NEWS

[SR5] Addiction Ratings

  • 24 Replies
  • 610 Views

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3554
« Reply #15 on: <05-13-20/1948:22> »
For what it's worth:

Yes, MC's reading where the addiction test is a binary question of yes/no was the drug used during the 11-Addiction Rating weeks window is a playable reading.  But at the end of the day the rule is indeed a mess and could use re-wording/house ruling.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9386
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #16 on: <05-13-20/1958:01> »
I explained how I read it. How the various sentences paint a bigger picture together. How that reading validates the statement about Kamikaze perfectly. I have acknowledged the alternative reading, caused by confusion over the way the sentence is written which does in fact leave it open to a few different readings, though other readings clash with the other sentences and the Kamikaze statement.

I asked to please at least acknowledge the alternative reading is not the only valid way of parsing the first sentence. A request repeatedly denied. Deliberate spitting in my face and acting as if I'm too dumb to parse English Grammar.

And all my effort is just constantly put away as 'no that's not what it says', no matter how often I explained why yes, that is what it says, but yes it can be confusing to read. Worst, I get accused of deliberately ignoring the point of examples I answered fairly in an attempt to help figure this out.

I'm done.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Jabberwocky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 7
« Reply #17 on: <05-13-20/2300:09> »
For what it's worth:

Yes, MC's reading where the addiction test is a binary question of yes/no was the drug used during the 11-Addiction Rating weeks window is a playable reading.  But at the end of the day the rule is indeed a mess and could use re-wording/house ruling.
Thank you for at least confirming that I wasn't losing my mind about the rules.  We'll have to figure out something sensible from the mess. :)

I explained how I read it.
Yes, and I wasn't asking for your interpretation or house rule.  You were also claiming that what you now admit is a house rule was the actual rule, and all but getting persnickity at me for continuing to be confused between what you were wrongfully claiming as fact with what was actually written in the rules.

Quote
I'm done.
Thank you for at least trying regardless of your attitude.

BeCareful

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 153
« Reply #18 on: <05-19-20/1846:50> »
I never actually thought about the intent behind the rules; I mainly looked at their implications.
I get the "Test 11-Rating weeks" rule because a single dose of the heavy stuff can come back to haunt you, and repeated use can make the situation worse. But it does lead to the math weirdness wherein you just circle a week or two off your calendar where you stay clean, then start back up again after.

I personally prefer the "test after each use" method, which removes the idea of just taking cram once a month to be able to ignore the addiction rules entirely and which makes everything risky to a greater or lesser extent. But it also means repeated use won't increase the danger.

Really, the main issue here is that drugs in a tabletop RPG will never work the way they do in reality, for gameplay and balance reasons. So I don't mind which rule gets used.
(If MC is still reading this, thanks for your commitment to explaining how stuff works)
"Welcome to Shadowrun, where the biggest obstacle is you!"

CanRay

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Mr. Johnson
  • ***
  • Posts: 11055
  • Spouter of Random Words
    • CanRay's Artistic Work
« Reply #19 on: <05-20-20/1142:29> »
*Laughs In Author*   ;D
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Kreistor

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 6
« Reply #20 on: <05-20-20/2027:17> »
The SR5 addiction text wording is, to say the least, nearly the worst written ruleset I have ever tried to analyze. (Some language translations are worse, because the interpreter was not a gamer.) Ultimately, I  could not see how to resolve it all with literal interpretation.

The worst part for me is where a later sentence states, "This means that substances with high addiction ratings (like kamikaze) could get you hooked in a single dose." There is no interpretation where that can happen...

"Every time you use an addictive substance during X weeks in a row you need to make an Addiction Test."

The technical interpretation of that is that you have to wait X weeks, and if in any week of the X period, you did not use the substance, you do not have to make even a single Addiction test. The If qualifier is using the substance X weeks in a row.
For soycaf, X is 9. So you can take Soycaf 8 weeks out of 9, and never make a single test. But if you use it in 9 straight weeks, you now make how many test? One for every time you used... did you remember to track that? That is a minimum of NINE tests, all of which wait until the ninth week, because the qualifier is not true until Week 9.

But this leads to another absurdity. You can take Soycaf 1000 times each in weeks 1 through 8 (8000 uses total), and so long as a full week passes with no use, you make ZERO tests. You did not use nine weeks in a row, so do not need to make a single test.

So, for kamikaze, X is 2, meaning you can use it every other week and never make a single Addiction test. That does not conform to the stated intent for high addiction substances. X needed to be 1 for that. But as is, with 2, you can use kamikaze 20 times in Week 1, never in Week 2, and not make a single Addiction Test.

"The clock on this keeps ticking even if you skip a week"

There is no defined clock. Nine weeks in a row is nine weeks in a row, not nine weeks out of ten, with a random non-use week in the middle. Going 8 weeks in a row, skipping a week, then using again does not create 9 weeks in a row. It is 8 weeks in a row and then a new 1 week in a row. The qualifier is not "Nine weeks out of ten" or eleven or twenty. This sentence is nonsensical, because there is no clock that can be defined as "ticking". There is no interpretation of this sentence that does not lead to a new absurdity.

