Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Xelian on <05-20-21/1423:06>
-
I'm pretty sure this have probably been answered before but a argument had arose on our last session about edge and what exactly consider a situation.
Basically we wanted to question a guy and as a mage I wanted to mind probe him but to be sure I wanted to accumulate some bonus edge in order to reroll my fails if I have to. As a mage my max edge attribute is only 2. So I wanted to roll play some questioning on the guy hopefully gaining edge for the scene before I try to cast the spell on him. My DM said in the moment I no longer talk to him and cast a spell the social confrontation is over and my edge goes back to 2 so I cannot use it.
Basically we argued over this paragraph from the book
"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"
So what exactly is ongoing confrontation?
-
...
So what exactly is ongoing confrontation?
An "ongoing confrontation" ends whenever a GM says it does.
Now mind you, a GM shouldn't be saying a confrontation arbitrarily ends just to force an Edge dump. Whether a pause mid-fight or mid-chase is substantial enough to warrant the Edge reset is a matter that is deliberately reserved to GM discretion. But logically there needs to BE some sort of break in the action or flow of events, in the first place.
-
That's an extremely narrow reading your GM had there, but SSDR is right that its a GM discretion rule. Howeverrrr.... at my talbe, the confrontation would be defined as the current scene with the current players, until the scene is resolved, or until the conflict is resolved, in a dramatic/theatre sense. If a fight breaks out in the middle of negotiations, to me that's the same confrontation. Likewise if negotiations break out in the middle of a fight.
-
On one hand, it's still the same encounter, so I disagree with 'we just switched from social / infiltration / smoothtalking into actual combat, so edge resets'.
On the other hand, you're questioning him just for the Edge? That's Edge Abuse and the rules allow for a GM to go 'nope, I see what you're doing here, no rewards for you'.
-
On the other hand, you're questioning him just for the Edge? That's Edge Abuse and the rules allow for a GM to go 'nope, I see what you're doing here, no rewards for you'.
If he questioned a homeless person in the alley and then came in and mind probed the target, I'd agree. Or did some other activity not related to getting info from the target. Questioning followed by a Mind Probe is a legit way to do edge "farming" cause it's grounded in the story at hand. And who's to say he couldn't have gotten the info with the questioning?
-
Yup, sounds like a good example on how not to handle Edge resets. The only reason why this might be remotely justifiable is as a means to mechanically penalize the low Edge Attribute of 2. If it werenīt for frequent resets, the Attribute would have almost no meaning besides setting starting Edge, so "forcing" an expected reset every now and then is not the worst practice.
But even with that problem and the olī"GMīs always right" in mind, this sound pretty petty. At the core, what you described is clearly one interrogation scene where you merely switched the means of interrogation from mundane to magical. Itīs also reasonable to assume that good socialwork helps to ease up the target for the Mind probe.
On the other hand, you're questioning him just for the Edge? That's Edge Abuse and the rules allow for a GM to go 'nope, I see what you're doing here, no rewards for you'.
If he questioned a homeless person in the alley and then came in and mind probed the target, I'd agree. Or did some other activity not related to getting info from the target. Questioning followed by a Mind Probe is a legit way to do edge "farming" cause it's grounded in the story at hand. And who's to say he couldn't have gotten the info with the questioning?
Very important disction here!
-
The GM's position is odd to me.
I take the AR/DR thing to be a powerful gun or beefy armor can give an advantage/disadvantage for a physical attack.
Well, a good social working-over certainly seems like the way to give advantage/disadvantage for a mind probe (could be either; if you just end up aggravating the target, maybe you increase their resistance to the mind probe).
I'm not sure I'd be as keen on a social interaction giving edge to a Combat spell, unless maybe the social approach was geared toward making the target comfortable or otherwise lowering their mental defenses against a mana attack spell.
But it seems right in line for a mind probe, and it's not as if there's some other way to accumulate edge for a magical contest.
-
Not sure I follow....
- Why do he think he need 4 Edge points in order to to cast Mind Probe?
- Why do you not think Mind Probe can be useful during an interrogation?
I can see good arguments for both sides here (that it count as the same encounter or that it count as two different encounters).
Having said that, two things comes to mind;
- Mind Probe is a magical way to interrogate a subject. If he is a skilled interrogator then he will not really learn anything more with Mind Probe.
- According to "Gaining Edge - Preventing Edge Abuse" Gamemasters should not award points of Edge to players who are attempting to game the system.
-
What counts as gaming the system?
If you shoot a goon before shooting the bigger bad, while knowing that their DR is likely to vary significantly, is that gaming the edge system? (I ask because this one happens to have a stated rule for edge gain.)
