might use later is "directly part" of the same "confrontation" as the actual firefight that's going on right now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
One table might say one thing, one table might say another. One GM might make that call easily and with confidence, another might find it confusing and stressful and awkward. One player might accept the GM fiat with a shrug, another player might feel cheated of a bonus they worked to arrange.
-
Aaaah, I think we're just having a basic failure to communicate. Edit: Or, maybe, it was just all about considering conflicts inside a mission as being discrete and edge doesn't transfer between them? The rules don't support that, and reworded the sentence below to address that reading.
If the action helps, it's edge worthy. Doesn't have to help NOW as the entire mission is one ongoing conflict; hacking a guard's commlink for access codes you'll need later is something I agreed was not Edge abuse. I said, and you quoted me saying, #9 was clearly not edge abuse.
But yes, it really is black and white from my point of view:
Does the action HELP advance the shadowrun? Yes? No edge abuse. Hard stop.
Does the action NOT help advance the shadowrun, other than generating you a point of edge which you can of course then use on anything you like? Frag no you don't get the edge; that's edge abuse.
-
Aaaah, I think we're just having a basic failure to communicate.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/d3Fz2JdKIxLOS7te/giphy.gif)
Edit: Or, maybe, it was just all about considering conflicts inside a mission as being discrete and edge doesn't transfer between them? The rules don't support that, and reworded the sentence below to address that reading. ... Doesn't have to help NOW as the entire mission is one ongoing conflict; hacking a guard's commlink for access codes you'll need later is something I agreed was not Edge abuse. I said, and you quoted me saying, #9 was clearly not edge abuse.
OK. Well, that's not how I read "directly part of an ongoing confrontation" at all. My reading of that was much narrower in scope and in time.
Consider page 45 of the CRB:
Characters start a gaming session with Edge points equal to their Edge rank. In the session, Edge can be carried over and accumulated up to a limit of 7, including the Edge provided by the character’s Edge attribute. Any Edge garnered over your base attribute goes away when you complete any ongoing confrontation; this includes combat, hacking, social persuasion, and any situation where bonus Edge might be accumulated. If, at the end of the confrontation, your current Edge points are less than your Edge attribute, you stay at the lower level. If you want more Edge, you have to earn it.
...
Edge can only be gained when it is part of a real opposed encounter. Gamemasters should not award points of Edge that are not directly part of an ongoing confrontation...
Note that last part is the bit is what you quoted. Taken in that wider context, it seems to me that "ongoing confrontation" has to be narrowly defined - as one instance of "combat, hacking, social persuasion, etc" - and not as wide in scope as an entire Shadowrun. Otherwise, players are only getting an Edge refresh once per run...?
-
Yeah, you can tell by the votes that there is an exceptionally wide discrepancy between opinions on what constitutes "abuse" or not in terms of edge. Enjoying the edge system is going to be strongly reliant on sitting down at a table of like-minded folks.
-
But yes, it really is black and white from my point of view:
Does the action HELP advance the shadowrun? Yes? No edge abuse. Hard stop.
Does the action NOT help advance the shadowrun, other than generating you a point of edge which you can of course then use on anything you like? Frag no you don't get the edge; that's edge abuse.
So the difference between "edge abuse" and "not edge abuse" is whether or not the player can convince you that their action advances the shadowrun in some way. That would probably encourage some very interesting roleplay, especially out of certain players who otherwise prefer to rollplay, but you have to acknowledge that this is why some people see this as a deeply flawed system.
-
But yes, it really is black and white from my point of view:
Does the action HELP advance the shadowrun? Yes? No edge abuse. Hard stop.
Does the action NOT help advance the shadowrun, other than generating you a point of edge which you can of course then use on anything you like? Frag no you don't get the edge; that's edge abuse.
So the difference between "edge abuse" and "not edge abuse" is whether or not the player can convince you that their action advances the shadowrun in some way. That would probably encourage some very interesting roleplay, especially out of certain players who otherwise prefer to rollplay, but you have to acknowledge that this is why some people see this as a deeply flawed system.
