NEWS

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I feel you.

I am working on my software project Genesis for 6 years now, have one weekly tabletop gaming group (not GMing at the moment) and started another in December 2019 (GMing). During the summer my batteries ran low and in October 2020 I took a two months break from Genesis. While that was releaving, it wasn't really gone and caught up on me multiple times a week.
I am back developing, but I soon won't be GMing anymore - there isn't enough mental energy left.

I guess burning for multiple things and living through a pandemic don't go well together.
2
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Improved Visibility vs cameras & drones
« Last post by Xenon on Today at 17:30:37 »
I still say the "technically correct" thing to do is for every potential observer to make 3 perception tests...
I am not getting upset if people rule that each individual guard get to roll perception multiple times against each intruder and that each intruder reroll their stealth against every single guard they run into (and in some cases perhaps even multiple times against each guard).

I just don't think this was what the authors had in mind when they deliberately changed sneaking, invisibility and silence to set 3 different thresholds for perception before the infiltration was even started.

The astral perception table have list 17 items over 5+ thresholds, yet I am pretty sure you just take one astral perception test to resolve that.


From my understanding, your approach is to make failed Stealth test less impactful by making the guard suspicious instead of raising the alarm.
Ah, now I think I understand what you mean! Sorry :-)

No, my approach was that:
A guard that See an intruder (for whatever reason and no matter if he also Hear the intruder or not) will raise alarm.
A guard that Hear (for whatever reason) but does not See (for whatever reason) an intruder will become suspicious.
A guard that doesn't See (for whatever reason) nor Hear (for whatever reason) an intruder will not react at all.

Reason why the guard 'Heard but not See' the intruder in the example was because invisibility was successful but stealth was not. But the guard would probably also be suspicious if the intruder was walking around like normal in the next room, or if the intruder was walking as normal behind a guard because he had a silence spell but the guard resisted the silence spell, or if the intruder was walking in front of a guard while using invis and silence but the guard resisted the silence spell. Etc. There could be any number of reasons. Not all of them depending on failed stealth specifically. Failing 'Stealth' was not really the key here. Guard 'Hearing but not Seeing' the intruder was.


Stainless Steel Devil Rat means to give actual Edge points, which is true to the rules. However, it doesn't fit perfectly well with the idea of a single Stealth test that fits all circumstances in advance.
With few exceptions, outside of combat and hacking Edge from *gear or qualities* etc typically either just award one point of Edge for the entire encounter / scene or they reward you with one bonus Edge point for a specific test that also need to be spend directly on the related test.

Since book is pretty explicit that you typically just roll once at the start I think the intention here is actually that you do just roll stealth once (just how you typically just roll spellcasting once for invisibility or silence = streamlined) and reward one edge if you have coating. This also opens up the possibility to have a larger patrol of guards to roll perception once as a Grunt Group (rather than two-three opposed rolls for each member of the patrol). This me and SSDR *disagree* on. Which is fine. There is no fixed rule either way I think. But still.... automatically earning 2 Edge every time a pair of guards walk pass you...? That will pile up a lot of Edge very quickly(!)

Anyway.

But then I also *agree* with SSDR that both parties may gain additional edge during the infiltration attempt based *on circumstances*.

Trying to sneak pass a checkpoint that is well lit and there is little cover will be harder than normal and will probably grant a point of Edge to the guard at the checkpoint. Sneaking pass a guard in a large warehouse with AGVs moving all over the place, is poorly lit and have a lot of cover will probably instead grant a point of Edge to the intruder. No issue here.

What to spend Edge on then? Well.... Guard can spend Edge on his perception test. Intruder can also spend Edge on the guard's perception test. I don't really see the issue with this to be honest.
3
General Discussion / 1.4.4
« Last post by taranion on Today at 17:29:07 »
Reviving this thread for what it was intended: release notes.

