[Caislean]

Oh, sorry, no, not like that. I mean: she would throw out Data Spikes against commlinks or other low-DR targets to earn cheap Edge, then use that Edge for a physical Anticipate attack with dual-wield SMGs. Mixing Edge gain and use across "worlds" (ie. meat / matrix / magic) makes very little narrative sense that I can see, but it's legal, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A game master could well rule that this is an attempt to game the system and not grant edge, heck it's not much different than the "pointing a gun at a passerby" to gain edge in the example on page 46. 

Why is it Edge abuse to attempt to hack your opponent's gear during combat? That's exactly what deckers are supposed to do.

Your very description implies edge abuse "throwing attacks at low DR targets to earn cheap edge" - this is the very definition of edge abuse. 

As for hacking opponents gear, it's kinda subjective.   Is it an attempt to brick their comms before they send for backup or at least alert others - or is it to gain easy edge?   Is it to deny opponents their bonuses from wireless smartlinked guns or is it to gain easy edge?

I do think that while I applaud the streamlining efforts of replacing so many lists of tables to add and remove dice from dice pools with an increased use of edge points (and expanded uses for those points) the subjective nature of gaining edge and what is done to move the story forward and what is done purely to satisfy a game mechanic to gain edge is going to leave a lot of GM's having to make judgement calls on this. 

[Finstersang]

Honestly, I feel that a lot of you are overthinking these kind of Edge abuse problems, especially when it comes to the Matrix.

Two things to considers on the mechanical side:

• Hackers reset their Edge score pretty often, so the effect of "abusive" Edge-gain tactics are already limited to the session in question.
• Hacking random, badly protected stuff to earn Edge for the bigger shots is not without risks or costs: You accumulate OS and you are prone to raising alarms, which might alert security spiders etc. It´s not like you are picking up bonus Edge for free.

And on the fluff side, I think it´s not to far-fetched to assume that a hacker does profit from some smaller "warmup hacks" in advance of the bigger targets. Maybe those smaller hacks also yield some information about the local matrix security structure, or they provide the hacker with some kind of unspecified additional matrix ressources, or they just help the hacker to get into the flow (which would even work for more esoteric stuff like accumulating Hacking Edge for RL Attacks). So as a GM, I wouldn´t be too hellbent on identifying and punishing "Edge abusers" when it comes to Matrix/Hacking stuff. If you are really suspicous that your Hacker just wants to cheese out some Edge from small hack, simply ask them what´s the purpose of the Action in the bigger picture. As long as there is some kind of connection, I´d let it slide.   

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

It's all subjective, but I think this rule of thumb should suffice for my purposes:

If successful would the action generate any advantage OTHER than the Edge point?  If no, it can reasonably be called abuse.  OTOH if there IS a relevant advantage gained by the action, other than the Edge point, then it's probably not abuse.

Hacking a commlink before the fight? Sure, the guy can't call for help.  Surely it's not abuse.
Hacking a commlink DURING the fight? Well, less clear cut, but maybe you think he might have a smart link.  Or maybe he didn't YET call for help and still might.  Probably for the best to err on the side of player's benefit here.
Data Spiking that commlink after fight is over? Yeah, not seeing much of a benefit OTHER than the edge point.  I'd be open to hearing the player's rationale however.  Maybe he's trying to stop the  mic from picking up and transmitting ambient sounds as the team does something in the vicinity?  I'm skeptical, but still willing to potentially be flexible.
Hacking that commlink after the goon is dead, but the goons' buddies are still in the fight: Yeah, I'm not even going to ask for your rationale.  No edge for you, unless you decide to hack something that IS actually tactically relevant.  Sorry, but not sorry.

[penllawen]

Dataspiking scene-irrelevant devices sounds very much like the same thing to me.

if there IS a relevant advantage gained by the action, other than the Edge point, then it's probably not abuse.

I didn't say anything about Data Spiking irrelevant devices. As long as there are opponents still breathing, there's gonna be stuff to data spike around. Their weapons. Their commlinks. Their cyberware. The lights in the room. Alarm systems. Plenty of choices that produce a "relevant advantage."

Really? You think you should gain edge from, for example, shooting at random pedestrians?

People keep tossing this GM fiat rule around like it wraps everything up in a neat little package. All I see is something that's a pain in the arse to run at the table.