I'd prefer to look at is as being reasonable to objectively determine if a proposed action is relevant or irrelevant to the "ongoing confrontation".
Defining "ongoing confrontation" is apparently what's the more subjective part.
As for there being deep flaws? No, I think this discussion is dancing around in the corner cases. Are you doing something that, absent the potential gain of an edge point, is actually helping the team and/or hindering the opposition? If so then there's no edge abuse. The arguments are mostly about "well, what if"'s where lines are trying to be pushed to see what someone says about whether they'd bend the line or commit an implicit faux pas of telling a player "no, that's edge abuse".
-
Strongly tending towards "None of these".
the player hacks the commlink of a dead grunt. --> That´s probably the closest to something that might a trick to cheese out Edge if the player really gives no further explanation on the purpose of the action.
But what´s more important here: Is that really worth it if the player gets nothing usefull besides that one point of Edge? From my experiences, it´s very, very likely that the player has something better to do with that Main Action. He could simply just attack, or hack stuff that´s actually worthwhile. And he will likely earn 1 or even 2 points of Edge as well if he picks the targets right.
-
Strongly tending towards "None of these".
the player hacks the commlink of a dead grunt. --> That´s probably the closest to something that might a trick to cheese out Edge if the player really gives no further explanation on the purpose of the action.
But what´s more important here: Is that really worth it if the player gets nothing usefull besides that one point of Edge? From my experiences, it´s very, very likely that the player has something better to do with that Main Action. He could simply just attack, or hack stuff that´s actually worthwhile. And he will likely earn 1 or even 2 points of Edge as well if he picks the targets right.
If one is prone to being skeptical about Edge being a "deeply flawed" system, then yes it's rather important that Edge not be generated by things that shouldn't be generating Edge.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
-
Defining "ongoing confrontation" is apparently what's the more subjective part.
Disagree. I think the CRB's definition is crisp and clear.
Characters start a gaming session with Edge points equal to their Edge rank. In the session, Edge can be carried over and accumulated up to a limit of 7, including the Edge provided by the character’s Edge attribute. Any Edge garnered over your base attribute goes away when you complete any ongoing confrontation; this includes combat, hacking, social persuasion, and any situation where bonus Edge might be accumulated. If, at the end of the confrontation, your current Edge points are less than your Edge attribute, you stay at the lower level. If you want more Edge, you have to earn it.
...
Edge can only be gained when it is part of a real opposed encounter. Gamemasters should not award points of Edge that are not directly part of an ongoing confrontation...
-
Defining "ongoing confrontation" is apparently what's the more subjective part.
Disagree. I think the CRB's definition is crisp and clear.
Characters start a gaming session with Edge points equal to their Edge rank. In the session, Edge can be carried over and accumulated up to a limit of 7, including the Edge provided by the character’s Edge attribute. Any Edge garnered over your base attribute goes away when you complete any ongoing confrontation; this includes combat, hacking, social persuasion, and any situation where bonus Edge might be accumulated. If, at the end of the confrontation, your current Edge points are less than your Edge attribute, you stay at the lower level. If you want more Edge, you have to earn it.
...
Edge can only be gained when it is part of a real opposed encounter. Gamemasters should not award points of Edge that are not directly part of an ongoing confrontation...
And in the example you floated earlier, where you've fought and defeated some guards, took a commlink, and hacked it to try to find guards' access codes, in your mind that's not part of an ongoing confrontation.
We're agreeing to disagree on that.
-
Ok, what if- after defeating the guards, the party face starts questioning the surviving wounded guard. (End of combat encounter start of social encounter maybe?)
While the face does most of the talking the hacker does the following:
Hack, hack,hack hack spend 4 edge on healing a physical dmg. Log off/log on.
Hack, hack, hack ..... until all his dmg is gone. Then he start to share the edge with his teammates, so they also can heal ( all the grunts had lowlight vision, so the team got pretty badly wounded). Once in a while the hacker will engage lightly in the social encounter.
After 6 minutes the face is done talking with the surviving goon ( that dude is pretty shaking, he just witnessed a bunch of runners regenerate in front of him).
