Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:52:17 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

One gaping hole I've noticed in the SR universe:
There don't seem to be any good rules for security machines that scan
for the presence of dangerous cyberware.

In NAGRL, there were rules for using metal detectors (actually
Magnetic Anomaly Detectors) to screen for guns and such. In Cybertech,
there were rules for visually spotting cyberware, and patting down
limbs to tell if they were cyber (aka the poke test), but there
haven't been any details for automated means of detecting cyber.

When you think about how potentially dangerous some cybermods are, you
know that being able to screen out cybered individuals would be a
security priority. I doubt that mere visual inspection would be relied
upon at security checkpoints, and if everyone were subjected to
pat-downs (which are only good at detecting some types of external
mods, such as limbs or dermal), security checkpoints would slow to a
crawl.

One way to solve the problem would be to use metal detectors for most
screening of cyber, however, the current rules for metal detectors are
only written to handle firearms. To use the current metal detector
rules, a 'concealablity rating' would have to be determined for every
piece of cyber.

At first, I was thinking of basing the 'concealabilty rating' off of
how much essence a piece of cyber takes up, but some ware, like muscle
replacement, is moderately high in essence cost, but not metallic.

Short of coming up with a individual number for each type of cyber, I
don't see a simple solution to this. Especially when players will try
to exploit science loopholes, such as "but my cyberarm's casing is
ceramics and carbon-fiber composite, it would be much less detectable
by metal detectors"

Perhaps, since it's almost necessary to come up with individual target
numbers for each piece of cyber, it might be better to come up with a
whole new detector type, just for cyberware, without specifically
defining the tech it's based on. Just give it a techy sounding name,
like Active Millimeter-Wave Reflective Scanning, and give it a very
simple explanation of how it works (i.e. it detects, the presence,
amount, and shape of any 'solid' non-bone material in the body).

BTW, that technospeak term is derived from the term for the real
world's next generation of weapons detectors: a small article about
them can be found at:

http://www.parascope.com/articles/1296/imager.htm

So, has anyone already worked out a system for automated cyberware
detection (or might there be one in one of the books I don't own, such
as Lone Star, perhaps) or do I just need to build one from scratch?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTunZs2C0fERRVM5AQGgVwP9HjaJKKqZq2cRcXin+NN6eW+6W/SvLiFW
WNBeYtvrnxcBqpqXephMNalwAZv/Xidm5mtkaJv2dbgL6UFMtc9u5fniGjU7I+Cu
Fj574VEquP19n3rHoT1MSHmW5PfepY35FnI0YjHOffjNSkBe4j7LQVnTQdpST3ND
jwrn0V1QsMU=
=KMDx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 2
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:40:47 EST
> So, has anyone already worked out a system for automated cyberware
> detection (or might there be one in one of the books I don't own,
> such as Lone Star, perhaps) or do I just need to build one from
> scratch?

Lone star does have a system, but it pretty much ignores all the nice
considerations you put into it. IIRC, it just rolls 4 dice versus a
4 to detect any given piece of cyber, and versus a 6 for bioware. IT
is a wand device...

Myself, in my games I rule that bioware is undetectable shy of
medical examination (I also rule that most bioware includes chemical
"markers" in the blood to let docs know it is there. You can get ti
without, but most docs tend to put it in, even street docs, because
detection would be a ***** otherwise, and it could have health
concerns.)

As for cyber, so far I've just been using numbers off the top of my
head. I'd say that you'd roll the MAD rating versus
10-(essence cost of piece*10, rd). Thus anything of essence cost 1
is practically always detected, cybereyes need 8's (10-(10*0.2)),
etc.

Granted, it's faulty by equating Essence cost to magnetic anomoly,
but for a quick rule of thumb it works. If you say the device
compares body density to (meta)human norm, you can get away with it.
(since MAD wouldn't work on plastic bone lacing or Muscle
Replacement)

Comments?

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 3
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:01:30 -0400
At 03:52 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Short of coming up with a individual number for each type of cyber, I
>don't see a simple solution to this. Especially when players will try
>to exploit science loopholes, such as "but my cyberarm's casing is
>ceramics and carbon-fiber composite, it would be much less detectable
>by metal detectors"

If they do that, kill them. The PCs I mean. The job of the player is to
outsmart the GM. The job of the GM is to outsmart the PCs, and if that
isn't possible, well, kill them.

Just kidding. I would take that answer, but only if the cyber was an
advanced grade. Then it makes sense. Otherwise, alarms and sirens go off
and *then* you can kill the PC...

>Perhaps, since it's almost necessary to come up with individual target
>numbers for each piece of cyber, it might be better to come up with a
>whole new detector type, just for cyberware, without specifically
>defining the tech it's based on. Just give it a techy sounding name,
>like Active Millimeter-Wave Reflective Scanning, and give it a very
>simple explanation of how it works (i.e. it detects, the presence,
>amount, and shape of any 'solid' non-bone material in the body).

This works. You'd still need Target Numbers though. Just like you would
if you were using x-rays or metal detectors or whatever sort of walk-thru
scanner system. BTW, I've always thought that walk-thru metal detectors in
205X did more than buzz when metal was passed through, that it at least
gave size and location and advanced detectors would be able to display
images like airport x-ray machines.

I imagine this concept is what high-level cyber-scanners would likely be
like. With enough refinement and enhancement, this bad-boy might even be
able to give some details about the type of cyber.

Imagine how something like Wired Reflexes-3 would look through this. It
would be like a clean, almost linear web stretching through nearly all of
the body...would have to be freaky looking.

>So, has anyone already worked out a system for automated cyberware
>detection (or might there be one in one of the books I don't own, such
>as Lone Star, perhaps) or do I just need to build one from scratch?

Might be in Lone Star, but I haven't read that is a mook's age. Or at
least a long time.

You could just use GM perogative and do what you like as long as it fits
the story and your game world concept. Role some dice behind a screen and
shake your head a time or two and your players won't know you don't have
any hard and fast rules for cyberware detection. Sure, I know some might
consider that GM cheating, but the role of the GM is to tell and facilitate
a good story; if you have to fudge a bit to tell a good story, I won't
report you to the RPG police.

But if you really want rules...I would advise against doing a straight
conversion based purely on Essence. A 1 point cyberlimb is going to be so
much more obvious than a 3 point Wired Reflexes-2. It would have to be
based around estimated mass and physical dimensions of the cyberware, not
purely Essence, though that could be a guide.

Having thought about it some, you might want to do something based around
what grade of cyber the person has. Say, a TN 4 for normal grade, TN 6 for
alpha, TN 8 for beta and TN 10 for delta grade cyberware. The scanner
would role once for all the systems and the scanner would read everything
that it beats.

So Sam the Sammy has five pieces of cyberware, 3 alphaware, 1 beta and a
piece of deltaware he sold his soul for. He walks through an airport
scanner, which we'll give a rating 6 (make it whatever you want.) Let's
say GM/the scanner roles 1, 3, 3, 5, 6, 8. The 6 and the 8 are enough to
detect the alphaware systems and that piece of betaware Sam has. The
deltaware MBW escape attention though.

Something like that might work, at least in a pinch. It's an idea.

Erik J.


"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."
Message no. 4
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:35:09 EDT
<snipped ideas on "Cyberware Concealability"...NICE :) >

We've used similar circumstances, but utilized Ultrasound Technology to a
slightly advanced stage to detect implantware of nearly all kinds. The only
problem was being able to completely understand what the viewer was/would be
looking at on such a screen.