Suppose you're facing down two ganger goons and a ganger boss. There's also a civilian passer-by. Consider these scenarios:

a) you shoot the goons, accumulating Edge to shoot the boss
b) you shoot the passer-by so you can accumulating Edge to shoot the goons
c) you shoot the passer-by as they're the only ones around who will call Lone Star, but you also accumulate Edge that you use to shoot the goons

Which scenarios are abusive? How do you tell the difference between (b) and (c)? What if the player is secretly doing (b) but says they're doing (c)?

Or how about: you're doing a run. You've penetrated a secure facility. There's some security guards and some research scientists. Your mission is to leave no witnesses. Is it Edge abuse to shoot at the scientists before the guards?

The GM is the arbiter of what happens inside the game, but the Edge abuse rule isn't inside the game because it works entirely based on the player's motivations, not the character's. And there's no polite way to say to a player "sorry, I think you're lying about why you're doing that so I'm taking a bonus away from you." Especially when you might be wrong about it.

Your very description implies edge abuse "throwing attacks at low DR targets to earn cheap edge" - this is the very definition of edge abuse.

Obviously that's not what our hypothetical abusive player says they're doing. What they say they're doing is "I hack that goon's commlink." Now what?

I do think that while I applaud the streamlining efforts of replacing so many lists of tables to add and remove dice from dice pools with an increased use of edge points (and expanded uses for those points) the subjective nature of gaining edge and what is done to move the story forward and what is done purely to satisfy a game mechanic to gain edge is going to leave a lot of GM's having to make judgement calls on this. 

Right. And those calls won't be comfortable, and sometimes they'll be contentious, and sometimes they'll create an atmosphere of GMs-versus-players.

Replace all instances of "gain edge" with "gain extra dice on the task that you are doing right now", "ignore these select penalties on the task that you are doing right now" or "lower the TN of the task that you are doing right now".

Hey that idea sounds familiar from somewhere!!!

You're absolutely correct, though, that it is the idea of Edge as a currency that is carried from one roll to another that is the root of all this nonsense. I've picked it over since the earliest 6e livestreams, I've taken it apart and put it back together a hundred ways, I've wargamed scenarios out by myself and with some players from my group. I don't see a way to fix it.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I didn't say anything about Data Spiking irrelevant devices.

You DID however argue with my saying "context matters" with regards to the hypothetical scenario of gaining edge by hacking a low DR commlink, which led to the IMO reasonable impression you WERE advocating that there should be no such thing as edge gain denial for hacking irrelevant devices.

Which scenarios are abusive? How do you tell the difference between (b) and (c)? What if the player is secretly doing (b) but says they're doing (c)?

I literally just said, in the post you're replying to: If the action has a relevant benefit OTHER THAN the edge gain, then it's probably not abuse.

[adzling]

You're absolutely correct, though, that it is the idea of Edge as a currency that is carried from one roll to another that is the root of all this nonsense. I've picked it over since the earliest 6e livestreams, I've taken it apart and put it back together a hundred ways, I've wargamed scenarios out by myself and with some players from my group. I don't see a way to fix it.

There is no way to fix it, it's at the core of 6e and it's inherently flawed.

It was a bad idea to start with as it is not well suited to it's core task of modeling the encounter environment.

It relies heavily on GM fiat and interpretation, which is a bad decision for game design as it inherently requires an experienced and knowledgeable GM to make it even borderline viable.

The best thing it has going for it is that noobs will not realize how crap it is until they have bought the book and played it for a while.

Which is a feature for Catalyst but a bug for their customers.

[Lormyr]

Some thoughts relevant to the current discussion:

1). Game mechanics that occasionally need a judgement call in certain situations is one thing. Game mechanics that rely on judgement calls to keep them operational within the desired boundaries is something else entirely, and that is what the current edge system is.

In the hands of reasonable players and GMs, this is no big deal, but still not ideal compared to having a self-contained mechanic. In the hands of unreasonable, punitive, controlling, or vindictive players and GMs (and let's be real here, our community has quite a few of these people) it's a nightmare.

2). Speaking strictly in terms of game mechanics, all uses of edge are basically gaming the system in some sense. Spend edge to break an otherwise standard rule, add a new option, re-roll some dice, so on. Because of that, it *feels* like gaming the system to get the edge to use to game the game is natural.

I chalk this up to design flaws, but others are free to disagree.

3). Deckers have it hard enough.

- When doing your bit, you feel rushed because literally the entire rest of the table is waiting on you.
- It takes a substantial devotion of resources to do well, limiting the effectiveness of your secondary role.
- You're often at a dice pool disadvantage, especially if you are trying to sleaze around in a host. And let's be honest, when dealing with a decent corp host, sleaze is the only realistic option because brute force will get you pounded down quick.