Softening up a Mind Probe target feels legit to me. (Whereas interrogating the homeless guy in the alley feels like abuse.)
-
If you shoot a goon before shooting the bigger bad, while knowing that their DR is likely to vary significantly, is that gaming the edge system? (I ask because this one happens to have a stated rule for edge gain.)
GM decides, but this GM would be squarely against calling that edge abuse. I wouldn't think about invoking edge abuse until it bordered on breaking our suspension of disbelief.
-
What counts as gaming the system?
If you shoot a goon before shooting the bigger bad, while knowing that their DR is likely to vary significantly, is that gaming the edge system? (I ask because this one happens to have a stated rule for edge gain.)
Softening up a Mind Probe target feels legit to me. (Whereas interrogating the homeless guy in the alley feels like abuse.)
Edge abuse is like pr0n: You know it when you see it. And... no two people agree exactly where the line is.
Here's my personal rule of thumb:
Was the primary goal of the action to generate Edge?
If yes, it's probably abuse.
If no, it's probably not.
-
SSDR... I am not so sure on that simple rule. Part of 6th and the fact that edge actions are really expensive is that you need to think about how you are setting yourself up in an advantageous position. So if the goal of the interrogation was to soften up your target and get them thinking about what you wanted to probe, that feels like a good reason to gain edge. Now it could also backfire and grant the NPC edge because they have better clothes or the social modifiers put them in a better position.
-
Yeah, it's really a matter of how it's presented and played out. The way it's told, 'question him to get more Edge', strikes me as Edge Abuse. 'Score some initial info with manipulation or interrogation, and steer his thinking to make the Mind Probe's weakest result (surface thoughts) still useful', that would be fine.
-
SSDR... I am not so sure on that simple rule. Part of 6th and the fact that edge actions are really expensive is that you need to think about how you are setting yourself up in an advantageous position. So if the goal of the interrogation was to soften up your target and get them thinking about what you wanted to probe, that feels like a good reason to gain edge. Now it could also backfire and grant the NPC edge because they have better clothes or the social modifiers put them in a better position.
Indeed.. the key word in my rule of thumb was "was it the primary goal" of the action.
Rigger doing donuts in the stuffer shack parking lot prior to a street race? If you do it just to pad your edge bank, that's a clear cut case of Edge abuse. If you do it as part of a plan to intimidate your opposition or impress bettors prior to the race... oh and truly the free edge is just a cherry on top? ok! The exact same action that was edge abuse when done for a different reason now may not be.
In my view it's not a matter of the action per se... It's about the player's intent. And that's basically impossible to legislate about in a RPG.
-
In my view it's not a matter of the action per se... It's about the player's intent. And that's basically impossible to legislate about in a RPG.
Which makes it a bit of wonky benchmark, right? Iīd say itīs much more important if the action is connected to the task at hand. IMO, in this example, there is a clear connection between the talking, the spellcasting and the task at hand (getting information out of the target). This clearly isnīt Edge abuse, even if the player does the talking bit under the blatant assumption that it might grant Edge that can be used for the Mind Probe. Thatīs the main appeal the Edge System: Do smart stuff that makes sense and get rewarded. Thereīs no need to punish players for also "expecting" that reward.
The "Smooth talk a nearby random squatter to get Edge" scenario would be abuse. But thereīs an easy way to prove that as a GM: Ask the player whatīs the purpose of the action in the grander scheme of things.
- "Nothing, I just want to refill my Edge." Thanks for the honesty, but thatīs the definition of Edge abuse. No Edge for you.
- "Maybe [random NPC #265] randomly connects to the story in some way" Yeah, not the case. No Edge for you.
- "You know, Iīm just immersing myself a bit in the game world, playing out my character ..." Ok cool, thatīs fine. We can roleplay a bit. "Oh btw, do I get Edge for my First Impression?" Nice try. No.
-
Rigger doing donuts in the stuffer shack parking lot prior to a street race? If you do it just to pad your edge bank, that's a clear cut case of Edge abuse. If you do it as part of a plan to intimidate your opposition or impress bettors prior to the race... oh and truly the free edge is just a cherry on top? ok! The exact same action that was edge abuse when done for a different reason now may not be.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree.
If you put a scope on your rifle to take a long shot, we naturally assume it's because it will add accuracy to the following (shooting) action, and if the way that manifests is edge-related (in this case, denying it to the target), so be it. You didn't have to say "Pretty please dear GM, I swear I did it to get a more accurate shot, not to deny my target edge." If the player said, "well I don't want this guy gaining edge on me, so I'm going to attach my scope," would you then deny them edge? I wouldn't, as it's just how using a tool to your advantage manifests in the rules. They're kind of synonyms.