I've had Anatomy and Physiology at the college level for example, I have some
ideas of what is what, but varioius implants...that would be interesting.

We've also had rules to come with rules, whereby surgical successes can be
utilized towards improving the "signature" of the implantware.

-K
Message no. 5
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:37:53 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 04:40 PM 4/20/98 -0500, SwiftOne wrote:
>Lone star does have a system, but it pretty much ignores all the nice
>considerations you put into it. IIRC, it just rolls 4 dice versus a
>4 to detect any given piece of cyber, and versus a 6 for bioware. IT
>is a wand device...

*insert retching noise here*

>Myself, in my games I rule that bioware is undetectable shy of
>medical examination

I mostly agree with this, with a few exceptions. Some bioware is
noticeable because it affects the way a person moves, like Enhanced
Articulation (the "dancer over at Brigands'" effect), and the
Suprathyroid Gland (the "Cornholio" effect). Unfortunately, the way
someone moves isn't something you could base an automated system off
of, you'd need a trained eye watching.

The Suprathyroid Gland does raise a person's body temperature, but
temperature varies too much from person to person to be useful as a
means of detection, especially for just one specific piece of bioware.
On the other hand, what does cyber look like under thermal imaging? It
doesn't get as warm as flesh and blood, does it? Thermal cameras
couldn't detect internals, but gross exterior changes: limbs, dermals,
maybe eyes, would show up, don't you think?

>As for cyber, so far I've just been using numbers off the top of my
>head. I'd say that you'd roll the MAD rating versus
>10-(essence cost of piece*10, rd). Thus anything of essence cost 1
>is practically always detected, cybereyes need 8's (10-(10*0.2)),
>etc.
>
>Granted, it's faulty by equating Essence cost to magnetic anomoly,
>but for a quick rule of thumb it works. If you say the device
>compares body density to (meta)human norm, you can get away with it.

>(since MAD wouldn't work on plastic bone lacing or Muscle
>Replacement)

I'm not so sure about that rule. Wired 'flexes and cyberlimbs will
almost always set off the alarm, but the target number to detect a
vehicle control rig 1 is a stunning -10. An encephalon 3 would have a
target number of -5.

For my concept of a cyberware detector, I'd like it to have a bit of
smarts, and be able to determine the gross category of individual
pieces of cyber at the low end, and make finer distinctions at the
high end. That way, if the runners are trying to crack a site that can
only afford a bargain basement CyberDetector, they might be able to
convince the sec-guard that the "extensive bodily wiring" that the
thing is picking up is just a set of skillwires, and not 'flexes. If
they go through one of the high end models, with better pattern
recognition software, the runners would be a lot less likely to
convince the personnel that the reading of "Tactical Computer" the
machine just gave was a false positive, that all they have is an
encephalon.

At 06:01 PM 4/20/98 -0400, Erik J. wrote:
>I imagine this concept is what high-level cyber-scanners would likely
be
>like. With enough refinement and enhancement, this bad-boy might
even be
>able to give some details about the type of cyber.

This was more what I had in mind when I said that a CyberDetector
should be able to detect the presence, size, and shape of the
implants. This way, pattern recognition software could try to
determine what various implants are. (Low grade detectors only being
able to make general determinations, and high grade detectors being
more specific). If the detector knows what the implant is, it can make
a judgement call on the type of threat that the implant's owner poses.

Imagine an Air Force base. It'd be a nightmare if every pilot with a
Vehicle Control Rig would set off the alarm when they went through the
detector. Similarly, at an airport, a geek with 1500MP of essence
friendly headware memory and a datajack shouldn't set off the alarm,
because he's not going to bring down a plane with it. That same geek
should set off the automatic gun emplacements if he tries to get
through the security checkpoint at a Corporate Secure Offline Data
Storage Facility, because there, he poses a big threat of data theft.


>Imagine how something like Wired Reflexes-3 would look through this.
It
>would be like a clean, almost linear web stretching through nearly
all of
>the body...would have to be freaky looking.

Yeah. I'm reminded of a scene from Total Recall.

I'm going to get to work on fleshing out some target numbers. I
probably won't do an individual tn for every piece of cyber; I'll
probably lump some of it into categories, like misc. headware.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTwGQM2C0fERRVM5AQGLHQP+JzbeU7MCBibuxkAIfjjM9djOwm2FLCYv
iNrbuf7pfLxeo+zAnQwbRMmoDZxfAxS8nM8MzYx8WU678omU3zEiwVE/H8S+ArIK
y6QPdLuxPJWi1n090eNZSZdNAFfkVklcU/rMPTwgNPtoLUXjvosl03dq0ALqIfyK
TyLhnDHfzW8=
=y7vE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 6
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:45:33 -0400
On Monday, April 20, 1998 3:52 PM, Paul =
Gettle[SMTP:pgettle@********.NET] wrote:

> One gaping hole I've noticed in the SR universe:
> There don't seem to be any good rules for security machines that scan
> for the presence of dangerous cyberware.
>
> In NAGRL, there were rules for using metal detectors (actually
> Magnetic Anomaly Detectors) to screen for guns and such. In Cybertech,
> there were rules for visually spotting cyberware, and patting down
> limbs to tell if they were cyber (aka the poke test), but there
> haven't been any details for automated means of detecting cyber.

I know it's out of print, but the original Harlequin adventure book had =
rules for a cyberware detector that airports used. IIRC, the =
'concealability was based on essence cost, and modified (up) if the =
cyberware in question was 'bioware-based', (ex. Boosted Reflexes).

I don't have my copy on hand, so I can't be more specific. It may also =
have been reprinted in the GM book of the Denver set.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 7
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:03:36 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:45 PM 4/20/98 -0400, Quicksilver wrote:
>I know it's out of print, but the original Harlequin adventure book
had rules for a cyberware detector that airports used. IIRC, the
'concealability was based on essence cost, and modified (up) if the
cyberware in question was 'bioware-based', (ex. Boosted Reflexes).

Bleh. They actually published that rule? Then again, back in original
Harlequin, there wasn't nearly as much 'ware around to make that rule
look silly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTwMg82C0fERRVM5AQHNwwP+LYr5f6vxoQFECNXtoCBaBxVS6k2xoIF6
kGEfxvDrVXjoTX/wGLR0Z/6TF3vSeNCNGN6KdApGlIRNUgU6NrToU6TFnNV81VP1
ndk+ctGCwSKTJdINbN2HMkYBCBCGHYDg6gt684SqEYbfkxUQOUrGYAC/SVl4abBo
lI5Jjx7tvkc=
=Wu5P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 8
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:30:31 -0700
At 8:03 PM -0700 4/20/98, Paul Gettle wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>At 10:45 PM 4/20/98 -0400, Quicksilver wrote:
>>I know it's out of print, but the original Harlequin adventure book
>had rules for a cyberware detector that airports used. IIRC, the
>'concealability was based on essence cost, and modified (up) if the
>cyberware in question was 'bioware-based', (ex. Boosted Reflexes).
>
>Bleh. They actually published that rule? Then again, back in original
>Harlequin, there wasn't nearly as much 'ware around to make that rule
>look silly.