I'd just let the poor bastard have his edge. Here's your edge, thank you for playing a vital but undervalued and underplayed archetype.

[Ghost Rigger]

I literally just said, in the post you're replying to: If the action has a relevant benefit OTHER THAN the edge gain, then it's probably not abuse.

Every case of blatant edge abuse could be justified with "it gets me into the zone" and you'd have no counterargument except "nah, you're full of it". And you'd be completely right......but that kind of talk isn't going to cultivate a friendly environment at the table, is it?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I literally just said, in the post you're replying to: If the action has a relevant benefit OTHER THAN the edge gain, then it's probably not abuse.

Every case of blatant edge abuse could be justified with "it gets me into the zone" and you'd have no counterargument except "nah, you're full of it". And you'd be completely right......but that kind of talk isn't going to cultivate a friendly environment at the table, is it?

It would depend on the player.  Presumably, the players who insist on a tactical, wargamey, simulationist RPG won't be playing 6we.  Because that's not what it is.  There's nothing wrong with that playing style, but if that's what you want why wouldn't you go play something that caters to that?  Isn't that a point you and others repeatedly make?

We're still early-ish in the Darwinist/self-selecting stage of the 6we playerbase.  Presumably, a year or so down the line, I'd expect that the people playing 6we are the people comfortable with 6we's mechanics and wouldn't be attempting "it gets me into the zone!" as a rationale in the first place, and if they did they wouldn't have a problem with a GM telling them "naah, come on man, that's Edge abuse".

In the meanwhile, in a situation like we have now where there still are people who want a simulationist game engine but are still giving 6we a shot to see if they like it anyway/haven't realized it's not simualtionist, if presented with "but it gets me in the zone!" the better response than  "bulldrek" would be "that may be the case, but you're not getting a tactical advantage out of the action and so I'm invoking the edge denial rule. Sorry."

[Lormyr]

My boat is more along the lines of while I don't hate SR6, I think it is poorly designed and could have been a lot better.

My primary iron in the fire is Missions, since that is the majority of the actual SR gaming I get to do. If that were not the case it would be easy to just stick with SR5 and call it a day.

[Ghost Rigger]

We're still early-ish in the Darwinist/self-selecting stage of the 6we playerbase.  Presumably, a year or so down the line, I'd expect that the people playing 6we are the people comfortable with 6we's mechanics and wouldn't be attempting "it gets me into the zone!" as a rationale in the first place, and if they did they wouldn't have a problem with a GM telling them "naah, come on man, that's Edge abuse".

Maybe. Or maybe they'll get so good at coming up with excuses for their blatant edge abuse that you can no longer distinguish it from a player thinking outside the box.

"I shoot the random bystander so that they don't call the cops."

"I shoot the scientists first, because they will run away while the guards stay put and we were ordered to leave no witnesses."

"I dataspike the coffee machine in the middle of combat so that the goons are distracted by the smoke and sparks."

The possibilities are endless.

[penllawen]

It would depend on the player.  Presumably, the players who insist on a tactical, wargamey, simulationist RPG won't be playing 6we.  Because that's not what it is.  There's nothing wrong with that playing style, but if that's what you want why wouldn't you go play something that caters to that?  Isn't that a point you and others repeatedly make?

Then what is it? It has 11 different rifles, each of which is defined by 10 distinct stats, each of which can fire one of 6 types of ammo, and be fitted with 18 different weapons mods across 3 different mount points. That's a simulationist game. It's definitely not a narrative-first rules-light game.

2). Speaking strictly in terms of game mechanics, all uses of edge are basically gaming the system in some sense. Spend edge to break an otherwise standard rule, add a new option, re-roll some dice, so on. Because of that, it *feels* like gaming the system to get the edge to use to game the game is natural.

That's a very good point, and one I hadn't considered. Thank you.

which led to the IMO reasonable impression you WERE advocating that there should be no such thing as edge gain denial for hacking irrelevant devices.

Well, you know what they say about assumptions, chummer.

Which scenarios are abusive? How do you tell the difference between (b) and (c)? What if the player is secretly doing (b) but says they're doing (c)?

I literally just said, in the post you're replying to: If the action has a relevant benefit OTHER THAN the edge gain, then it's probably not abuse.

