[Dakka]

It works equally well to ignore the sentence "Kamikaze can get you addicted after a single dose" which is fluff rather than ignore the crunch.

[Michael Chandra]

But you're not just ignoring the fluff. You're ignoring the second line of crunch. As I said, pay more attention to what the rest of the [crunch] text says.

[martinchaen]

How do you propose to ignore this, then?

"The clock on this keeps ticking even if you skip a week, but every week you go without indulging reduces the Addiction Threshold by 1 (it returns to normal when you use again). If the threshold hits 0, you’re off the hook until you use the substance again. This means that substances with high Addiction ratings (like kamikaze) could get you hooked in a single dose."

It's not just Kamikaze; depending on the sequence, Jazz, Nitro, and Tripchips might apply as well.

Example with Kamikaze:
Day X+0: You use Kamikaze once, and do not use again, ever
Day X+7: Threshold 3 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 2
Day X+7: 11 - Addiction Rating 9 = 2 weeks, this is week 1 so no addiction test yet
Day X+14: Threshold 2 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 1
Day X+14 : 11 - Addiction Rating 9 = 2 weeks, this is week 2 so test is needed
Day X+21: Threshold 1 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 0; if you passed the addiction test above, you're in the clear

Now, if the Threshold reduction takes place AFTER you take the test (some argue that it does, make up your own mind on that), drugs like Jazz and tripchip BTLs could also force a test in the 3 week "danger zone" of those drugs.

[j2klbs]

One of the biggest problems I have with the rules is that in week one you can use the substance 1000 times, but so long as you do not use it during the 2nd week you should be okay.

[Michael Chandra]

*shrug* If it actually becomes a problem, you can start treating excessive usage as a higher threshold, or reduced timespan until a test arrives. But I don't expect it would ever become that big a problem. No player is going to waste that much cash.

Besides, not using in the second week does not mean you're going to be okay, the nasty drugs still have addiction chances.

[ZeConster]

martinchaen: I really must insist that the first time you use the drug is considered part of week 1, which means no threshold reduction that week. So the threshold is 2 for Kamikaze at the end of week 2, not 1.

j2klbs: I admit that's weird. Some houserule might be needed - perhaps "for every (11 - Addiction Rating) doses you take during a single week, the effective Addiction Rating goes up by 1. Once the Addiction Threshold reaches 0, this no longer applies." For Kamikaze that would mean that if you take 2 doses in a single week, you get a test at the end of the week. Alternatively, you could increase the Addiction Threshold.

It works equally well to ignore the sentence "Kamikaze can get you addicted after a single dose" which is fluff rather than ignore the crunch.

What works better is actually following the full rules instead of taking a single sentence and the second half of the next, but ignoring the bit inbetween. "The clock on this keeps ticking" is pretty unambiguous.

[martinchaen]

j2klbs:
Let's not forget this phrasing in the paragraph titled "Substance abuse and addiction", immediately preceeding the Addiction Tests paragraph we've all been referencing so far:
"Characters can start the game with the Addiction Negative quality (p. 77), or they can get it at the gamemaster’s discretion during the game. This gives the gamemaster the ability to determine how common substance abuse is in his own game, including whether or not it’s a part of the game they’re comfortable including."

If you used a "metric crapton" (TM) doses (1000 in one week is ludicrous as it amounts to roughly one dose every 10 minutes, which is easily enough to hit overdose levels, and overdosing in SR5 is a bad thing) of Cram in a week in my game, you'd be at burnout level in no time. I reserve the right to smack people who try to abuse the rules with my virtual copy of the rulebook (and let me tell you, my laptop is much, much more sturdy than the actual book... ).

ZeConster; Fair point. That would place the Threshold reduction AFTER the check to see if there's a test in your view, am I correct?