Actually, one sort of "cyberware" detector that we use in our games
are magically actives - assensing. It's not a precise indicator, but
in our game, mages can get a sense if someone's cybered or not.
ie: If a mage were to asense a street sam with .25 essence, the mage
would see that the person has practicaly killed themselves by replacing
their meat with metal and plastic. Our ruling is that bioware is
not detectable in this way. Or to put it another way, the mage can
get a general idea on how tasty you'd look to an essence draining creature.

What about detection spells?

-Rob
Message no. 9
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:32:20 -0500
> Actually, one sort of "cyberware" detector that we use in our games
> are magically actives - assensing.
That's great for a shadowrunning team, but lousy for security, simply
because there aren't that many magicians available, and they sure as hell
aren't going to be standing guard duty (unless its something _really_
important, in which case you won't get close enough for assensing to be a
problem, or he pissed someone important off, in which case he'll probably
geek you for fun)(note that I try to avoid "shadowspeak" in my posts, but
geek works so well that I like it).

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars, PML FAQ Cop
aka The Human Tangent
************
Three sparks that kindle love: a face, demeanour, speech
Three things that hide ugliness: good manners in the ill-favoured,
skill in a serf, wisdom in the misshapen.
Three things that ruin wisdom: ignorance, inaccurate knowledge,
forgetfullness. .
Three candles that illume every darkness: truth, nature, knowledge.
Three signs of a bad man: bitterness, hatred, cowardice.
Message no. 10
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:09:06 PDT
>At 03:52 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Short of coming up with a individual number for each type of cyber, I
>>don't see a simple solution to this. Especially when players will try
>>to exploit science loopholes, such as "but my cyberarm's casing is
>>ceramics and carbon-fiber composite, it would be much less detectable
>>by metal detectors"
>
>If they do that, kill them.

Who are you? Nigel Findley? :)
Personally, my whole take on this is simpley that if I, as a GM, want
my PC's cyber detected, it's going to get detected- it's one of the
disadvantages of having cyber(besides that whole essence loss thingie).
But it's also a matter of how Security- or "The Law"- handles it.
Cyberware would be used to cure someone who is handicapped just as much
as it is used to give a Shadowrunner an edge. And it's up to the PCs to
explain to the guard why the have a cyberarm with a +3 str enhancement.
If they say "None ya damn biz" to the guard, they are going to get taken
to the back. If they say "Well, I shingle roofs for a livin, and one
day-'bout 3 years ago- a whole palet of shingles was dropped on my arm
and squashed it like a bug. So, I figured if I'm gonna get a cyberarm,
might as well make it stronger to help me carry shingles, right? And
let me tell ya, chummer- works like a fraggin charm!"
Wired 3? If they got a permit(maybe forged by the Johnson or Fixer)
they could say they are an epilepsy victim, and it helps with the
seizures.
Shadowrun is a RPG. IMO the more roleplaying(not to mention
planning) a character does to get out of a tough spot, the kinder I'll
be. Unless they do something monumentally stupid, like be a cyberfiend
with .2 essence and not a permit for a bit of it and walk through an
airport terminal. Then, well, they were asking for it to begin with.
:)
Just my take on it.

-Vagabond
"Under wandering stars I've grown"
________________________________________________________
<nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: scrose <scrose@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 02:14:24 -0500
>
> At first, I was thinking of basing the 'concealabilty rating' off of
> how much essence a piece of cyber takes up, but some ware, like muscle
> replacement, is moderately high in essence cost, but not metallic.
>
> Short of coming up with a individual number for each type of cyber, I
> don't see a simple solution to this. Especially when players will try
> to exploit science loopholes, such as "but my cyberarm's casing is
> ceramics and carbon-fiber composite, it would be much less detectable
> by metal detectors"

Hire someone who is astrally aware Maga/Shaman etc.
Want to do it with tech mass detectors and portable x-ray equipment.
have it does not take long to scan a human body for "normal" bone and
tissue and if it's cyber/bioware it will show up on these types of
scanners. Case in point they already do it to your bags in certain
circumstances why not bodies.

"Please walk through this arch way.

>
Message no. 12
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 02:37:45 PDT
Paul Gettle
>Short of coming up with a individual number for each type of cyber, I
>don't see a simple solution to this. Especially when players will try
>to exploit science loopholes, such as "but my cyberarm's casing is
>ceramics and carbon-fiber composite, it would be much less detectable
>by metal detectors"
>
>Perhaps, since it's almost necessary to come up with individual target
>numbers for each piece of cyber, it might be better to come up with a
>whole new detector type, just for cyberware, without specifically
>defining the tech it's based on. Just give it a techy sounding name,
>like Active Millimeter-Wave Reflective Scanning, and give it a very
>simple explanation of how it works (i.e. it detects, the presence,
>amount, and shape of any 'solid' non-bone material in the body).
>
>BTW, that technospeak term is derived from the term for the real
>world's next generation of weapons detectors: a small article about
>them can be found at:
>
>http://www.parascope.com/articles/1296/imager.htm
>
>So, has anyone already worked out a system for automated cyberware
>detection (or might there be one in one of the books I don't own, such
>as Lone Star, perhaps) or do I just need to build one from scratch?

Millimeter wave is great but be careful it is no more infallable than
any other means of detection for instance I think that glass is totally
transparent to Millimeter wave, so unless you take care characters will
be toting glass knive's, spears, swords etc around.
btw has anyone developed rules for glass weapons?

I'd suggest damage/power as per dicoted weapon and shatter if all of
the attack dice come up either 1 or 2, or alternatively 1 or 6.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 13
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 02:53:13 PDT
-=SwiftOne=- Wrote
>As for cyber, so far I've just been using numbers off the top of my
>head. I'd say that you'd roll the MAD rating versus
>10-(essence cost of piece*10, rd). Thus anything of essence cost 1
>is practically always detected, cybereyes need 8's (10-(10*0.2)),
>etc.
>
>Granted, it's faulty by equating Essence cost to magnetic anomoly,
>but for a quick rule of thumb it works. If you say the device
>compares body density to (meta)human norm, you can get away with it.
>(since MAD wouldn't work on plastic bone lacing or Muscle
>Replacement)
>
>Comments?

it's also faulty when it comes to implants like a VCR lvl 3 which if i
remember is a v. complex but small( ;) well it'd have to be it's going
in your head) piece of 'ware that gets a v. high Essence cost (5)
because of its invasiveness, connecting about half of your brain
together with little bits of metal was never going to be essence
friendly.

-Matthew Waddilove

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:59:13 +0100
Erik Jameson said on 18:01/20 Apr 98...

> If they do that, kill them. The PCs I mean. The job of the player is to
> outsmart the GM. The job of the GM is to outsmart the PCs, and if that
> isn't possible, well, kill them.
>
> Just kidding. I would take that answer, but only if the cyber was an
> advanced grade. Then it makes sense. Otherwise, alarms and sirens go off
> and *then* you can kill the PC...

Have you by any chance been playing Paranoia recently, Erik? :) However, I
agree with what you said: players can come up with all kinds of
explanations for things, but I feel things have to be supported by some
game stats or other mechanics to a degree. If it's generally accepted that
cyberlimbs are made from metal, then having one that's less detectable
(like one made from plastics and ceramics) it would have to be more
difficult to get, cost more, or something like that. If it didn't when the
character bought it, then too bad, but alarms and all that go off
normally.

> Might be in Lone Star, but I haven't read that is a mook's age. Or at
> least a long time.