"but every week you go without indulging reduces the Addiction Threshold by 1".

Okay, but if I don't use during a week, I make no test that week, so why does this matter? Tests result from using X weeks in a row, and that ended when I skipped a week. No test until I use X weeks in a row again. But the best is:

"it returns to normal when you use the substance again"
Okay, so after skipping 4 weeks, I restart using, use for X weeks in a row, and now make X Addiction tests. What is the Threshold? Full threshold. The threshold was reset to full in Week 1 and has stayed there. All the rolls are in Week X. There is, at no point, an Addiction Test that could be affected by the described reduced threshold.

There is a weird interpretation where at the end of week X, you make the X Addiction Tests, but the one in week 1 now happened retroactively. The problem with that is the character may have been addicted in Week 1, but if the run in Week 2 did not include Addiction effects, the run was played wrong. The tests cannot be retroactive. You cannot fix this by rolling the test each week and waiting to see if use lasts for X weeks, because when the player sees the positive Addiction result, he simply skips using Week X-1 to ensure it cannot be applied.

There really is no resolution. The intent cannot be achieved by the letter of the rules. You have to house rule it. Theproblem is "When do you make a test?" You can redefine how often based on your own idea of what makes sense... but beware. Addiction in SR5 destroys characters. Saving the character from burnout requires spending karma.. and that karma does not make the character more powerful: it staves off decay.Other, non-addict characters, are growing. Your addict is telling a story that happens on our streets every day. If you are playing RPGs to escape reality, and most do, addiction is all too real in SR5.

Fixed in SR6. Addiction cannot get worse, except willingly with DM agreement and should result in positive karma expenditure.

CanRay

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Mr. Johnson
  • ***
  • Posts: 11055
  • Spouter of Random Words
    • CanRay's Artistic Work
« Reply #21 on: <05-21-20/1041:42> »
The SR5 addiction text wording is, to say the least, nearly the worst written ruleset I have ever tried to analyze. (Some language translations are worse, because the interpreter was not a gamer.)
I'll have you know I worked very, very hard on it.
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9386
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #22 on: <05-21-20/1420:57> »
The SR5 addiction text wording is, to say the least, nearly the worst written ruleset I have ever tried to analyze. (Some language translations are worse, because the interpreter was not a gamer.)
I'll have you know I worked very, very hard on it.
I like the rules very much, and I have seen plenty of people analysing them get to the same interpretation, so RAI appears to be very clear here. But the language could have used a do-over to prevent people failing to see the sentences as a big picture. There's a clearly-defined clock big picture, but only if you see the entire paragraph as one big rule, instead of several small rules. People trip over the first sentence, and have done so for quite a while now, so that one should be rewritten.

"If you use drugs, you will undergo an Addiction Test every [11-Addiction Rating] weeks. The normal threshold for this test is the Addiction Threshold of the drug. Every week you do not use at all, the threshold goes down by 1. Every week you use at least once, the threshold resets back to its normal value. If the threshold hits 0, you stop the clock and will not face a Test. Instead, you start back at week 1 once you consume again. Failing the Addiction Test ups your Addiction Level by one, or gains you a Mild Addiction if you did not have it yet." <Example Sidebar with Kamikaze and Cram.>
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Kreistor

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 6
« Reply #23 on: <05-23-20/0009:41> »
I'll have you know I worked very, very hard on it.

I'll take that section of the book and bury it in my backyard. Maybe make a little gravestone and say a prayer to see it off to Hades. Would you like to come to the wake?

It's not like that would require effort, either. Your Canadian publisher is trash. Both of our SR5's fell apart within months, and my SR6 has fallen apart after creating two characters. Not one of our many DnD books have done that after far more use.

Jabberwocky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 7
« Reply #24 on: <05-23-20/1734:58> »
I like the rules very much, and I have seen plenty of people analysing them get to the same interpretation, so RAI appears to be very clear here.
Funny, after having researched the question a bit more from other sources, I've seen at least five different interpretations.

Quote
"If you use drugs, you will undergo an Addiction Test every [11-Addiction Rating] weeks. The normal threshold for this test is the Addiction Threshold of the drug. Every week you do not use at all, the threshold goes down by 1.
And even with this interpretation, the Addiction Ratings still don't make sense for the vast majority of drugs, since their [11-Addiction Rating] value is higher than their their Addiction Threshold.  Which means it'll hit 0 long before that value ever even comes up.

It also means less-addictive drugs (simsense, soykaf, tobacco, alcohol, etc.) are still more addictive than mid-range ones, since you risk increasing the threshold through casual use, and you're constantly "resetting the clock."  So just one week of drinking soykaf each morning puts you at a Threshold of 8, which nearly no one is going to succeed against.  And since they're now having to make an Addiction Test every single time they take a dose, they're going to be Burnouts well before the month is over.

This is as opposed to the harder drugs that people are only taking once in a blue moon, most of which -- again -- are hitting a threshold of 0 before their "forced" Addiction Test (via the 11-Rating value) timer runs out.

The rules are god-awful, even with your interpretation.