Plugin Version 1.4.4


Just made available in Genesis-Staging  (meaning: its Beta and will become stable, if no new bugs are introduced in this version)

New Feature

    [SR6-575] - Support "Collapsing Now" (Adept Power and Gear)

Bug

    [SR6-510] - Don't apply modifications from multiple items with vision magnification
    [SR6-556] - Remove strength requirement from bows to enable ki-adept use
    [SR6-567] - Add edgebonus info to voice_modulator
    [SR6-573] - Ignored Martial Arts when checking if there are too many Nuyen left to finish chargen
    [SR6-576] - Add escaping specialization to athletics
    [SR6-577] - Item Updates (hazmat and rigger control)
    [SR6-580] - PDF: Attack Rating on weapons embedded in other items is way too high if char has vision magnification

Improvement

    [SR6-490] - On PDF sort "ammunition" by subtypes (ammunition, rockets, missiles, explosives, grenades)
4
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Improved Visibility vs cameras & drones
« Last post by Odsh on Today at 15:13:04 »
Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.
Not sure what you are trying to tell me here..... :-/

No irony nor sarcasm, sorry for my poor wording if it's how it was perceived.

Unresisted Invisibility or Silence should give an edge on Stealth tests i.m.h.o. Said differently, if you have the same chance of getting caught with and without Invisibility or Silence, something is off.
From my understanding, your approach is to make failed Stealth test less impactful by making the guard suspicious instead of raising the alarm. Works well for Invisibility, maybe less so for other similar spells (but I agree, highly debatable).
Stainless Steel Devil Rat means to give actual Edge points, which is true to the rules. However, it doesn't fit perfectly well with the idea of a single Stealth test that fits all circumstances in advance.

Personally I see pros and cons in both cases and I find both interesting. And indeed, I have nothing better to propose.
5
but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.
Agreed.

But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.

Au contraire, mon frère. Not getting your edge until well after the roll was made means you can't use that edge to reroll dice in that roll.  Granted it's usually more beneficial to reroll opposing hits rather than your own failures... but if you're rolling hits to establish a threshold that will then be tested against multiple times, then THAT changes the calculus. Even if you don't agree that nothing beats pushing your hits up higher in this sort of case, giving retroactive edge later on is still taking this perfectly legal option away from the ninja.


Quote
if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard.
Not sure I agree with that reading, but if this is how you typically rule it then I don't understand what is stopping you from awarding the ruthenium polymer coated ninja one point of edge each time a guard take a perception test against his stealth threshold?

I think we can agree to agree that we've deconstructed the question in the original post all the way down to the Art/Habits of GMing.  I agree that streamlining rolls is a very advantageous thing, even when it might impinge on the "technically correct" way of doing things.  For example: if the ninja has both silence and invisibility going, I still say the "technically correct" thing to do is for every potential observer to make 3 perception tests: one against each status and a third against the stealth test.  However, I concede that's kind of unwieldly/unfun way to actually run a game.  I'd put it at 2 tests: 1 against the statuses and 1 against the ninja's stealth test.  I could (and have, at length) pick at the problems of boiling it down to 1 instead my preference of 2.  But it's ultimately a matter of preference/keeping play going and the difference between the two is fuzzy anyway. Even grouping 1 test against both silent and invisible has its problems, even though I just said I'd be amenable to doing it.  What if the guard has Audio Enhancement in his earbuds?  That bonus to hearing things is suddenly helping him see through invisible as well, if one perception test is simultaneously being tested against both statuses.

We're (ok, I've been) getting pedantic about best practices in GMing, really.
6
Previous Editions / Re: SR5 Noticing a Decker's Attack in the Matrix
« Last post by Xenon on Today at 14:27:19 »
I'm sorry, but that sounds wrong. I've never heard or read about defaulting an opposed roll.
Not sure I fully understand what you meant by that.
Just rolling Logic as a dice pool of its own (Logic + 0) is not the same thing as defaulting...

SR5 p. 53 Defaulting
Characters may attempt some skill-based tests even if they don’t have any ranks in the skill. This is known as defaulting. For example, even if you’re not trained in the art of running, you can still attempt a sprint to see just how much ground you can cover. In these instances, your dice pool for the test equals your ranking in the linked attribute – 1. So if Sorsha doesn’t have the Running skill but wants to give a sprint a try, she’ll check her Strength, which is 6. That means she rolls 6 – 1 dice, or 5, and hopes for the best.


within 100m of your target
Distance is not a factor here. The test is resolved in the same way even if the specific device is more than 100 meters away (see SR5 p. 241 Matrix Spotting Table for reference).