Like I said, a set of rules appears in Harlequin. They're not perfect, but
at least they _are_ a set of rules...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
going down thinking
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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------
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:59:13 +0100
Paul Gettle said on 15:52/20 Apr 98...

> One gaping hole I've noticed in the SR universe:
> There don't seem to be any good rules for security machines that scan
> for the presence of dangerous cyberware.

Actually, there have been rules for this. They are in a very unlikely
place, though: the last couple of pages of the original Harlequin
adventure. This had a few pages with explanations of air travel and
airport security, and gave stats for cyberware scanners, restraint
devices, and IIRC a little bit more. Hardly anything of this has appeared
in later books, unfortunately -- there is a little mention of cyberware
scanners in the CorpSec Handbook, but no rules that I could gfind on a
quick browse-through just now.

> One way to solve the problem would be to use metal detectors for most
> screening of cyber, however, the current rules for metal detectors are
> only written to handle firearms. To use the current metal detector
> rules, a 'concealablity rating' would have to be determined for every
> piece of cyber.

The rules in Harlequin put the Concealability of cyberware at 6 - Essence,
rounded up and doubled. Cyberweapons don't double, and "heavily
biotech-based" cyberware (muscle replacements and retinal duplications are
mentioned; remember that this was before Shadowtech came out) triples
rather than doubles.

There is also a table with typical detection devices (wands and gateways)
and the number of dice they roll to detect weapons and cyberware. From
this table, only gates can detect cyberware.

> At first, I was thinking of basing the 'concealabilty rating' off of
> how much essence a piece of cyber takes up, but some ware, like muscle
> replacement, is moderately high in essence cost, but not metallic.

See above.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
going down thinking
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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------
Message no. 16
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:18:22 +0100
All this talk on detecting cyber, and I think all of you are forgetting one
technology that exists today that could easily ID all cyber and most bioware
with little trouble....

MRI.
Megnetic Resonance Imaging.

If it's possible to get full 3D/sliced pictures of the brain and rest of the
body, including soft tissue detail, the CYBER will stand out a mile, and
most bioware will appear as anomalies in the placement of the organs...

A bigger organ here, an extra organ there, something strange about the
shape/makeup of that organ over there, etc....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 17
From: Lord Nazal <LordNazal@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 07:17:01 EDT
In a message dated 98-04-21 06:20:22 EDT, you write:

<< All this talk on detecting cyber, and I think all of you are forgetting one
technology that exists today that could easily ID all cyber and most bioware
with little trouble....

MRI.
Megnetic Resonance Imaging.

If it's possible to get full 3D/sliced pictures of the brain and rest of the
body, including soft tissue detail, the CYBER will stand out a mile, and
most bioware will appear as anomalies in the placement of the organs...

A bigger organ here, an extra organ there, something strange about the
shape/makeup of that organ over there, etc....
-- >>


the only problem is for you to use a mri curently you need a magnet that can
pick a Vw bug up at about 30 feet (at lest that is with curnent tec ,also they
have to use dies in your system to get those images

If you want a good catch all do the total recall wall of florascope x-ray
system
this will dectect metals,plastics,and most other materiel your pc can think
of,plus it will not slow the flow of trafic down in large bulidings

Thanks
Michael Ragland

....And the Dodo sang "Every thing you think you know is wrong".....
Message no. 18
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:58:47 +0000
> agree with what you said: players can come up with all kinds of
> explanations for things, but I feel things have to be supported by some
> game stats or other mechanics to a degree. If it's generally accepted that

Other times you have to just declare how it is without regard for
"reality". For example, I rule that magician can "hide" 5 fetishes
upon his/her person without them being noticeable. Any more, and the
person starts to become either an obvious mage or someone with bad
fashion sense.

When I didn't do this, it was a race to see who could come up with
the most innocuous fetishes. Small in size, normal looking, etc.
Now the rule is 5. Just 5. Since I implemented this, my players
have more freedom (?) to select fetishes based on role-playing rather
than roll-playing.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 19
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:47:48 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:30 PM 4/20/98 -0700, Rob wrote:
>Actually, one sort of "cyberware" detector that we use in our games
>are magically actives - assensing.

<<Snip>>

>What about detection spells?

Both very valid means of screening for cyberware. Unfortunately, magic
is still a bit of a rarity in the 50s-60s. Could you imagine the
number of mages you'd need to secure O'Hare airport during the
December rush? (Though, prehaps if watcher spirits were used, you
could get away with having fewer mages on the payroll.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTyjds2C0fERRVM5AQG1dgQAtm36lSOmnF5JRNt/BnX+AC5+Ohle7kg/
Uosxz0s2GW7RWKxMmQpRzuAHViDw1kY6PoW7sIS7dM/fDYDpQ0wzV8lQ0nwnLvDP
B3+1QHTuBjRzoYH8I37mFH1CF/tOeZRYvsxhn8NYZkGw61TjUSGrHqFfiGOHTXwU
LviHhhLR0IM=
=LIep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 20
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:03:36 -0400
Matthew Waddilove wrote:
>>like Active Millimeter-Wave Reflective Scanning, and give it a very
[snip]
>>BTW, that technospeak term is derived from the term for the real
>>world's next generation of weapons detectors: a small article about
>>them can be found at:
[snip]
>Millimeter wave is great but be careful it is no more infallable than
>any other means of detection for instance I think that glass is totally
>transparent to Millimeter wave, so unless you take care characters will
>be toting glass knive's, spears, swords etc around.
>btw has anyone developed rules for glass weapons?

Heh. What use is a glass dagger? For starters, a glass spear is
totally useless, a glass sword is almost totally useless, but a
glass knife could work. Hitting hard armour or being blocked will
shatter the weapon, hitting anything solid like bone will chip the
weapon.
>
>I'd suggest damage/power as per dicoted weapon and shatter if all of
>the attack dice come up either 1 or 2, or alternatively 1 or 6.

Ick! No way! Not unless it was a big thick (short) knife with
no pointy bits to snap off.

First off, no dikote - glass is too fragile for that. As for
breakage, I'd be generous and only subtract 1 from the power
for each 1 rolled (a botch is a total shatter, obviously).

>James Ojaste
Message no. 21
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 07:19:42 PDT
>All this talk on detecting cyber, and I think all of you are forgetting
one
>technology that exists today that could easily ID all cyber and most
bioware
>with little trouble....
>
>MRI.
>Megnetic Resonance Imaging.
>
>If it's possible to get full 3D/sliced pictures of the brain and rest
of the
>body, including soft tissue detail, the CYBER will stand out a mile,
and
>most bioware will appear as anomalies in the placement of the organs...

True enough, but doesn't an MRI unit take up a room? Or at least half
of one? Granted, it may get smaller over the next 6 decades, but I
don't know if it would get down to the size of what you see in airports.
And, if it did, it just re-enforces my earlier comments about
planning and RPGing.
Furthermore, if an MRI unit did get that small over the next 60
years, wouldn't be logical that the technology would also be flawed, or
at least easier to circumvent?
As for bioware, it still would be harder to look for. Let's say
you are a SecGuard at SeaTac, you are staring at a screen for at *least*
8 hours a day. You have countless people that have to catch their
flight soon. Sooner or later, your gonna slip. Meat after all, looks
like meat- especially after 8 hours, not to mention X number of years
you've been doing this crap. They'd have that "ah, as long as they
don't have cyberspurs or wired 'flexes" mentality. I've done retail
Security, and believe me that mentality can easily overcome you. No
matter how sophisticated the tech gets, a Shadowrunners greatest
tool-and the Security forces greatest weakness- will be the Human
Factor.


