[worloch]

And of course, my point is that though the links are fragmented it is mechanically in place, and that though the PCs may be 'special', they aren't immune, and that TLE-x is more than just a 'fluff' piece that no PC needs to worry about unless he's bored and wants to add a potentially-debilitating anyeurism to his character's life.  Yes, the samurai with delta-grade wired reflexes, skillwires, and whatever other DNI cyberware he can cram into his body is going to run the risk.  This is one reason why I feel that players SHOULD be aware of as many of the rules as possible.  But according to a straight reading of the rules, Move-By-Wire (a rare piece of cyberware) is a, if not the, leading cause of TLE-x (a rare disease/condition).

It's different at each table, I'm certain.

Don't think because I said 'fluff' that I think it is unimportant.  I use that term to distinguish setting materials that are more nebulous in nature versus game mechanics that are more static and discreet - 'crunch'.

My point stands, I think.  Looking at the rules in Augmentation for TLE-x, pg 132, we immediately hit the vagueness in the rules that leads me to call it fluff (fluff being the part of the game that is most up to the GM to interpret).  First, it is presented in a Disease format, while at the same time being acknowledge that it is not a disease.  Fair enough, but already we must acknowledge that we're deviating from the norm.  Second, the first mechanic of the Disease format - Vector - is listed as "Special".  Alright, we know that it is not actually a Disease, so giving it a Disease vector would be confusing, but what does "Special" mean?

Reading the text, we're not given a mechanical definition of "Special", such as "Essence < 1" or "Has 10 discreet pieces of Cyberware" or "Has Move-By-Wire cyberware".  Nothing we can count, calculate or read off our character sheet - the crunchy bits.  Instead, we are left with the fluffy bit, quoted already in this thread but I'll throw it in here for ease of reference - ...resulting from extended neurological and metabolic stress (typically the result of excessive cyberware impantation. especially move-by-wire implants)...

So the GM interprets the fluffy bits, such as "extended neurological and metabolic stress" and "excessive cyberware implantation", makes a call on how it will manifest in their game, and most importantly, lets their players know how it is going to play at the table.

Do you inflict it on them for other Cyberware?  What is your threshold?

I do, at a much slower rate. If they have over 3 essence worth of DNI controlled ware (what I consider to be excessive cyberware based on the everyday norm), I have them check1/year. Every part of a point over adds to the number of times per year i make them roll. So with up to 4 points it would be 2/year (1/6 months) at up to 5 points 3/year (1/4 months) and up to 6 points 4/year (1/3 months). Keep in mind, that's only DNI controlled cyberware.

When I have them check, I have them make an edge test with a threshold equal to the number of times per year they have to check (-1 if they're on AEXD). If they fail, they begin having to fight TLE-x once per month using the normal rules for fighting it.

And thank you to Wells, whom I have quoted here responding to me, stating basically exactly what I pointed out above.  He has interpreted the fluffy bits "excessive cyberwear" as being ">3 essence worth of DNI ware", and put together a system that works for him based on the rules, and hopefully, has communicated this to his players, as there is absolutely no way they would know this from just reading the books - This has to come from communication from the GM.


At the end of the day, everyone can vote with their feet.  Compromise is going to be required.  A GM who won't run the game his players want to play is not going to have any players, and that doesn't make them much of a GM.  Players who won't accept their GM's rulings aren't going to have a GM for very long, and that doesn't give you much of a game.

[JustADude]

Okay, I think I actually have a slightly different take to look at this with:

Cyberpsychosis is another specific threat to those with extremely low Essence, which correlates in 99.999% of all cases to those who have lots of Cyberware. Cyberpsychosis has a listed a threshold for when you become vulnerable for it (Ess =< 1), and an optional system in place (Aug, p21) for tests to see if a player develops it in play, should the GM wants to go that route.

There is no actual listed threshold, in terms of Essence or # of Implants, for TLE-x, and there is not even a suggestion of the proper time-frame, since "chronic and degenerative" can mean anything from hours to decades. Thus, there is no guideline for the "risk factor" other than making a roll, the frequency and context of which is entirely at the GM's discretion, to see if you suffer an attack and have, therefore, "caught" the disorder.

Thus, Cyberpsychosis resulting from Low Essence is a mechanical "thing," while Excessive Cyberware resulting in TLE-x is GM Fiat.