Ok, thats the most extreme scenario I can come up with I think.
-
( that dude is pretty shaking, he just witnessed a bunch of runners regenerate in front of him).
I lolled so hard I woke the dog!
-
Ok, what if- after defeating the guards, the party face starts questioning the surviving wounded guard. (End of combat encounter start of social encounter maybe?)
While the face does most of the talking the hacker does the following:
Hack, hack,hack hack spend 4 edge on healing a physical dmg. Log off/log on.
Hack, hack, hack ..... until all his dmg is gone. Then he start to share the edge with his teammates, so they also can heal ( all the grunts had lowlight vision, so the team got pretty badly wounded). Once in a while the hacker will engage lightly in the social encounter.
After 6 minutes the face is done talking with the surviving goon ( that dude is pretty shaking, he just witnessed a bunch of runners regenerate in front of him).
Ok, thats the most extreme scenario I can come up with I think.
While this is going on, a black cat walks in front of you, and your entire team feels strange. During your next encounter, you are shocked to find that the entire team has 0 edge, and does not gain edge from any action or situation until such a time that they are able to investigate what has happened and how to atone.
Karma.
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
If that is tied to their reason for not liking the edge system, then that's totally valid. And in support of your perspective, I have also seen some comments that I would agree fall into your above category.
A lot more of the criticism stems from perspectives other than that, though.
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
I do not think you quite understand how others see this. The edge system was not built from the ground up to prevent random BS from generating edge; it was built in a way that lets you generate edge from random BS and has a little sticky note on it that says "don't generate edge from random BS". This enables people to generate edge off of random BS, they "well, this isn't random BS because blah blah blah" first.
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
I do not think you quite understand how others see this. The edge system was not built from the ground up to prevent random BS from generating edge; it was built in a way that lets you generate edge from random BS and has a little sticky note on it that says "don't generate edge from random BS". This enables people to generate edge off of random BS, they "well, this isn't random BS because blah blah blah" first.
Edge begging is basically the name of the game. If my edge is contingent not on what i do but on how I phrase what I do it’s a edge begging system.
-
Ok, what if- after defeating the guards, the party face starts questioning the surviving wounded guard. (End of combat encounter start of social encounter maybe?)
While the face does most of the talking the hacker does the following:
Hack, hack,hack hack spend 4 edge on healing a physical dmg. Log off/log on.
Hack, hack, hack ..... until all his dmg is gone. Then he start to share the edge with his teammates, so they also can heal ( all the grunts had lowlight vision, so the team got pretty badly wounded). Once in a while the hacker will engage lightly in the social encounter.
After 6 minutes the face is done talking with the surviving goon ( that dude is pretty shaking, he just witnessed a bunch of runners regenerate in front of him).
Ok, thats the most extreme scenario I can come up with I think.
While the face talks, the hacker starts looking up all kinds of knowledge in the Matrix on everything from splinters to shock to sucking chest wounds. He ties bandages around his wounds, packing them with help from the items in the medkit, then starts working on helping his teammates patch up so they can get the hell out of there.
Just because you're healing doesn't mean you're Wolverine.
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.
-
Ok, what if- after defeating the guards, the party face starts questioning the surviving wounded guard. (End of combat encounter start of social encounter maybe?)
While the face does most of the talking the hacker does the following:
Hack, hack,hack hack spend 4 edge on healing a physical dmg. Log off/log on.
Hack, hack, hack ..... until all his dmg is gone. Then he start to share the edge with his teammates, so they also can heal ( all the grunts had lowlight vision, so the team got pretty badly wounded). Once in a while the hacker will engage lightly in the social encounter.
After 6 minutes the face is done talking with the surviving goon ( that dude is pretty shaking, he just witnessed a bunch of runners regenerate in front of him).
Ok, thats the most extreme scenario I can come up with I think.
While the face talks, the hacker starts looking up all kinds of knowledge in the Matrix on everything from splinters to shock to sucking chest wounds. He ties bandages around his wounds, packing them with help from the items in the medkit, then starts working on helping his teammates patch up so they can get the hell out of there.