-Vagabond
"Under wandering stars I've grown"
________________________________________________________
<nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 22
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:32:40 +0100
And verily, did The Vagabond hastily scribble thusly...
| True enough, but doesn't an MRI unit take up a room? Or at least half
|of one? Granted, it may get smaller over the next 6 decades, but I
|don't know if it would get down to the size of what you see in airports.

I think it might.
After all, 50 years ago, a computer as powerfull as a Sinclair ZX Spectrum
(3.5 Mhz Z80/48K RAM/16K ROM) wouldn't have fitted in a room....

| And, if it did, it just re-enforces my earlier comments about
|planning and RPGing.
| Furthermore, if an MRI unit did get that small over the next 60
|years, wouldn't be logical that the technology would also be flawed, or
|at least easier to circumvent?

I'm not too sure of that.

| As for bioware, it still would be harder to look for. Let's say
|you are a SecGuard at SeaTac, you are staring at a screen for at *least*
|8 hours a day. You have countless people that have to catch their
|flight soon. Sooner or later, your gonna slip.
|Meat after all, looks like meat- especially after 8 hours, not to mention
|X number of years you've been doing this crap.

But that's what expert systems are for.
An expert system could analyse the results, and highlight anomalies.
Some of the anomalies could even be easily identified by the software.
Others might require the person to be taken 'backstage' for further testing.
(It could even pinpoint malignant growths unknown to the passenger...)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 23
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:01:10 PDT
>That dork Vagabond said:
>| As for bioware, it still would be harder to look for. Let's say
>|you are a SecGuard at SeaTac, you are staring at a screen for at
*least*
>|8 hours a day. You have countless people that have to catch their
>|flight soon. Sooner or later, your gonna slip.
>|Meat after all, looks like meat- especially after 8 hours, not to
mention X number of years you've been doing this crap.

>That hip cat Spike said:
>But that's what expert systems are for.
>An expert system could analyse the results, and highlight anomalies.
>Some of the anomalies could even be easily identified by the software.
>Others might require the person to be taken 'backstage' for further
testing.
>(It could even pinpoint malignant growths unknown to the passenger...)

True enough. Nice rebuttle and stuff. However, I just thought of a
Shadowrunner trying to pass off an adrenal pump as a "malignant growth".
heheh... "Yeah, that's why I'm flying to Aztlan, some specialist is
gonna take care of that thing for me."
<Harlequin Flashback>
"What is his name."
</Harlequin Flashback>
*twitch*

-Vagabond
"Under wandering stars I've grown"
________________________________________________________
<nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 24
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:36:47 -0700
----------
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
> Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 3:59 AM
>
> Erik Jameson said on 18:01/20 Apr 98...
>
> > If they do that, kill them. The PCs I mean. The job of the player is
to
> > outsmart the GM. The job of the GM is to outsmart the PCs, and if that
> > isn't possible, well, kill them.
> >
> > Just kidding. I would take that answer, but only if the cyber was an
> > advanced grade. Then it makes sense. Otherwise, alarms and sirens go
off
> > and *then* you can kill the PC...
>
> Have you by any chance been playing Paranoia recently, Erik? :) However,
I

Paranoia? Have you been reading classified materials, Citizen Gu-R-THH?
Please report to Disintrigration Booth C for Termination.

Have a nice day.

The Computer loves you.

*cue muzak*



On a tangent, has anyone tried to mix Paranoia and Shadowrun in some form
or another?
Message no. 25
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:31:29 -0500
>
> > So, has anyone already worked out a system for automated cyberware
> > detection (or might there be one in one of the books I don't own,
> > such as Lone Star, perhaps) or do I just need to build one from
> > scratch?
>
> Lone star does have a system, but it pretty much ignores all the nice
> considerations you put into it. IIRC, it just rolls 4 dice versus a
> 4 to detect any given piece of cyber, and versus a 6 for bioware. IT
> is a wand device...
>
> Myself, in my games I rule that bioware is undetectable shy of
> medical examination (I also rule that most bioware includes chemical
> "markers" in the blood to let docs know it is there. You can get ti
> without, but most docs tend to put it in, even street docs, because
> detection would be a ***** otherwise, and it could have health
> concerns.)
>
> As for cyber, so far I've just been using numbers off the top of my
> head. I'd say that you'd roll the MAD rating versus
> 10-(essence cost of piece*10, rd). Thus anything of essence cost 1
> is practically always detected, cybereyes need 8's (10-(10*0.2)),
> etc.
>
> Granted, it's faulty by equating Essence cost to magnetic anomoly,
> but for a quick rule of thumb it works. If you say the device
> compares body density to (meta)human norm, you can get away with it.
> (since MAD wouldn't work on plastic bone lacing or Muscle
> Replacement)
>
I usually do the same for bioware. Unless somebody examines you
very well, its not going to show up. (X-rays or perhaps MRI not
withstanding, depending on the type). Cyberware I usually rule
on a case by case basis. Beyond detectors, I generally believe
that most moderately intelligent humans, would be able to tell
if you were modded very heavily. (Some things are more obvious
then others), and treat you with that much more attention.
Ex: Guard sees Mr. Suit walk up. See's the datajack but little else.
Gives him the once over, trusts the base scanners, and moves on.
Ex2: Guard sees Mr. Janitor. Mr. Janitor has muscles like a linebacker.
Seems to have a datajack,cybereyes etc. Guard doesn't know what else, but
probably will watch the guy, and do better scans.
Most of my players know better then to try and go through scanners.
They've learned bluffing, paperwork, etc are much more useful, and
involve me throwing less dice. (Which usually makes everyone happy).
Its a case of training your players, so I don't have to come
up with rules. :)


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Uh-Oh Toto, it doesn't look like we're gods anymore."
Message no. 26
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:32:09 +0800
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 02:14:24 -0500, scrose wrote:

>Hire someone who is astrally aware Maga/Shaman etc.
>Want to do it with tech mass detectors and portable x-ray equipment.
>have it does not take long to scan a human body for "normal" bone and
>tissue and if it's cyber/bioware it will show up on these types of
>scanners. Case in point they already do it to your bags in certain
>circumstances why not bodies.

Because exposure to x-rays is harmful to humans (and presumably meta-humans), plus
it would require lead shielding for the operators...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.
Message no. 27
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:21:06 -0400
At 11:09 PM 4/20/98 PDT, you wrote:
>>At 03:52 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>Short of coming up with a individual number for each type of cyber, I
>>>don't see a simple solution to this. Especially when players will try
>>>to exploit science loopholes, such as "but my cyberarm's casing is
>>>ceramics and carbon-fiber composite, it would be much less detectable
>>>by metal detectors"
>>
>>If they do that, kill them.
>
> Who are you? Nigel Findley? :)

Actually, I was sort of kidding with that comment. I was hoping that my
sarcasm would drip through without a smiley. Guess it didn't work.

But if your player's insist on doing something stupid like having there
nearly cyberzombie Essence 0 chrome god try to walk through the front doors
of the Renraku arcology or through an airport scanner I'd feel free to cap
a shot or two at them. Teach them a lesson about law and order and their
place in the world. Don't *have* to kill them, that's not very nice, but
give them a good swift ass-kicking.