[WellsIDidIt]

It's not GM Fiat any more than determining how often they get bitten by malaria infected mosquitoes, how often they are shot at by local gangers, or anything else that's up to the GM to decide frequency of.

[Falconer]

We need ghoul mosquito's!   End it all right away... look a street sam with less than one essence... send the swarm!

[Mirikon]

It's simple, really. If the GM decides they want to put some mechanic in place that makes MBW definitively cause TLE-x, then they should be up front and warn players of this before they take the ware, and give them a chance to change their concept or ware. The same goes for a GM who thinks that a berserk Bear shaman does not get to roll defense. Tell people up front, instead of springing it on them in the middle of the game, and give them a chance to change things. If they agree, then all's good. If they change it or walk, all's still good. If you're going to put things in place that may massively screw a player's character, then giving them knowledge beforehand is simply good gaming etiquette.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

I agree completely, Mirikon, and that's my policy.  Unfortunately, All4BigGuns especially believes that not only should they be warned before they take the totem/cyberwear/whatever, but that explicit permission should be obtained by the Game Master to inflict a condition he's already warned about just before he inflicts it.  And, in fact, he'd walk away from a table where that wasn't taking place, and apparently is astonished that other players wouldn't as well, and claims that they should.

*shrugs*  At this point, well - ludicrous speed has been reached.

[All4BigGuns]

I agree completely, Mirikon, and that's my policy.  Unfortunately, All4BigGuns especially believes that not only should they be warned before they take the totem/cyberwear/whatever, but that explicit permission should be obtained by the Game Master to inflict a condition he's already warned about just before he inflicts it.  And, in fact, he'd walk away from a table where that wasn't taking place, and apparently is astonished that other players wouldn't as well, and claims that they should.

*shrugs*  At this point, well - ludicrous speed has been reached.

If the GM is wanting to take control of my character like that, hells yeah, I'll walk away from that game (that's not to say I won't go for another game later though). The whole point is that the player should have total control over their character, and a GM deciding to put the risk in to arbitrarily add a Negative Quality the player did not choose which has no mechanics to determine when to make checks or how often to make checks other than GM decision is little more than a barely veiled attempt at a power trip and say "Dance my little puppets! Dance!".

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

If the GM is wanting to take control of my character like that, hells yeah, I'll walk away from that game (that's not to say I won't go for another game later though). The whole point is that the player should have total control over their character, and a GM deciding to put the risk in to arbitrarily add a Negative Quality the player did not choose which has no mechanics to determine when to make checks or how often to make checks other than GM decision is little more than a barely veiled attempt at a power trip and say "Dance my little puppets! Dance!".

I'm sorry you think that way, A4BG, but you thinking that way doesn't make it so.

First, that isn't taking control of your character.  If I warn you, 'there's a bunch of guards in that room, you're probably gonna get shot' and you charge in, I'm not taking control of your character if you get shot; you decided to charge in.  If I warn you, 'there's a pretty serious mosquito-borne malaria outbreak down there right now', and you don't bring the Deep Woods OFF!, I'm not taking control of your character if you contract malaria; you decided not to bring the bug spray.  If I warn you, "TLE-x is a really likely condition with that piece of cyberware, though you can stave it off if you take drugs," and you both implant the cyberware and not take the drugs, I'm not taking control of your character if you develop TLE-x; you implanted the 'ware and didn't take the drugs.

The fact that each of those three examples has a different time frame for 'onset' doesn't change the fact that a) you were warned and b) you chose to ignore the warning.

We've already been over the fact that developing TLE-x by the game rules has an 'onset' time of 'GM decision' and a roll to resist developing the condition.  If your GM (or you as GM) doesn't ever want that to be in there, ignore it.  If your GM has warned you, take the fragging drugs and ignore it.  If your GM has warned you and you haven't taken the drugs, be ready to make the rolls to resist developing the condition when the GM's decision tells you that it's time to roll.  That STILL isn't taking control of your character.