Just because you're healing doesn't mean you're Wolverine.
Yeah, I always got a vibe that healing from edge wasn't actually "healing" but "revealing that the wound never really was as bad as it looked/felt after all".
-
Interesting, the example was one of the craziest I could come Up with. That playstyle would differ from mine, but then again I Guess thats the purpose og This thread ;)
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.
I was going to type up a bit about how, at the core of both its setting and its mechanics, Shadowrun is a game about exploitation and playing Mother-May-I to get edge runs against that, but you know what? I thought of something better: maybe one of the reasons they're never going to play 6e is because they see how easily broken some of the mechanics are. Did you ever consider that?
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? People who don't like the edge system allowing tactics to benefit from unrelated nonsense are complaining about a rule aimed at preventing nonsense from generating edge, which could then be used to affect tactics?
I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.
I was going to type up a bit about how, at the core of both its setting and its mechanics, Shadowrun is a game about exploitation and playing Mother-May-I to get edge runs against that, but you know what? I thought of something better: maybe one of the reasons they're never going to play 6e is because they see how easily broken some of the mechanics are. Did you ever consider that?
Yes, people have lots of reasons for not playing the game, just as others have lots of reasons TO play the game. Neither is right or wrong. If you don't like 6E, there are 5 other editions and a bunch of other ways to play it. If you are so dead set against the new rules, why are you still posting about them? They are not for you, no one's trying to change your mind, but you are still trying to change other people's minds. It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it. I mean there's a core group of posters that don't like the new edition, continue to be very vocal about not liking the new edition, are constantly trying to change people's minds about the new edition, and yet you still have this forum thread that was created to show how broken Edge is in the new system, yet 52% think none of the examples presented are broken.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how Nth Edition goes from being hated and despised, to being beloved and adored as soon as (N + 1)th Edition is released.
Anyone who feels like digging into the archives of this forum (or Dumpshock, RPG.net, or Reddit) should be able to find numerous threads of people swearing they'd never touch SR5 and would keep playing SR4; Dig even deeper (you might need the help of the Wayback Machine) and you'll find people saying they'd never play SR4 and they'd stick to SR3... And I might be getting bald-on-the-head and grey-in-the-beard, but I have clear memories of IRC's many Shadowrun chat rooms exploding with NERDRAEG at the idea of abandoning SR2.
In five or so years, I'll bet you my last ¥50 that we'll see people complaining about Shadowrun 7th Edition and vowing to never give up their beloved SR6.
Edit: Fixing an embarrassing typo totally derailed my final train of thought. I told you I was getting old.
-
It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it.
And let them get introduced to Shadowrun through a janky, stillborn edition while simultaneously letting CGL know that this level of jank is acceptable? That's just irresponsible. For the sake of the hobby, 6e needs to crash and burn hard.
-
In five or so years, I'll bet you my last ¥50 that we'll see people complaining about Shadowrun 7th Edition and vowing to never give up their beloved SR56.
FTFY :)
-
It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it.
And let them get introduced to Shadowrun through a janky, stillborn edition while simultaneously letting CGL know that this level of jank is acceptable? That's just irresponsible. For the sake of the hobby, 6e needs to crash and burn hard.
Thank you for protecting us from the horrors of ...
Wait, that's not protecting, that's Gatekeeping and toxic fandom.
As I said before, you don't like it. YOU are not the line developer. YOU are not the sole protector of Shadowrun fandom. YOU are a fan. Just a fan and YOU do not decide what is good and what is bad. YOU may want this edition to crash and burn to prove YOU were right and YOU know what is best for everyone, but that's a falsehood since YOU are not the chosen one.
-
This thread is starting to veer into ... *sunglasses* ... a Zero Sum game territory. :)
-
*innocent whistle* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOMlWl7fFk :) :D ;D 8)
-
Thank you for protecting us from the horrors of ...
Wait, that's not protecting, that's Gatekeeping and toxic fandom.
Quite the contrary, this is a refusal to be gatekept. Something I like was changed in a way I certainly don't like, and now I'm being told that I can get out if I don't like it anymore.