If doing donuts in the parking lot before a race gives you an advantage for the race, why do you have to make your case to the GM in order to receive it? Shouldn't it be automatic, like the scope? Even if the player says "I want some edge for this race, so I'm going to do a few donuts first to prep" that doesn't invalidate the strategy of taking an action to give yourself an advantage on the following action. And some preparatory driving before a major driving test seems totally in line, whether you call it getting a feel for the wheel, calming your nerves, intimidating your opponent, or pulling in some edge to prep for an important test. (I wouldn't give more edge for each donut, but one, sure!)
I think of edge abuse as being much more clear-cut than that -- starting a rope climb with climbing gear 7 times to rack up the "just started climbing" bonus, or intimidating a victim outside the building before you go confront your actual Johnson/adversary, or repeatedly testing your Catlike balance on the curb before picking a fight.
So I tend to think of it as something closer to "if there's no way the player COULD present a plausible reason" than "if the player DID NOT present a plausible reason in the moment".
-
In my view it's not a matter of the action per se... It's about the player's intent. And that's basically impossible to legislate about in a RPG.
Which makes it a bit of wonky benchmark, right? Iīd say itīs much more important if the action is connected to the task at hand. IMO, in this example, there is a clear connection between the talking, the spellcasting and the task at hand (getting information out of the target). This clearly isnīt Edge abuse, even if the player does the talking bit under the blatant assumption that it might grant Edge that can be used for the Mind Probe. Thatīs the main appeal the Edge System: Do smart stuff that makes sense and get rewarded. Thereīs no need to punish players for also "expecting" that reward.
The "Smooth talk a nearby random squatter to get Edge" scenario would be abuse. But thereīs an easy way to prove that as a GM: Ask the player whatīs the purpose of the action in the grander scheme of things.
- "Nothing, I just want to refill my Edge." Thanks for the honesty, but thatīs the definition of Edge abuse. No Edge for you.
- "Maybe [random NPC #265] randomly connects to the story in some way" Yeah, not the case. No Edge for you.
- "You know, Iīm just immersing myself a bit in the game world, playing out my character ..." Ok cool, thatīs fine. We can roleplay a bit. "Oh btw, do I get Edge for my First Impression?" Nice try. No.
I have a pedantic disagreement, but generally I think we're actually on the same page.
Pedantic disagreement: No, I don't think it's a wonky benchmark. The player's motivations for a character doing something are largely obvious. Even when you're gaming with strangers, such as at a con. Are you doing this just for the edge generation? Again, the porn comparison. Every GM knows edge abuse when they see it, but two GMs may disagree where exactly the line is. Extreme cases though? We're making a mountain out of a molehill.
General agreement: If you do some preparation for something and that preparation happens to grant edge, you don't have to really question the player's motives. If it's logical for the edge-granting action to benefit the ultimate action, what can the abuse be? Frankly if it grants edge BECAUSE it's helping "that sort of follow-up thing", then the whole system is working properly is it not?
Rigger doing donuts in the stuffer shack parking lot prior to a street race? If you do it just to pad your edge bank, that's a clear cut case of Edge abuse. If you do it as part of a plan to intimidate your opposition or impress bettors prior to the race... oh and truly the free edge is just a cherry on top? ok! The exact same action that was edge abuse when done for a different reason now may not be.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree.
If you put a scope on your rifle to take a long shot, we naturally assume it's because it will add accuracy to the following (shooting) action, and if the way that manifests is edge-related (in this case, denying it to the target), so be it. You didn't have to say "Pretty please dear GM, I swear I did it to get a more accurate shot, not to deny my target edge." If the player said, "well I don't want this guy gaining edge on me, so I'm going to attach my scope," would you then deny them edge? I wouldn't, as it's just how using a tool to your advantage manifests in the rules. They're kind of synonyms.
I bet we both agree that then taking that rifle and taking pot shots at neighborhood cats, rats, and squatters for the sole reason of Edge gain from AR to DR comparison counts as Edge abuse?
If doing donuts in the parking lot before a race gives you an advantage for the race, why do you have to make your case to the GM in order to receive it? Shouldn't it be automatic, like the scope? Even if the player says "I want some edge for this race, so I'm going to do a few donuts first to prep" that doesn't invalidate the strategy of taking an action to give yourself an advantage on the following action. And some preparatory driving before a major driving test seems totally in line, whether you call it getting a feel for the wheel, calming your nerves, intimidating your opponent, or pulling in some edge to prep for an important test. (I wouldn't give more edge for each donut, but one, sure!)