We've ALSO been over the fact that developing TLE-x is not the same as having the Negative Quality.  You're adamant about ignoring that fact, but ignoring it doesn't make it go away.  To get rid of TLE-x that's developed in-game, have the surgery done; you pay your money, and Dr. Feelgood cuts out the part of your brain that's going 'blooie!' all the time.  To avoid it in the future, remove the cyberware; keeping the 'ware keeps you exposed to the trigger condition for developing the condition.  If you had the Negative Quality you would ALSO have to pay the karma to remove the Quality as well; TLE-x developed in-game is just like any other disease: you do what it says to get rid of it, and then you're bloomin' fine unless you go back and do whatever made you get it in the first place.

If you want to view all that - you know, the cybernetic version of 'you've been bitten by mosquitos for the past week, I think it's time for you to make a resistance check against getting malaria' - as being 'muahaha, dance my little puppets, dance', and you're going to walk away from the table, I'm pretty sure that you'd never sit at that table again.  You sure wouldn't sit at mine for walking away because of that.  You know why?

Because players do not, and never have, had total control over their characters.

Players have total control over what risks their characters take.  They do not have total control over the risks to which their characters succumb.  Risk getting shot.  Risk getting malaria.  Risk getting squashed by the huge pendulum.  Risk falling into the pit.  Risk getting possessed by a spirit.  Risk getting stabbed by a ganger.  Risk being shot by a sniper when the Johnson double-crosses you at the hand-off.  Risk developing TLE-x.

Maybe you get shot; there's a roll to avoid that, and to resist that if you don't avoid it.  Maybe you get malaria; there's a roll to resist that, if you don't take precautions.  Maybe you get squashed; there's a roll to avoid that, and to resist it if you don't avoid it.  Maybe you fall into the pit; there's a roll to avoid it, and to resist it if you don't avoid it.  Maybe you get possessed by ...

Everything in that list - with the possible exception of the shot by the sniper when the Johnson double-crosses you - has a way to avoid it, and a way to resist it, and a way to get rid of it.  The ONLY two things that have sure-fire ways OF avoiding it in the first place are the two diseases, malaria and TLE-x.  And yet you still think that somehow being made to roll to resist developing a disease the GM (me, in this case) warned you was likely (not certain) to develop, and who told you how to put off developing it functionally for forever, is 'taking control of your character'.

You'd hear this: "I'm sorry, you HAD control of your character.  You GAVE UP control of your character when BOTH implanted the cyberware AND didn't take the drugs necessary to stave off the condition.  Roll your unmodified Body to resist developing the disease.   You've had your chance; developing TLE-x at this point is what I already told you could happen, and now it is.  It isn't the Negative Quality; if you develop it, you won't need to spend Karma to get rid of it, so I don't know where the hell you got that idea from, but it's flat-out wrong.  Now roll."

And walking away would mean you're walking away from the group.  You want back in?  Roll your Body to resist developing TLE-x.  You want to play AD&D with us tomorrow?  Roll your Body to resist developing TLE-x.  You were warned, you took the risk, you refused to do what would have avoided it.  Roll.

Every single player I have ever played with, whether in a home game or at a convention, would support me.

[All4BigGuns]

I find it more than a little ridiculous how you and your few, but very vocal, supporters seem to equate not wanting something that is covered by a quality added to a character without consent with saying that the claim is permission is needed to be shot at or catching the diseases printed that have clear and printed mechanical onset times and roll intervals. The point is that there is a quality for TLE-x and no clearly laid out onset time or roll interval for it, thus as JAD stated, it's all in GM Fiat as to when. This is repugnant. I am merely saying that for that specific case it should simply be take the quality and have it, don't take it and don't worry about it.

[JustADude]

Now, let me clarify, I'm not against GM Fiat if, as Wyrm has stated he does, the players are given notice of said GMF world decisions far enough in advance to adjust their game-plans to deal with the situation in a non-catastrophic manner... such skipping MBW in favor of Synaptic Boosters.

I was merely clarifying that onset of TLE-x is much more... murky... than the other major "dramatic ailment" of Sammies and, thus, the commonality of the disorder and the threshold for "appropriately stressful" among those afflicted by it are both very much up to the personal whim of the GM.

Since Wyrm has clarified that the players will be told of what's going down well in advance, I find his stance much more acceptable than how I originally understood it. My interpretation of his early posts on the subject was incorrect, in that I believed he was planning it as more of a "surprise kick in the balls" situation.

I don't generally use it, both because I don't like "murky" and because I do use the Cyberpsychosis rules. Both just feels like too much of a screw-job to the augmented types.