There's a narrative going around the mainstream media that if you don't like a hobby and people won't change it to cater to you, you're being gatekept by a bunch of dumb bigoted nerds. Ignoring the obvious truth that if you don't like a hobby then you just don't like a hobby, several devs got in the habit of implementing new mechanics and tossing out old ones to appeal to broaden the appeal of their systems. This isn't inherently detrimental, but problems arise when the devs don't stop to ask important questions, questions like "what are the purpose of these mechanics", "what mechanics are an important part of the system's identity", "what mechanics does the current playerbase really like", "what mechanics are actually creating problems in gameplay and what is the best way to fix them" and "why were these mechanics used in the first place instead of something else". Unfortunately, the devs don't always stop to ask these questions, and the result is much like if an Italian restaurant started serving tacos and nothing but tacos. It doesn't matter whether or not the tacos are any good, it's still a slap to the face for everyone who used to go there because they liked Italian food. And if the tacos aren't good, well, that just means their vitriol is all the more justified.
Shadowrun was always a mechanically complex system, and the people who liked it appreciated it for being a mechanically complex system, even if having to stop gameplay to look up tables is a bit bothersome. And for 6e, how did the devs decide to tackle that last problem and a few others? By ripping out several mechanics and replacing them with a new, unasked for edge mechanic that is alien to the system and its whole history. Was the playerbase consulted at any point during this process? No, not even for playtesting. The simple truth of the matter is that 6e was made to appeal to people who don't like Shadowrun. Not people who like Shadowrun, not people who like Shadowrun but don't know it yet, not people who could potentially like Shadowrun, but people who just don't like Shadowrun. Because of that, I cannot in good conscience guide anyone interested in Shadowrun to 6e; I also cannot do that because people vote with their wallets. If 6e bombs, then the devs will go back to the drawing board and 7e will be made for people who actually like Shadowrun.
By all means, try to appeal to different demographics. Getting more people into the hobby is an objectively good thing for everyone. Go on making Anarchy, put out a second, improved edition of it. Hey, whatever, make board game or a collectible card game, I don't care. Just don't change the flagship product to appeal to people who were never interested in it in the first place.
-
Whatever floats your boat, man. I just know that the truly toxic fans I've dealt with across many fandoms are the ones that believe the game/movie/show/whatever "belongs to them" and "how dare" the creator/director/author change things to something they don't like. Gatekeeping has NEVER been pushing out old fans from fandom, but about preventing new fans from joining (hence Gate and Keep, meaning you don't let them in).
Everything you say like, "6e needs to crash and burn hard" is tantamount to you're being upset that they aren't catering to what you like and would rather cater to other people who you don't feel knows the game as well as you do. I don't care how well the mechanics are written, or if there's a lot of typos in the book. YOU don't like it and want them to change to what YOU want. And everyone else be damned. This is not them changing from "italian to mexican food", this is them making lasagna with pork sausage instead of beef and you don't like the spices.
I honestly don't know what else to say to everyone that doesn't like the changes. They are not changing back, they don't care that you don't like the changes because they are looking at a new demographic to sell to and want to be successful. To put it in the food analogy like before, they were a small family restaurant that wants to become a big chain, so they have to make changes like not having mom cook in the kitchen anymore and changing the recipes so they appeal to more people.
-
Shadowrun was always a mechanically complex system, and the people who liked it appreciated it for being a mechanically complex system, even if having to stop gameplay to look up tables is a bit bothersome. And for 6e, how did the devs decide to tackle that last problem and a few others? By ripping out several mechanics and replacing them with a new, unasked for edge mechanic that is alien to the system and its whole history. Was the playerbase consulted at any point during this process? No, not even for playtesting. The simple truth of the matter is that 6e was made to appeal to people who don't like Shadowrun. Not people who like Shadowrun, not people who like Shadowrun but don't know it yet, not people who could potentially like Shadowrun, but people who just don't like Shadowrun. Because of that, I cannot in good conscience guide anyone interested in Shadowrun to 6e; I also cannot do that because people vote with their wallets. If 6e bombs, then the devs will go back to the drawing board and 7e will be made for people who actually like Shadowrun.