Erik J.

I'm the GM and I've got my steel-toed sh*tkickers on right now; do you
really want to go shopping in Renraku's arcology mall chrome man?
Message no. 28
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:22:43 -0400
At 08:36 AM 4/21/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Paranoia? Have you been reading classified materials, Citizen Gu-R-THH?
>Please report to Disintrigration Booth C for Termination.
>
>Have a nice day.
>
>The Computer loves you.
>
>*cue muzak*
>
>On a tangent, has anyone tried to mix Paranoia and Shadowrun in some form
>or another?
>

I thought Paranoia was part of Shadowrun. I wait, that's *p*aranoia,
little p...

Might be fun to do something like that at about 3 in the morning...

Erik J.


"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."
Message no. 29
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:34:20 +0100
Oliver McDonald said on 10:32/21 Apr 98...

[X-ray weapon/cyberware detectors]
> Because exposure to x-rays is harmful to humans (and presumably
> meta-humans), plus it would require lead shielding for the operators...

I think it was on a recent Discovery documentary where they showed a very
low-powered X-ray machine used for detecting hidden weapons. Basically it
scans someone from all sides with X-rays only powerful enough to get
through clothes, and then builds up a picture. It showed hidden weapons
very well, and it was mentioned the radiation dosis was so low as to be
almost negligible.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
going down thinking
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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------
Message no. 30
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:11:15 +0800
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:34:20 +0100, Gurth wrote:

>Oliver McDonald said on 10:32/21 Apr 98...
>
>[X-ray weapon/cyberware detectors]
>> Because exposure to x-rays is harmful to humans (and presumably
>> meta-humans), plus it would require lead shielding for the operators...
>
>I think it was on a recent Discovery documentary where they showed a very
>low-powered X-ray machine used for detecting hidden weapons. Basically it
>scans someone from all sides with X-rays only powerful enough to get
>through clothes, and then builds up a picture. It showed hidden weapons
>very well, and it was mentioned the radiation dosis was so low as to be
>almost negligible.

Sounds interesting, but I really would object, myself, to someone pointing even low
powered x-rays at me. They can still be genetically damaging, are more energetic than
UV, and thus more likely to cause skin cancer, not withstanding the fact that there is the
chance of data corruption in solid state memory devices.... Headware memory? I would
tend to favour millimeter wave radar (lower energy than IR). Not as good for fine
resolution agreed, might well not be able to detect wired reflexes, but then neither would
ultra-low power x-ray, it would detect a smart-link where UL-X-ray might not. The best
bet I have heard so far is portable MRI.

Advanced needed for portable MRI would be improvements in sensor tech and
computing power. If sensor tech cannot be improved advances in computing power
should make walk-through MRI possible...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.
Message no. 31
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:49:05 -0500
At 08:58 AM 98-04-21 +0000, you wrote:
>> agree with what you said: players can come up with all kinds of
>> explanations for things, but I feel things have to be supported by some
>> game stats or other mechanics to a degree. If it's generally accepted that
>
>Other times you have to just declare how it is without regard for
>"reality". For example, I rule that magician can "hide" 5
fetishes
>upon his/her person without them being noticeable. Any more, and the
>person starts to become either an obvious mage or someone with bad
>fashion sense.
>
>When I didn't do this, it was a race to see who could come up with
>the most innocuous fetishes. Small in size, normal looking, etc.
>Now the rule is 5. Just 5. Since I implemented this, my players
>have more freedom (?) to select fetishes based on role-playing rather
>than roll-playing.

But dosn't it make more sence for players to try and make fetishes that are
hard to detect if they're playing shadowrunners. For example a power focus
that looks like a small metal button (attached to the mages cufflink) would
be great for a runner if a little to mundane for most mages.

SteveD
>
>-=SwiftOne=-
>Brett Borger
>SwiftOne@***.edu
>AAP Techie
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 32
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:21:31 EDT
In a message dated 4/21/98 1:10:43 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
nomad74@*******.COM writes:

<snipped excuses for some cyberware>

> Just my take on it.

The idea of forged licensing for cyberware is of course an old one. I just
think that most of the excuses you put up were incredibly lame. But, the idea
is a good one. If implantware is "illegal", it's going to need something to
make it "possessable". Certain implantware is illegal regardless of where it
is encountered, such as cyberguns and cyberspurs (obvious combative stuff)
IMO.

Wired Reflexes wouldn't help with epilepsy, if anything, it might make it
worse. BUT it could be a feasible argument.

Along this line of thinking, what are some people's excuses for certain
cyberware their characters or other players they knew had/have used?

-K
Message no. 33
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:45:34 +0800
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:21:31 EDT, Ereskanti wrote:

>The idea of forged licensing for cyberware is of course an old one. I just
>think that most of the excuses you put up were incredibly lame. But, the idea
>is a good one. If implantware is "illegal", it's going to need something to
>make it "possessable". Certain implantware is illegal regardless of where
it
>is encountered, such as cyberguns and cyberspurs (obvious combative stuff)
>IMO.
>
>Wired Reflexes wouldn't help with epilepsy, if anything, it might make it
>worse. BUT it could be a feasible argument.

What would make more sense for epilepsy would be the Move-by-wire system from
cyber-technology... Of course explaining why you have a level-4 version of it might be
hard...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.
Message no. 34
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:55:30 EDT
on the topic of mixing Paranoia and Shadowrun

(btw, your posts do NOT allow me to "reply copy" them like others do for some
reason...)

I thought that was the general idea of GMing...mixing Paranoia with SR at all
times :)

Combine it with an Decker/Otaku who has an attitude and the Renraku
Arcology..."why yes Citizen D...you are due for a raise, please report to
terminal 4, jack in and prepare to receive lost credit due to management
neglect" (ewg) )

-K
Message no. 35
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:05:40 -0400
At 10:03 AM 4/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Heh. What use is a glass dagger? For starters, a glass spear is
>totally useless, a glass sword is almost totally useless, but a
>glass knife could work. Hitting hard armour or being blocked will
>shatter the weapon, hitting anything solid like bone will chip the
>weapon.

Making it disposable, but also rather nasty... *grin*

>>I'd suggest damage/power as per dicoted weapon and shatter if all of
>>the attack dice come up either 1 or 2, or alternatively 1 or 6.

How about something more like if a certain number of 1's come up in an
attack roll (say, three or so). This way, more skill really doesn't help
(and it doesn't with glass, since it's both brittle and breaks in
less-than-predictable ways since it has no grain).

>Ick! No way! Not unless it was a big thick (short) knife with
>no pointy bits to snap off.

>First off, no dikote - glass is too fragile for that.

It has nothing to do with fragility, more to do with melting temperature.
Glass is tempered at at least the 1200 fahrenheit range (I worked in an
automotive glass factory), so it can withstand some heat, just a question
of how hot the Dikote process is...

Also, on the point of letting the glass weapon break inside the victim,
leaving bits inside, I recall a CoC module that included someone skilled in
knife fighting, who used ppairs of glass knives which were hollow and
-filled- with unpleasant substances (a mixture of strong acid and a poison
I think).

>As for
>breakage, I'd be generous and only subtract 1 from the power
>for each 1 rolled (a botch is a total shatter, obviously).