[WellsIDidIt]

I find it more than a little ridiculous how you and your few, but very vocal, supporters seem to equate not wanting something that is covered by a quality added to a character without consent with saying that the claim is permission is needed to be shot at or catching the diseases printed that have clear and printed mechanical onset times and roll intervals. The point is that there is a quality for TLE-x and no clearly laid out onset time or roll interval for it, thus as JAD stated, it's all in GM Fiat as to when. This is repugnant. I am merely saying that for that specific case it should simply be take the quality and have it, don't take it and don't worry about it.

Please point out where in the books it gives you the time interval for A) how often a character gets shot, and B) how often a character gets exposed to malaria.

The only thing I can find is mechanical rules on how to handle the situation when the character gets shot or exposed, not how often they should/do get shot/exposed.

Let's go into another example, how often are addiction tests called for? Should they not exist? Isn't addiction a Negative Quality? Doesn't Missions enforce the Addiction rules?

[Kat9]

Ha.

[All4BigGuns]

Basically, what it comes down to is that I feel that the GM should be held to an even more stringent standard of following the rules as written than even the players. And before you ask, yes I do in fact hold myself to that standard whenever I run. If the players can't do something (example: just "ruling" that such-and-such happens) then neither can I as GM. It's only fair.

And do keep in mind, I said Rules as written, not Fluff as written.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

I find it more than a little ridiculous how you and your few, but very vocal, supporters seem to equate not wanting something that is covered by a quality added to a character without consent with saying that the claim is permission is needed to be shot at or catching the diseases printed that have clear and printed mechanical onset times and roll intervals. The point is that there is a quality for TLE-x and no clearly laid out onset time or roll interval for it, thus as JAD stated, it's all in GM Fiat as to when. This is repugnant. I am merely saying that for that specific case it should simply be take the quality and have it, don't take it and don't worry about it.

Again with the Quality thing.

Do you understand the difference between something taken by way of a Quality - whether it be TLE-x, Scorched, Amnesia, Bad Rep, Bi-Polar, Distinctive Style, or whatever - and one gained in-game due to decisions made, either at game-start or in-game?  Gaining it in-game means it may take money, time, roleplay, or several runs to get rid of, but it isn't going to take karma.  Getting rid of a Quality means it's going to take all those and karma.  You obstinately equate 'I have (condition) at Game Start which I'll need get fixed AND buy off with karma' with 'I've gained (condition) which I'm just going to need to get fixed.'  Just because someone hasn't taken a Quality doesn't mean they can't have those effects applied to them at some point.  That's what game play is about. 

And actually, I have pretty much everyone behind me on this one, because I've explained myself, people realize that 'hey, he isn't just slapping people out of the blue, and y'know, this isn't something I'd need to spend karma on to get rid of because it's not a Quality.'  You can't grasp that fact.  Gaining it in-game does not equate to getting hit with the Negative Quality.  Even if, with the Negative Quality, you got it fixed AND took out all your cyberware, unless you bought it off with karma, you would still have the condition until you did.  And getting hit with the disease in-game, you can just spend your money, go through surgery, and have it fixed up so that you can start taking your drugs again, because you don't have the Negative Quality.

Basically, what it comes down to is that I feel that the GM should be held to an even more stringent standard of following the rules as written than even the players. And before you ask, yes I do in fact hold myself to that standard whenever I run. If the players can't do something (example: just "ruling" that such-and-such happens) then neither can I as GM. It's only fair.

I find this claim to be unfortunately self-deluded.

I notice you added to your post 'Rules as written, not Fluff as written.'  FLUFF is in-character commentary.  A RULE is something that is NOT in-character commentary.  Fastjack talking about something is Fluff.  TLE-x is a rule; the way it's applied (i.e. when the GM sees you having implanted a ton of cyberware, especially move-by-wire) is not fluff; it is a Rule.

Yes, the players are not supposed to just rule that such-and-such happens; they aren't the rest of the world that the GM is meant to control.  "I want such-and-such to happen," they are supposed to say, and the Game Master (remember, that's what those two letters mean) tells them how to go about it.  Like, oh, 'I want Move-By-Wire, but not TLE-x' to which the GM replies, 'Take your medication.'  This doesn't mean that the GM can (or rather, should) blithely say, "Okay, so you wake up and you're dead.  What do you want to play next?"  The GM is the world, and in order to do his job - which is to, y'know, create a good story - he can say anything from, 'someone's just set fire to your doss' to 'roll Perception and Body' to 'because you didn't take your medication, you're now subject to TLE-x'.