Revised example with Kamikaze:
Day X+0: You use Kamikaze once, and do not use again, ever
Day X+7: 11 - Addiction Rating 9 = 2 weeks, this is week 1 of 2 so no addiction test yet
Day X+7: Threshold 3 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 2
Day X+14 : 11 - Addiction Rating 9 = 2 weeks, this is week 2 of 2 so test is needed
Day X+14: Threshold 2 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 1
Day X+21 : 11 - Addiction Rating 9 = 2 weeks, this is week 1 of 2 so no addiction test yet
Day X+21: Threshold 1 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 0; if you passed the addiction test above, you're in the clear

The only issue I have with this reading is the sequence of events in the RAW; the reduction in threshold clearly comes before the test, and so it could be argued (from a purely rules lawyering perspective, not my personal opinion), that the sequence in the text should be used, as my previous example illustrated.

[EDIT]
Using ZeConster's (in my own opinion valid) interpretation, drugs with Addiction Rating 8 and Addiction Threshold 3 would also force a test.

Example with Jazz (AR 8, AT 3)
Day X+0: You use Jazz once, and do not use again, ever
Day X+7: 11 - Addiction Rating 8 = 3 weeks, this is the end of week 1 of 3 so no addiction test yet
Day X+7: Threshold 3 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 2
Day X+14 : 11 - Addiction Rating 8 = 3 weeks, this is the end of week 2 of 3 so no addiction test yet
Day X+14: Threshold 2 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 1
Day X+21 : 11 - Addiction Rating 8 = 3 weeks, this is the end of week 3 of 3 so test is needed
Day X+21: Threshold 1 reduced by 1, new Threshold = 0; if you passed the addiction test above, you're in the clear

This would mean that any drug with Addiction Rating less than 8 and an Addiction Threshold less than 4 (i.e. Novacoke, AR7, AT2) can safely be used as a one time thing without risk of addiction if the character stays clean for the next three weeks. It takes AR8 and AT3, or AR9 and AT2 for a test to be absolutely 100% required if the above assumptions are used. As always, the GM can enforce addiction tests if desired...

[RHat]

It works equally well to ignore the sentence "Kamikaze can get you addicted after a single dose" which is fluff rather than ignore the crunch.

No, it's a clear statement of intent and therefore crunch.  We know, for a certainty, that the rule is intended to work such that Kamikaze can get you addicted in a single dose.  Any interpretation where that is not true is therefore incorrect.

[Kanly]

And since the treshold doesn't go down to 0 in 2 weeks, it can get you hooked, can't it?

[RHat]

Under one of the interpretations under discussion, yes.  Under the interpretation Dakka is forwarding, no.

[Kanly]

I see. I tried to gather his interpretation.

I found the "in a row" part to be the problematic.  It seems Dakka's reading it wrong. The sentence doesn't say to "use x weeks in a row" it says "during x weeks in a row". That "during" is a significant difference. I know I'm not saying much new here, but I felt like pointing out what I thought to be the source of his misinterpretation. Sorry Dakka

[ZeConster]

ZeConster; Fair point. That would place the Threshold reduction AFTER the check to see if there's a test in your view, am I correct?

Not exactly. It simply means there's no "week 0", so there is no reduction at day X+7.

Start(?) of week 1: you use Kamikaze. Addiction Rating 9 means tests every 2 weeks.
End of week 1: you used Kamikaze this week, so no Threshold reduction. No test this week.
End of week 2: you didn't use Kamikaze this week, so the Threshold goes down to 2. Test at Threshold 2.
End of week 3: you didn't use Kamikaze this week, so the Threshold goes down to 1. No test this week.
End of week 4: you didn't use Kamikaze this week, so the Threshold goes down to 0 - you're in the clear.

[Michael Chandra]

I see. I tried to gather his interpretation.

I found the "in a row" part to be the problematic.  It seems Dakka's reading it wrong. The sentence doesn't say to "use x weeks in a row" it says "during x weeks in a row". That "during" is a significant difference. I know I'm not saying much new here, but I felt like pointing out what I thought to be the source of his misinterpretation. Sorry Dakka

Even if it said the other thing, the second sentence would still override the reading though. You can't always put everything in a single sentence, sometimes further sentences mention the exact details.

[martinchaen]

Ah, I see what you're saying, thanks for clarifying.

It's unfortunate that the text is so vague, but ultimately I think the easiest here is for each table to make their own judgements. I personally do not think we can make a RAW or RAI ruling, because of the ambiguity in the text.