So if I understand correctly, you're main point is that they've changed mechanics integral to what makes Shadowrun what it has historically been, yes? And this is why the result is something that can only be recognized as Shadowrun by someone who has never played the game?
Easy. In that case, I have the solution to your problem. Lean in close so the mods can't hear. *whisper* (The thing they changed was Shadowrun "for people who just don't like Shadowrun" already, and has been for 12 years...so surely it must not be much of a travesty for a new one to come out.)
There, problem solved. Now we can all go back to actually enjoying our hobbies how we like.
-
The issue with "edge abuse" is that it is an admonishment of metagaming and metagaming is an arbitrary category of player interaction with the narrative (Also, it's impossible not to metagame). Many critics of 6e have noticed this and (rightly) pointed the finger at the edge mechanic claiming it to be flawed and (wrongly) unplayable.
To cut to the chase, because edge is a resource the PC needs but is not something with a direct in game correlation any attempt to gain edge is metagaming. And like any form of metagaming it is going to depend greatly on the style of play at the table whether or not and under what circumstances it is acceptable. Remember it is a poor GM who punishes poor roleplay in game. Let the actions of the PC speak for themselves within the context of the game. If you judge the RP to be below your acceptable threshold you can always withhold karma (or give out bonus karma for the opposite, same thing).
-
It never ceases to amaze me how Nth Edition goes from being hated and despised, to being beloved and adored as soon as (N + 1)th Edition is released.
How did that thinking work out for D&D 4e or Cyberpunk v3.0?
Change aversion is certainly a thing. So are releases that are just simply bad. It's not so easy to tell the difference, based on early fan reaction. Time will tell.
If you are so dead set against the new rules, why are you still posting about them? They are not for you, no one's trying to change your mind, but you are still trying to change other people's minds. It's time to follow Elsa's advice and let it go and let people that want to play the new edition, play it. I mean there's a core group of posters that don't like the new edition, continue to be very vocal about not liking the new edition, are constantly trying to change people's minds about the new edition, and yet you still have this forum thread that was created to show how broken Edge is in the new system, yet 52% think none of the examples presented are broken.
I know of no better way to understand an RPG system than taking it to pieces and seeing how it works in extremis. I enjoy thinking about system design that way, and I thought others might too.
But you're the mod. My approach isn't welcome here. Message received.
-
Go ahead and tinker away at system design. There are plenty of threads where people are doing just that.
The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it. Constructive posts would be showing house rules on how to modify or remove the mechanic from your game while still maintaining the benefits/penalties the system puts in place.
-
I know! The ones that talk about how much the game sucks and how they aren't going to play it are posting about how they can break the system they aren't going to use. I mean, you can call it edge begging, but only if you're going to play Sixth Edition.
Some of us will be running and playing SR6 for Missions, even though we are not fond of it in its current state. I am sure there are other demographics of people who will be using it without fondness as well.
The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it. Constructive posts would be showing house rules on how to modify or remove the mechanic from your game while still maintaining the benefits/penalties the system puts in place.
I have to disagree. Constructive conversation doesn't have to be just about house rules, because house rules will not help some of us (again, Missions). I personally think that most anything that falls along the lines of 1). I don't like X, 2). This is why, and 3). I think Y would be a better implementation because is constructive. Voicing criticism is pretty much the only way to have change/errata/edits/ect. considered by the powers that be.
-
The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it. Constructive posts would be showing house rules on how to modify or remove the mechanic from your game while still maintaining the benefits/penalties the system puts in place.
Asking people what they think of things is a pretty key part of proposing useful changes, I'd have thought.
Consider the results of the poll. A lot of people don't think saying "I need Edge so I'm gonna do something moderately to very inconsequential to get it" counts as "edge abuse." I think that's counter to the spirit of the CRB's wording - so that's interesting. A slim majority of people are leaning towards being very lenient here. Perhaps that suggests the wording of the "edge abuse" rule in the CRB misses the mark for many players.
