Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Chemsniffers/ was Re: Questions about stuff
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:00:02 +1100
On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Droopy wrote:

> Still wouldn't make it past the chem sniffers. Someone with a really
> good nose could pick it up as well. Used guns have a distictive
> smell.

On the question of chemsniffers, how do you guys all handle them? Thing
is, a chemist friend of mine tells me they couldn't work nearly as well as
they do.

In SR, you take a gun through a chemsniffer, it's almost certain to find
it, right? I don't know the modifiers for the sniffer's perception test,
but whether or not it depends on whether the gun's been fired before,
whether the carrier is wearing perfume, etc, it's still almost certain to
find the gun, and IMHO that's a loada rubbish.

It would have to be EXTRAORDINARILY sensitive to detect a few molecules of
chemicals coming off guns/explosives over the top of your pheromones, your
perfume/cologne/aftershave/body odour, the "fragranced" airconditioned air
so many buildings use, over the fumes on your body from the pollution
outside, etc. We sat down and thought about how many molecules a
detectable item would release and how far they'd travel and our basic
conclusion was : NO WAY.

The problem is that I like chemsniffers and the element they add to the
game. I don't want the players to be able to sneak guns into AAA apartment
buildings. I just want a scientifically/technologically POSSIBLE
equivalent.

Any comments? (Be nice, be nice!)

Lady Jestyr

--------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
--------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.oz.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
--------------------------------------------------
Message no. 2
From: Max Rible <cheshire@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Chemsniffers/ was Re: Questions about stuff
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:07:49 -0800
At 09:00 1/10/97 +1100, The Jestyr wrote:
>On the question of chemsniffers, how do you guys all handle them? Thing
>is, a chemist friend of mine tells me they couldn't work nearly as well as
>they do.
>
>In SR, you take a gun through a chemsniffer, it's almost certain to find
>it, right? I don't know the modifiers for the sniffer's perception test,
>but whether or not it depends on whether the gun's been fired before,
>whether the carrier is wearing perfume, etc, it's still almost certain to
>find the gun, and IMHO that's a loada rubbish.
>
>It would have to be EXTRAORDINARILY sensitive to detect a few molecules of
>chemicals coming off guns/explosives over the top of your pheromones, your
>perfume/cologne/aftershave/body odour, the "fragranced" airconditioned air
>so many buildings use, over the fumes on your body from the pollution
>outside, etc. We sat down and thought about how many molecules a
>detectable item would release and how far they'd travel and our basic
>conclusion was : NO WAY.
>
>The problem is that I like chemsniffers and the element they add to the
>game. I don't want the players to be able to sneak guns into AAA apartment
>buildings. I just want a scientifically/technologically POSSIBLE
>equivalent.

Well, if you disbelieve chemsniffers, you can always try metal detectors
and radar, cleverly hidden in an ornamental archway. If someone's carrying
too much metal, scan them with radar, and see what the metallish shape
looks like, compare it to the signatures of all known toys, and if it's
suspicious, alert the guard...

--
%%% Max Rible %%% cheshire@*****.com %%% http://www.amurgsval.org/~cheshire %%%
%%% "Don't keep all your bats in one belfry." - me %%%
Message no. 3
From: The Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Chemsniffers/ was Re: Questions about stuff
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:34:01 +1100
> Well, if you disbelieve chemsniffers, you can always try metal detectors
> and radar, cleverly hidden in an ornamental archway. If someone's carrying
> too much metal, scan them with radar, and see what the metallish shape
> looks like, compare it to the signatures of all known toys, and if it's
> suspicious, alert the guard...

Would macroplast guns get around this? They should be more useful than
they are (a +1 to perception, oh whoopee) and only the little metal
working bits (gee, you can tell I know a lot about guns, can't you?!)
would show up on a metal detector test, and I doubt that would be enough
metal to trigger the radar tester.

Lady Jestyr

--------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
--------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.oz.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
--------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: Max Rible <cheshire@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Chemsniffers/ was Re: Questions about stuff
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:35:38 -0800
At 09:34 1/10/97 +1100, The Jestyr wrote:
>> Well, if you disbelieve chemsniffers, you can always try metal detectors
>> and radar, cleverly hidden in an ornamental archway. If someone's carrying
>> too much metal, scan them with radar, and see what the metallish shape
>> looks like, compare it to the signatures of all known toys, and if it's
>> suspicious, alert the guard...

>Would macroplast guns get around this? They should be more useful than
>they are (a +1 to perception, oh whoopee) and only the little metal
>working bits (gee, you can tell I know a lot about guns, can't you?!)
>would show up on a metal detector test, and I doubt that would be enough
>metal to trigger the radar tester.

Yes. This is why you bother making macroplast guns in the first place...

--
%%% Max Rible %%% cheshire@*****.com %%% http://www.amurgsval.org/~cheshire %%%
%%% "Don't keep all your bats in one belfry." - me %%%
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Chemsniffers/ was Re: Questions about stuff
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:58:53 +0100
The Jestyr said on 9:34/10 Jan 97...

> Would macroplast guns get around this? They should be more useful than
> they are (a +1 to perception, oh whoopee) and only the little metal
> working bits (gee, you can tell I know a lot about guns, can't you?!)
> would show up on a metal detector test, and I doubt that would be enough
> metal to trigger the radar tester.

I'd say that depends on whether there's a computer or a person watching
the radar screen, and how sensitive/skilled it/he/she is... You could set
an automated detector to respond to go off when someone takes a single key
through it, and in that case it would also pick up a gun (provided it
doesn't look at the shape of the metal object); with a human operator, if
that person has seen enough (pictures of) insides of guns, he or she'd
also be able to recognize the little metal working bits; OTOH, if the
person only knows what the outside of a typical gun looks like, then what
is (s)he doing there in the first place?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Why are these dudes all dressed up in white?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Chemsniffers/ was Re: Questions about stuff, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!