That's your general principle, yes. But "relevant" and "probably" are fuzzy words and you didn't answer my question. How would you apply the principle to answer my specific example?

edit - quote formatting

[penllawen]

Which is a feature for Catalyst but a bug for their customers.

Only if you consider the CRB in isolation. If you think about it as something that is the foundational product in a lineup that's supposed to sell 30-50 splatbooks and sourcebooks over the next 5+ years, it looks a bit different.

[skalchemist]

1). Game mechanics that occasionally need a judgement call in certain situations is one thing. Game mechanics that rely on judgement calls to keep them operational within the desired boundaries is something else entirely, and that is what the current edge system is.

In the hands of reasonable players and GMs, this is no big deal, but still not ideal to having a self-contained mechanic. In the hands of unreasonable, punitive, controlling, or vindictive players and GMs (and let's be real here, our community has quite a few of these people) it's a nightmare.

I feel like this warrants some comment from a person who has played and ran a LOT Of RPGs since 1982, but hasn't had anything to do with Shadowrun since the early '90s and is coming back to it with Shadowrun 6E.

There are many great games in the world that I have enjoyed tremendously that seem to get by quite well with assuming that players and GMs will be reasonable and can make judgement calls to keep things fun.  Fate Core, Savage Worlds, the One Ring, Dungeon World, Masks: the New Generation, heck, even D&D 5E for the most part, among many others.  These games are written with two core assumptions in mind (either overtly or at least subconsciously):

a) the players/GM are seeking to have fun WITH other people, not at their expense and

b) the GM/players are capable of responding the other players/GM outside the rules of the game with an interpersonal "hey, wait, that thing you are doing, it seems weird or unfun, can you not do that?"

I feel that in terms of mechanics and definitely in terms of editing, Shadowrun 6E could have been much better.  But I also strongly believe that no game designer should be expected to account for "unreasonable" people in their rules.  By unreasonable here I mean people who will just do all kinds of weird stuff in the game because they can, and not because it involves interacting with the fiction of the game in interesting and fun ways. 

To take the example raised earlier in the thread...

Suppose you're facing down two ganger goons and a ganger boss. There's also a civilian passer-by. Consider these scenarios:

a) you shoot the goons, accumulating Edge to shoot the boss
b) you shoot the passer-by so you can accumulating Edge to shoot the goons
c) you shoot the passer-by as they're the only ones around who will call Lone Star, but you also accumulate Edge that you use to shoot the goons

Which scenarios are abusive? How do you tell the difference between (b) and (c)? What if the player is secretly doing (b) but says they're doing (c)?

I have no idea which of these scenarios is abusive or not.  What I do know is that I don't want to play with people who would choose b) just for the sake of the Edge.  Just because you CAN do something in a game doesn't mean you should.  And I don't think that a game designer needs to account for this in the design, like, at all.  Its a fact in the rules that shooting a target with lower DV will be more likely to give you an Edge point.  That's a fine rule.  Its a choice to shoot innocent passers-by (assuming your character is not literally a psychopath) to gain Edge. 

Maybe if I had played/ran Rifts or TORG or whatever I would be less surprised, I can't say.  Maybe this is demonstrating a gap in my experience.  Maybe (particularly in organized Shadowrun play) the players really are literally and/or figuratively selfish 14 year old teenage boys who cannot be relied upon to control their urges and actually engage with the fictional situations that are presented in fun and interesting ways.  In which case, fair enough.  Take this comment for what you will.

EDIT: to be clear, this is not a direct comment on whether the current Edge system is good or not, or whether it has problems and what those problems are.  I have many thoughts on that.  This is a comment about the standard that system (or any other system) should be held to, and also the standard the players themselves should be expected to follow.

[Lormyr]

In response to Skalchemist, your views are fair. I do not have nearly your breadth of gaming time (closer to 14ish years myself), or the depth of your varied systems, so I can only speak from my own experiences.

The vampire the masquerade larps I've played in off and on over the last 14 years have had the highest shitbag ratio. It's close to 1/3 people, from the general midwest to great lakes regions. These guys were also usually the worse of the douches.

Gaming conventions have been the next highest for me, again mostly in the same regions, with a 1/5ish shitbag ratio. It was rare that I got to sit down at a table without some player or GM being a douche.

Private games I've rarely had more than a very temporary problem with. You try new person, they don't work out, you boot their ass. I don't know anyone who would bother to play in a hostile intimate environment on a consistent basis. That's not fun.

I'm glad your experiences have been better!