[Ghost Rigger]

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"?

[Lormyr]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[penllawen]

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?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Lormyr]

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!).

[Lormyr]

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.

[penllawen]

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 I'm not just busking it.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[DigitalZombie]

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.   

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.

[penllawen]

... 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

[penllawen]

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?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[penllawen]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.