Now consider the spread of responses. It's very broad. There's no strongly preferred approach amongst poll responders. That's interesting too. It suggests this is quite a subjective issue. GMs playing with groups of strangers should be prepared for different players to have quite different perspectives on how they are going to earn Edge.
Those are just two constructive things that came out of this thread.
-
The point I'm making is that there is nothing in this thread that is constructive (ToS #7). The posts have been mostly about how some people don't like Edge, and (in their opinion) the game would be better without it.
Meanwhile, if we look at the poll:
- 24 people voted
- Of these, 11 voted none of the cases are abuse
- Another 8 voted it depends
- 5 voted for specific cases
- Of which 2 people voted for every case, including hacking a guard's gun, being edge abuse
So that's 2 disgruntled edge-haters, 3 people that consider some cases edge abuse, 8 people that believe it depends on circumstances, and out of 22 sincere voters, 50% don't consider these cases edge abuse. So I think the poll itself helped prove a point.
-
Consider the results of the poll. A lot of people don't think saying "I need Edge so I'm gonna do something moderately to very inconsequential to get it" counts as "edge abuse." I think that's counter to the spirit of the CRB's wording - so that's interesting. A slim majority of people are leaning towards being very lenient here. Perhaps that suggests the wording of the "edge abuse" rule in the CRB misses the mark for many players.
Now consider the spread of responses. It's very broad. There's no strongly preferred approach amongst poll responders. That's interesting too. It suggests this is quite a subjective issue. GMs playing with groups of strangers should be prepared for different players to have quite different perspectives on how they are going to earn Edge.
Those are just two constructive things that came out of this thread.
Common issue in quantitative research methods such as poll is the wording of the question and context. Here the wording of the first question, specifically "need" can be viewed as not so clear. Also, what you refer to as "inconsequential" is arguably a subjective perspective, because other GM's can view it as being quite influential.
If we would rephrase the question to: "I want to attack the grunts, so I hack the lights in order to gain edge." Does that still capture the players original intent ? If yes, is that still an abuse ? Does reduced vision create negative consequences for those grunts in a follow up attack ? I am imagining a situation in which I am on a street, the lights go dark and 1,5 second later a cybered up mofo charges me. He can see me, I can't see drek. To me it is consequential.
Your second point is good, GM's playing with group of strangers should be prepared, perhaps sit down before the game and go through a checklist such as what is edge abuse for you.
-
I don't know if a pre-game like that is viable for SRM/convention play, since time is at a premium. You could of course make it a topic to address in a home game's Session Zero, however.
What *I'd* do if I were GMing SRM/convention and potential edge abuse is coming up, I'd just say so. "Ok let me interrupt you for a sec... if you do X, I will invoke the Edge Abuse rule and you won't get edge for that. You can do something similar, but you'll have to change your idea up somewhat to make it relevant to the Shadowrun's success if you want to gain Edge from doing it..."
-
I don't know if a pre-game like that is viable for SRM/convention play, since time is at a premium. You could of course make it a topic to address in a home game's Session Zero, however.
I haven't play at a convention, but are 5 minute icebreakers rare at conventions ? Like hey what's up my name is, and there the GM could introduce his take on edge abuse, something similar to how Poker dealer addresses each player at the table. Big Blind, Small Blind, cash in, ... here we go ladies and gents.
-
I don't know if a pre-game like that is viable for SRM/convention play, since time is at a premium. You could of course make it a topic to address in a home game's Session Zero, however.
I haven't play at a convention, but are 5 minute icebreakers rare at conventions ? Like hey what's up my name is, and there the GM could introduce his take on edge abuse, something similar to how Poker dealer addresses each player at the table. Big Blind, Small Blind, cash in, ... here we go ladies and gents.
If everyone shows up early, sure that's something that can be done. Thing is, you can't presume it. Also: that time is already spoken for at the beginning of a time block for, as you said, personal and character introductions, GM going over character sheets, and so on. Adding "one more thing" doesn't always work- there's already "pre game" stuff that's already on the camel's back...
-
I honestly don't know what else to say to everyone that doesn't like the changes. They are not changing back, they don't care that you don't like the changes because they are looking at a new demographic to sell to and want to be successful.