Because if the link isn't apparent to the GM, it's on the player to make a case for why there IS a reasonable link to avoid potential denial of that Edge via the Edge Abuse rule... if that's the direction the GM is leaning.
Sure, there are reasonable ways to explain keeping edge from doing donuts before a street race for use IN that street race. Lots of ways. Probably infinite ways to justify an edge carryover, really. (but again, if the player can't even be bothered to explain a rationale when the GM suspects "are you doing that ONLY for the edge gain... it can be kiboshed!)
But consider: what about doing donuts to gain edge via control rig, to bank edge up for the negotiation with Mr Johnson who's inside and not even aware of the feat of driving prowess? Significantly harder to justify. Frankly, the GM would even be well within rights to invoke an edge reset after going inside to start a "new social encounter" anyway!
I think of edge abuse as being much more clear-cut than that -- starting a rope climb with climbing gear 7 times to rack up the "just started climbing" bonus, or intimidating a victim outside the building before you go confront your actual Johnson/adversary, or repeatedly testing your Catlike balance on the curb before picking a fight.
So I tend to think of it as something closer to "if there's no way the player COULD present a plausible reason" than "if the player DID NOT present a plausible reason in the moment".
Porn and Edge Abuse. We even if you and I might disagree on where the line lies EXACTLY AND IN ALL CASES, I bet we're both pretty comfortable identifying it when we see it. And I find "gm discretion" to be a far better rule than trying to codify all potential activities in all potential contexts as to what is and is not edge abuse :)
-
Yeah, it's really a matter of how it's presented and played out. The way it's told, 'question him to get more Edge', strikes me as Edge Abuse. 'Score some initial info with manipulation or interrogation, and steer his thinking to make the Mind Probe's weakest result (surface thoughts) still useful', that would be fine.
I may have presented it badly yeah. I knew I couldn't probe him with enough successes without having 4 edge to reroll the failure. But my idea was to soften him up, maybe even get the information based on rolls even without mindprobe. Anyway - at the end we didn't interrogate the guy at all but agreed that the GM wasn't right to cut me like that. Also edge is fishy in 6e
-
If your goal is to extract intel from a target I'd say you would typically first cast mind probe (which is a sustained spell that you can cast on yourself long before you even enter the room where your target is located), then engage the target with either Negotiation or Con (which would trigger your First Impression quality) and since you are simultaneously Mind Probing the target I could for sure see that you could gain even more (situational) Edge on your Negotiation or Con action thanks to the extra intel you managed to extract (perhaps triggering "Talker has convincing support for claims" or something similar).
I can also see that if you are perhaps not very skilled with interrogation, deliberately left chargen with an edge attribute of just 2 but desperately need 2 extra edge when casting mind probe (perhaps because you also didn't invest into magic rating, spellcasting rating or applicable foci) that you would would try to argue for a social encounter just to trigger 2 edge from their first impression quality - but I can also understand the point of view of a GM that in some cases during this scenario might argue edge abuse here (at least if the player was purely only after the mechanical advantage without any good reasoning behind the order of operation here).
Then again, with the exception of perhaps First Impression, Analytic mind and the Control Rig implant (and a few more), it is actually pretty difficult to gain edge during non-combat or non-hacking situations so...
While using an imaging scope at medium far and extreme range you must spend 1 minor action on Take Aim without getting the normal positive dice pool bonus of +1 to hit (so that is the opportunity cost for you). In return your AR is increased by 2 (from the vision magnification). The target is also denied potential edge from having high DR, but most weapons that come with an imaging scope already have their optimal range categories here and thus often have scary high AR, even before the AR bonus. The denying edge gain part typically only comes in play when tanky players are being pinned down by enemy snipers...
The only confusing here is that the rule can be read as if a weapon with an imaging scope that is being used at closer range will also deny your opponent Edge gain when defending, which I doubt was the intent when they wrote it ;-)
But to make it extra clear, here is my suggested house rule (from the sticky house rule thread):
Imaging scope.
When you are using an imaging scope at Medium, Far and Extreme range, your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating.
-
Someone contacted me on an interesting answer they had read on reddit. Turns out your GM asked there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Shadowrun/comments/nh7uuv/shadowrun_6e_edge_gain_situation_question/gyuxhr0/
That answer brings up the cap of 2, while Xenon brings up Imaging Scope. So with that said, I'm going to shamelessly plug the Edge blogposts I made once, that discuss the caps, AR-DR, etc.
https://shadowland.blog/2020/05/05/houserules-edge-intro/
https://shadowland.blog/2020/05/06/houserules-edge-cinematic-play/
https://shadowland.blog/2020/05/08/houserules-edge-ar-dr/
https://shadowland.blog/2020/05/10/houserules-edge-qualities-etc/