On the Edge and rolling every turn

[Grayscale]

Hey people,

Does "on the edge" requires a character to roll self control every turn in combat no matter what

or

only if he failed a self control roll before entering combat?

By the text in Basic I'm see to think it's the former, but I'm not sure.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Exallted

Hey people,

Does "on the edge" requires a character to roll self control every turn in combat no matter what.

Sort of.

You don't need to roll if you voluntarily pick a dangerously crazy course of action yourself. Which you probably should most of the time - if you are even attempting self control rolls very often for any disadvantage you probably are not playing it correctly. You only need to roll every turn if you are trying to do something like fight defensively or disengage. If you are going to All Out Charge anyway, or cast your Spell of Summoning Uncontrollable Demons That Slay Everything Including You, you can skip the roll.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Exallted

Does "on the edge" requires a character to roll self control every turn in combat no matter what

or

only if he failed a self control roll before entering combat?

By the text in Basic I'm see to think it's the former, but I'm not sure.

It's the former. On the Edge says "In combat, make a self-control roll every time you take your turn." That seems pretty clear to me. Note that it's the same value as Berserk, so having similar effects seems reasonable.

[Kromm]

As others have noted, the idea is that you don't take the disadvantage if you don't plan to play it. Playing it means doing crazy stuff every turn without bothering to roll to resist save in those rare circumstances where that's super-important. The disadvantage is actually worth more points than Berserk (-15* vs. -10*), so it's generally worse.

That said, there's room for interpretation: "All-Out attack or engage in some other kind of near-insane, suicidal behavior." As the GM, I've often been fine with the latter in lieu of All-Out Attack. For instance, in a medium-range gunfight, taking Move maneuvers to cross the fire zone so you can use your kung fu skills . . . well, I think that qualifies. So does taking the time to Concentrate on turning into a werewolf or activate your super-strength before you go nuts. So do a lot of things that use maneuvers other than All-Out Attack, if they're necessary to set up All-Out Attack or exercise your craziest option.

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by Kromm

That said, there's room for interpretation: "All-Out attack or engage in some other kind of near-insane, suicidal behavior." As the GM, I've often been fine with the latter in lieu of All-Out Attack. For instance, in a medium-range gunfight, taking Move maneuvers to cross the fire zone so you can use your kung fu skills . . . well, I think that qualifies. So does taking the time to Concentrate on turning into a werewolf or activate your super-strength before you go nuts. So do a lot of things that use maneuvers other than All-Out Attack, if they're necessary to set up All-Out Attack or exercise your craziest option.

That reminds me of the flip-side of Daredevil. Instead of giving bonuses to unnecessary risks, it requires self-control rolls instead.

[AlexanderHowl]

Daredevil with On the Edge makes an interesting combination. Now, here is a question, would Committed Attack from Martial Arts be crazy enough for On the Edge?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Daredevil with On the Edge makes an interesting combination. Now, here is a question, would Committed Attack from Martial Arts be crazy enough for On the Edge?

Against a worthy foe maybe. Honestly I'd probably let you get away with an ordinary Attack in some cases - say the ones where the sensible thing to do is not start an avoidable fight with a vastly superior foe, but you decide to anyway.

The key concept here is "crazy dangerous", not "restricted maneuver list". This applies to all disadvantages of this form really, the restricted lists are intended as examples - it should be at least this bad - far more than they are intended to be definitions.

[sir_pudding]

Yeah when attacking a tank with a toothbrush, even All-out Defense is probably acceptable, if your goal is to get close enough to stab the commander in the eye. The key thing is an overall plan with a lack of concern with survival.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The key concept here is "crazy dangerous", not "restricted maneuver list".

Exactly.

—

Silly Example 1: You're standing next to Living Nuke Man, who can blanket a city block with a 100d area-effect burning attack every few turns, and you lack superhuman resistance to damage. Unless you have a step distance equal to about half a city block, even diving for cover won't help. Consequently, taking All-Out Defense (to be better at diving for cover, I suppose) would be crazy dangerous. The sane things to do are: (1) incapacitate LNM before he can trigger his Living Nuke Blast™, or (2) run the heck away before he can do so. Standing there in your best defensive karate stance, daring LNM to come and fight you mano a mano . . . suicidal, even though it involves the most defensive maneuver in the game.

Silly Example 2: You're facing Psionic Murder Fungus in a confined space where you cannot flee. It's immobile, lacks a physical attack against which you could defend, and has no defenses except for being Diffuse and thus sustaining only 1-2 HP per hit landed on it. However, it constantly blasts your brain, inflicting direct injury each turn. The best way not to get killed by it is to chop it to bits as quickly as possible, so the least-suicidal thing to do is take All-Out Attack (Double) to launch more attacks. Being all cool and just taking Attack maneuvers, to show how badass you are, is crazy dangerous. Your friend doing All-Out Attack (Double) is actually doing the rational thing.

Don't get caught up on maneuvers. What's important here is that you aren't doing the survival-friendly thing – you're doing something you think shows bravery or simply disdain for the threat. That could actually be something that would be less dangerous in many other situations.

[Flyndaran]

And just because you, the player, are choosing to not roll or "fail" does not mean you can't play the character as if they're truly struggling against their disadvantage.