The GM, in running the game, in part defines the rules-as-written all the time, because half of them say, 'this happens when the GM says it does'.  It doesn't say, 'this happens when the GM gets permission from the player to have this happen to his character'.  It rains because they're playing in Seattle, and the GM says it rains 300 days of the year in Seattle, and if the character doesn't get that 'chemical treatment' (rating 0) applied to his overcoat, the acid rain is going to slowly eat away at it until it's gone.  The player's doss is on fire, because the player pissed off a ganger three runs ago, and the GM has decided, by GM fiat, that it's time for the ganger to get his revenge and try to burn up all the runner's stuff as well as the runner himself.  Or the GM has decided by fiat that with the characters made but no alarms going off, one of the security guards is going to use his optics to shoot the character a) from cover, b) by surprise, c) without warning, and d) with a Damn Big Gun.

All4BigGuns, the GM is there to run the world and help the players tell a good story.  The rules as written, accompanied by any house rules he or she has laid down, is how he does it.  He applies the rules, including those that say 'when the GM decides', as they're necessary.  A bad GM sticks slavishly to the rules and does not deviate from them - or if he does, he does so only in manners that negatively impact his players' characters.  He can (and will) ruthlessly kill the PCs via the rules if that's the way it happens; he will not fudge his dice rolls; he will let the players run rampant over the world; he will fail to give them a real challenge because they are creative and he is not; he will railroad them down his pipeline and whatever happens, happens.  I won't play UNDER a bad GM once I've identified him, though I CAN make him a good player, given enough play time.  A good GM will run with most of the rules, will on occasion hem and haw over some of them, and will toss some of them out the window; he knows he's there for the players to tell great and fun stories, so he'll fudge his dice rolls, and sometimes play fast and loose with the rules.  A great GM will know the rules, know when to use them, know when to throw them out the window but not let the player know he's done so - because he knows that not only is he there to help the players tell great and fun stories, he knows that sometimes those stories are meant to be tragedies, and he'll know which players can handle having those tragedies happen to their characters.  And his players will love him for it.

TLE-x is not a goddamn tragedy; it's a 15,000 nuyen, 1-week corrective gene therapy treatment.

Not meaning to offend, but stating this from my analysis of the many, many GMs I have had, and going off your above statement, it sounds like you'd fit into my 'bad GM' range.  Going by what you've said about getting up and walking away from the table, it sounds like you'd fit into my 'bad player' range.  Considering how obsessively you focus on one section of the rules which actually does not say what you think it says - gaining TLE-x in-game does not equal gaining the Negative Quality any more than any of the other issues you can come down with means you gain their associated Negative Qualities either - I'd have to say you fit into the 'bad logician' and the 'bad debater' ranges to boot.

I have never once said that a GM who doesn't want to play with this is a Bad GM.  I've said that you who argue that TLE-x being a likely consequence of MBW not being supported in the rules are wrong.  It's supported; it's in there.  That doesn't make it a Negative Quality, any more than catching any other disease or getting hit with certain psychotropic Black IC and getting a bad effect (like turning you into a blabbermouth or a traitor) will give you a Negative Quality.  It's your obsession that's saying it will.  You clearly need to re-read WTF it means to have - or not have - a Quality.  Otherwise, well - you're caught in a logical loop, and at this stage of the debate, I think it's blatantly clear to pretty much everyone that you equate "coming down with a disease you were warned about" being equal to "forced to take the Negative Quality (without any corresponding advantage)" - which again is something that I've never said, and something that the RAW doesn't support.

So really, your claim to follow the rules stringently?  Clearly not true, and not in the 'good/great GM' way.

[All4BigGuns]

Whatever.  I will only say ONE final thing. It is supported by FLUFF not by RULES. Point to a place where it definitively states onset times and intervals for rolls against for that disease. Oh! You can't, because as someone pointed out already, it only lists "Special" with no explanation as to what special is, so no it is not supported by Rules.