Botches are too rare, you'd have everyone using glass knives, and that
seems silly. And it really should have a much lower chance of defeating
impact armor (solid plates), as glass tends to shatter when put under
stress...

losthalo, who got to break his share of glass, large and small, those two
summers :)
Message no. 36
From: Wraith <wraith@************.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:18:16 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.com>


>On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:21:31 EDT, Ereskanti wrote:

<Snip illegal cyberware>
>
>>Wired Reflexes wouldn't help with epilepsy, if anything, it might make it
>>worse. BUT it could be a feasible argument.
>
>What would make more sense for epilepsy would be the Move-by-wire system
from
>cyber-technology... Of course explaining why you have a level-4 version of
it might be
>hard...


Um, doesn't the Move-by-Wire system emulate epilepsy in someways? I mean
the MBW puts your body into a continual seizure basically. I can't see this
helping anyone HEALTHY much less someone with a disorder such as epilepsy.

Wraith
Message no. 37
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:16:43 -0500
> Um, doesn't the Move-by-Wire system emulate epilepsy in someways? I
mean
> the MBW puts your body into a continual seizure basically. I can't see
this
> helping anyone HEALTHY much less someone with a disorder such as
epilepsy.

Actually, it might be a good idea. The system in the MBW that corrects
for epileptic seizures could help when installed, allowing the brain to
control the seizures. Install that system at one level above the MBW, and
you have a pretty simple way to correct for it.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars, PML FAQ Cop
aka The Human Tangent
************
Three sparks that kindle love: a face, demeanour, speech
Three things that hide ugliness: good manners in the ill-favoured,
skill in a serf, wisdom in the misshapen.
Three things that ruin wisdom: ignorance, inaccurate knowledge,
forgetfullness. .
Three candles that illume every darkness: truth, nature, knowledge.
Three signs of a bad man: bitterness, hatred, cowardice.
Message no. 38
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:34:27 -0400
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Nexx wrote:

> > Um, doesn't the Move-by-Wire system emulate epilepsy in someways? I
> mean
> > the MBW puts your body into a continual seizure basically. I can't see
> this
> > helping anyone HEALTHY much less someone with a disorder such as
> epilepsy.
>
> Actually, it might be a good idea. The system in the MBW that corrects
> for epileptic seizures could help when installed, allowing the brain to
> control the seizures. Install that system at one level above the MBW, and
> you have a pretty simple way to correct for it.
>
I would argue that epilepsy would be best treated with bioware rather than
cyber. Basically, epilepsy is caused by misfiring neurons connecting the
two hemispheres of the brain (if someone knows more about epilepsy please
feel free to give more detail, neurology is by no means my specialty).
Thus, I would think that a piece of bioware which allows for better
communication between the hemispheres would do the trick. Perhaps an
encephalon would help, too.
Message no. 39
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:34:51 -0500
> I would argue that epilepsy would be best treated with bioware rather
than
> cyber. Basically, epilepsy is caused by misfiring neurons connecting the
> two hemispheres of the brain (if someone knows more about epilepsy
please
> feel free to give more detail, neurology is by no means my specialty).
> Thus, I would think that a piece of bioware which allows for better
> communication between the hemispheres would do the trick. Perhaps an
> encephalon would help, too.

OK. I know next to nothing about epilepsy. I do think that the
regulating part of the MBW would work, but the bioware sounds like a
better. Less damaging to the essence, and much easier to maintain.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars, PML FAQ Cop
aka The Human Tangent
************
Three sparks that kindle love: a face, demeanour, speech
Three things that hide ugliness: good manners in the ill-favoured,
skill in a serf, wisdom in the misshapen.
Three things that ruin wisdom: ignorance, inaccurate knowledge,
forgetfullness. .
Three candles that illume every darkness: truth, nature, knowledge.
Three signs of a bad man: bitterness, hatred, cowardice.
Message no. 40
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:41:47 -0400
> >>I'd suggest damage/power as per dicoted weapon and shatter if all of
> >>the attack dice come up either 1 or 2, or alternatively 1 or 6.
>
> How about something more like if a certain number of 1's come up in an
> attack roll (say, three or so). This way, more skill really doesn't help
> (and it doesn't with glass, since it's both brittle and breaks in
> less-than-predictable ways since it has no grain).

Let me get thi sstraght: My mage, with armed combat 2 who rolls a 4 and a 1
wouldn't snap his knife, while your merc with armed combat 6, who adds 6 combat
pool dice and gets a 1,1,1,2,4,4,5,7,8,8,10 and a 15 would break his knife? ;)
Sorry, but it seems these methods punish a skilled knife user!

--
G.I. Morochnick
"Between friends differences in taste or opinion
are irritating in direct proportion to their triviality."
W. H. Auden
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 41
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:53:57 -0400
>I'm going to get to work on fleshing out some target numbers. I
>probably won't do an individual tn for every piece of cyber; I'll
>probably lump some of it into categories, like misc. headware.

I've been tinkering with a cyber detection system for NERPS: Stuff. Haven't
posted it yet, but it shoudln't be long. Basically, the idea is to have a
set target for basic cyber type (Bodyware, Headware, etc). Add modifiers
for Alpha, Beta, etc. Add modifiers for size (i.e. Essence cost). Add
modifiers to factor in other parts of reality (e.g. easier to detect if
mostly metal, harder to detect if system is distributed throughout body,
etc).

The idea is to allow a custom target for each type of system, without
having to design a table with an entry for each cyber item. The intent is
to give a GM a quick table to run through, much the way they might apply
combat modifiers.

As for the tech of the device, what I had in mind worked mostly on density.
I figured it would be mostly based on MRI with a MAD system, thermal scan
and a scale (yes, a scale) mixed in. Naturally, lower end system might not
have all these incorporated. Also, while it would be nice to allow a hand
scanner, I'm not sure that would jive with MRI very well. Even if you could
get SQUIDs into a hand scanner and power them, you couldn't get the
magnetic field to line up without a coil, and a moving scanner would make
it hard to analyse the radio signals from the body when the field turned
off. The high end models would also probably not be very fast. That is, you
might have to stand in a tube for a number of seconds, not just breeze
through a frame like you would an airport metal detector.

For customs and so forth, you'd probably have a number of quick, mid-level
systems to tag the highly augmented, and one slower, advanced scanner used
to scan those who tripped the mid-level system. That would probably offer
the best compromise in detection vs. really irritating travellers.

Wordman
Message no. 42
From: Karl Low <kwil@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:08:28 -0600
From: Erik J.

>>On a tangent, has anyone tried to mix Paranoia and Shadowrun in some form
>>or another?
>>
>
>I thought Paranoia was part of Shadowrun. I wait, that's *p*aranoia,
>little p...
>
>Might be fun to do something like that at about 3 in the morning...
>
>Erik J.
>
Try using the Paranoia combat system in SR.
Multiply the SR numbers by 2 or 2.5 depending on how good you want your
players to be.

Multiply weapon damage codes by 1 for L, 2 for M, 3 for S and 4 for D

It's fast and very, very deadly.


Or you could always just throw them into your own Renraku: Shutdown situation.
Have them get into the arcology and it's run by a loonie AI who only wants
everybody inside to be happy, and will kill them if they aren't.