Oh, you won't be singing that tune for very long. The people who don't like Shadowrun to begin with aren't going to be interested in 6e just because of the changes made, and by large the existing playerbase isn't adopting 6e outside of missions play (see: the Emerald Grid just imploding in on itself because they're not switching to 6e and don't know what they're going to do now that 5e modules aren't being produced anymore). The only danger here is new players having 6e as their first exposure to Shadowrun, which could convince them that this is what Shadowrun is supposed to be (which is bad because it sets 6e as the new standard going forward), or worse turn them off Shadowrun entirely (which is bad because the hobby always needs new blood). 6e is inevitably going to crash and burn; it needs to crash and burn hard so that the devs learn to not repeat this mistake and to minimize the number of new players that are affected by this BS.
So if I understand correctly, you're main point is that they've changed mechanics integral to what makes Shadowrun what it has historically been, yes? And this is why the result is something that can only be recognized as Shadowrun by someone who has never played the game?
Easy. In that case, I have the solution to your problem. Lean in close so the mods can't hear. *whisper* (The thing they changed was Shadowrun "for people who just don't like Shadowrun" already, and has been for 12 years...so surely it must not be much of a travesty for a new one to come out.)
There, problem solved. Now we can all go back to actually enjoying our hobbies how we like.
You might have a point if the difference between 5e and 6e wasn't far more dramatic and far more fundamental than any other edition change in Shadowrun. I would dare say that 1e and 5e have more in common than any edition has with 6e. Honestly, it would've been a far better move to sell 6e as Anarchy 2e: no need to stick to traditions, no old fanbase to be upset by changes, complete freedom to experiment with new and different mechanics, if it does well then you have 2 lines of Shadowrun that sell well and if it doesn't at least you didn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
-
I don't want to derail the discussion by comparing 6we to 4e, but the latter absolutely was a massive shift from SR1-3. Both 6we and 4e have some massive meta/rules changes from prior editions, but 6we doesn't have massive in-universe changes... where 4e brought us Technomancers (while taking away Deckers...), Wireless Everything, Shamans and Hermetics are the same thing now, and etc...
-
The thing is I believe there are some simple changes that can be made that would both keep within the spirit of the things they were aiming for with their design as well as smooth over much of the ruffled feathers of the folk that don't like the new direction.
Make strength relevant to melee damage/combat, make armor directly relevant to resisting damage (for those still insist it already is relevant to resisting damage), give riggers some much needed love, and refine the edge system so that the wide divide that is the discretion gap is no longer necessary and smooth over the gain vs. spend issues.
Do that and I'd wager most folk would be fairly content at that point, game wise. Company wise, get it together and stop shipping product riddled with editing errors.
-
I posted a Houserule regarding "Edge abuse" and i am really really rarely using Houserules ever. But this one seems necessary.
Other than that a few examples how a player can "abuse" the edge system (see it more as "funny" no GM lightning bolts needed ^^)
- return of the good old "rat bag fighter" in D&D you could - for a time fine with rules - use Whirldwind attack and Great Cleave feats together with a bag full of rats (or flies, frogs whatever) when the fighter encountered a tough opponent he opened the bag and killed the rats using Whirldwind attack, the attack hit the opponent once, each rat died and produced a "cleave" extra attack on the opponent. (this does not work anymore for a long time now with many rule changes in any edition involving those feats)
now back to Shadowrun: any char could carry a bag full of rats/flies/mice, mages attack them with Manabolts for free Edge, Trolls just beat them to death and so on
- a tough Troll/Ork/Street Sam can just let the groups hacker slap him in the face (lets say a melee attack with 5 dice + 1 DV stun damage, but one or two points of Edge as reward ...)
obivously you can wrap this extreme scenarios into role playing "the Troll panicks and the hacker has to slap him a few times ..."
GM describes a fly in the room "my mage is disgusted and fires a Manabolt on the fly"
so thats why i houseruled the Edge healings to only work once per injury. And i just "refresh" Edge more often so that theres no need to get overly creative ...