In which case you detect one silent running device per hit
You don't detect one silent running device per hit.

The first net hit is used to spot the specific device.
Extra hits are used for analysis of the specific device you just spotted (similar to when you use Matrix Perception to Observe in Detail).

SR5 p. 241 Matrix Perception
Net hits are used just like you would for spotting distant targets, with the first one for spotting the target and the rest for analysis.


I can't believe there's no substitue for Sleeze in that equation.
There isn't.

But in order for the decker to spot your device he first need to be 'aware' of its existence.
He need to first have some idea that a hidden icon is out there.

SR5 p. 235 Running Silent
If you’re trying to find an icon that’s running silent (or if you’re running silent and someone’s looking for you), the first thing you need to do is have some idea that a hidden icon is out there.


To spot a specific device once the decker already have been made aware of its existence is typically not very hard (unless perhaps if the the device is slaved to a Host or a Cyberdeck where it get to add a Sleaze attribute to the opposed test). This is per design.
7
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Improved Visibility vs cameras & drones
« Last post by Xenon on Today at 14:00:59 »
Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.
Not sure what you are trying to tell me here..... :-/

I personally find it plausible that most guards will act (raise an alarm / attack / call in high threat response units / whatever) if they have actual visual confirmation of an intruder trying to sneak in the shadows. That it in this scenario it doesn't really matter if they can also hear the intruder.

I also find it plausible that guards will just become suspicious if they hear something strange (they might or might not report to central that they heard something and that they will investigate further), but I also find it plausible that they would want to get visual confirmation before they will act for real (raise an alarm / attack / call in HTR / whatever).

But it will also depend on the situation, how professional the guards are and how on edge they are.

Feel free to make another call that you think is more fitting.
How the guard choose to react in each situation was not really the point of the post anyway ;-)


What if you replace Invisibility by a Silence spell and the guard succeeds against the Stealth test...
Invisibility is often more useful than Silence. Silence typically only come into play when there is no line of sight.
Like if you you are already invisible, are trying to sneak up on a guard from behind or if the room have some sort of sound sensitive scanners.

But it can also be used to prevent a guard from vocally calling for help ;-)



but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.
Agreed.

But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.


if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard.
Not sure I agree with that reading, but if this is how you typically rule it then I don't understand what is stopping you from awarding the ruthenium polymer coated ninja one point of edge each time a guard take a perception test against his stealth threshold?
8
Sorry I'm not adding anything constructive to the discussion with this, but now I can't help but imagine a PC taking unnecessary risks by voluntarily passing by additional guards just to get a chance to generate more Edge  ;D

Well, first of all that's not a thing.  See Preventing Edge abuse (pg. 45).  If you're passing by a guard/camera/drone unnecessarily just to gain the edge for doing so, then you don't get the Edge :D  Same concept for Riggers... they get edge every time they perform a vehicle related test (while Jumped In... See Control Rig cyberware).  Driving to Stuffer shack? Doing a donut just to gain the Edge?  GM is empowered, and expected, to put the kibosh on generating Edge just for Edge's sake.

However, if you have to sneak past 2 "checkpoints", then yes you should have the opportunity to generate more edge than if there were only one chance for you to be detected.  Absolutely.  You take the risk, you (potentially) get the Edge.  That's a core facet of the entire edition.
9
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Improved Visibility vs cameras & drones
« Last post by Odsh on Today at 13:17:40 »
Sorry I'm not adding anything constructive to the discussion with this, but now I can't help but imagine a PC taking unnecessary risks by voluntarily passing by additional guards just to get a chance to generate more Edge  ;D
10
Xenon is correct.  If a test calls out Sleaze and you don't have it, then you add 0 dice to the pool for your Sleaze contribution.

It is basically true that running silent is largely a waste of time if you're not a Hacker.  All you're doing is costing hostile hackers some action economy.  They WILL succeed in spotting you, but yeah at least you cost them 1 pass for Matrix Perception.  Of course, running silent can have negative social consequences.  For example, a guard may notice your obvious cyberarm, or see your taser in its holster, but if you're not publicly broadcasting AROs for those devices (because you're running them silent) then you may look suspicious in a way that you wouldn't have if you just weren't running silent in the first place.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10