-Karl
"I'm sorry, loyal employee, but until you display a more cheerful attitude,
the shock treatments will continue."
Message no. 43
From: Jan Ove Liatun <jan.ove.liatun@**.ICL.NO>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:02:21 +0200
><snip>
>
>Along this line of thinking, what are some people's excuses for certain
>cyberware their characters or other players they knew had/have used?
>
>-K
>
>Well, I have/had this ork phys-ad with titanium bone lacing (threw a nasty
>punch). He had a forged medical certificate testifying to extreme bone
>weakness/fraility combined with allergy to plastic (not really, but kind of
>an explanation for not having plastic bone lacing...). It had a moderately
>high rating and was judged kinda plausible, but I didn't try to use it at an
>airport...
>
>Jan Ove
>
Message no. 44
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:44:27 +0000
> >When I didn't do this, it was a race to see who could come up with
> >the most innocuous fetishes. Small in size, normal looking, etc.
> >Now the rule is 5. Just 5. Since I implemented this, my players
> >have more freedom (?) to select fetishes based on role-playing rather
> >than roll-playing.
>
> But dosn't it make more sence for players to try and make fetishes that are
> hard to detect if they're playing shadowrunners. For example a power focus
> that looks like a small metal button (attached to the mages cufflink) would
> be great for a runner if a little to mundane for most mages.

Granted, but I'm talking expendable fetishes. This means that more
than it being mundane looking, they wanted it small. I've had
players use marbles, grains of sand, etc. They all sought to be able
to bypass the penalty of having expendable fetishes (that is, they
wanted to be able to carry about 100 of each type, effectively
giveing them limitless casting ability).

And I'll let them do it too. But if they have more than 5, they are
identified as either a magician or a wannabe. With the long-standing
security policy of "shoot the mage", my players think twice about
this.

And while it may be a nice thing for a runner, it does get tiring
when EVERY magician character tries to be more boring than the
previous ones. Certainly a mage looks just like the next guy. Even
the mage with a power focus. but the mage with 100 expendable
fetishes on him DOESN'T.

-=SwiftOne=-
Don't like my rules? Too bad, Happiness is mandatory. Are you happy
citizen?


Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 45
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:02:52 -0600
Wordman wrote:
/
/ >I'm going to get to work on fleshing out some target numbers. I
/ >probably won't do an individual tn for every piece of cyber; I'll
/ >probably lump some of it into categories, like misc. headware.
/
/ I've been tinkering with a cyber detection system for NERPS: Stuff. Haven't
/ posted it yet, but it shoudln't be long. Basically, the idea is to have a
/ set target for basic cyber type (Bodyware, Headware, etc). Add modifiers
/ for Alpha, Beta, etc. Add modifiers for size (i.e. Essence cost). Add
/ modifiers to factor in other parts of reality (e.g. easier to detect if
/ mostly metal, harder to detect if system is distributed throughout body,
/ etc).

How about a simple target number of 10 - Character's Essence loss
from cyberware (round up)? The cyberware detector rolls a number of
dice equal to it's rating. If any successes are rolled it detects
the presence of cyberware. Actual identification of any cyberware
requires the use of an MRI machine.

This takes the different grades of cyberware into account, and the
fact that if the character is fully loaded with cyberware, no matter
what the grade, he's probably going to get caught.

If a character has paperwork for his cyberware and declares it, but
tries to sneak something past, the cyberware detector has to roll a
number of successes equal to 4 minus the difference in declared
essence and actual essence (round up). So if a runner legally
declares 4 points of cyberware, but he has another .5 points of
illegal cyberware, the detector has to roll 3 successes to notice the
extra cyber. If he had failed to declare something like Wired
Reflexes 3 then the detector would notice the difference with only 1
success. If a difference is detected then security takes the
character off to the MRI scanner.

If the scanner rolls all 1s, then the security takes the character
off to the MRI scanner <EGMG>.

-David
--
"Deus meus! Kennyum iste mortus! ..Bastardus!"
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 46
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:18:38 -0400
losthalo wrote:
>>Heh. What use is a glass dagger?
[snip]
>>>I'd suggest damage/power as per dicoted weapon and shatter if all of
>>>the attack dice come up either 1 or 2, or alternatively 1 or 6.
>
>How about something more like if a certain number of 1's come up in an
>attack roll (say, three or so). This way, more skill really doesn't help
>(and it doesn't with glass, since it's both brittle and breaks in
>less-than-predictable ways since it has no grain).

What if you only roll 2 dice to attack? You're more likely to
break the knife with a low skill - a steel knife can bend and
flex along armour to find a weak point, but a glass knife will
snap if you try to flex it. :-)
>
>>Ick! No way! Not unless it was a big thick (short) knife with
>>no pointy bits to snap off.
>
>>First off, no dikote - glass is too fragile for that.
>
>It has nothing to do with fragility, more to do with melting temperature.
>Glass is tempered at at least the 1200 fahrenheit range (I worked in an
>automotive glass factory), so it can withstand some heat, just a question
>of how hot the Dikote process is...

Oh no - you misunderstand. The previous poster was advocating
using the dikote rules for any glass weapon. I agree that
dikoting a glass weapon wouldn't be difficult, but it shouldn't
get the hardness advantages from being a clear crystalline substance.
>
>Also, on the point of letting the glass weapon break inside the victim,
>leaving bits inside, I recall a CoC module that included someone skilled in
>knife fighting, who used ppairs of glass knives which were hollow and
>-filled- with unpleasant substances (a mixture of strong acid and a poison
>I think).

No! Not the FAB-filled dagger! ARGGH! ;-)
>
>>As for
>>breakage, I'd be generous and only subtract 1 from the power
>>for each 1 rolled (a botch is a total shatter, obviously).
>
>Botches are too rare, you'd have everyone using glass knives, and that
>seems silly. And it really should have a much lower chance of defeating
>impact armor (solid plates), as glass tends to shatter when put under
>stress...

Huh? I meant that each 1 you roll subtracts 1 from the power
of the weapon (I don't know whether it should be before or after
damage is dealt...). In addition, if you botch the weapon will
shatter totally.
>
>losthalo, who got to break his share of glass, large and small, those two
>summers :)

Sounds like fun... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 47
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:22:24 -0500
>
> At 08:58 AM 98-04-21 +0000, you wrote:
>
> But dosn't it make more sence for players to try and make fetishes that are
> hard to detect if they're playing shadowrunners. For example a power focus
> that looks like a small metal button (attached to the mages cufflink) would
> be great for a runner if a little to mundane for most mages.
>
How about a sapphire earing, or an antique pocketwatch. Those
are just two that come to mind. The earing was a spell lock for
a combat sense or clairvoyance spell, and the pocketwatch was a lock
for increaded Reflexes. :)
It seemed to fit within the characters personalitys and the spirit
of the rules. Besides, it was always funny to watch the mage take
out the pocket watch (simple action), and suddenly be as fast as
the samurai. :)
(Well it was until somebody (namely me as GM), fried him through
the spell lock, but that is another story). :)


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Uh-Oh Toto, it doesn't look like we're gods anymore."
Message no. 48
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:23:40 EDT
In a message dated 4/21/98 11:45:54 PM !!!First Boot!!!, oliver@*********.com
writes:

> What would make more sense for epilepsy would be the Move-by-wire system
from
> cyber-technology... Of course explaining why you have a level-4 version of
> it might be
> hard...

Or, that the person used to be a paraplegic or quadraplegic and needs the MBW
to move around.

One I used to use for an NPC with Titanium Bone Lacing was that their bones
were brittle and broke easily, so the titanium bone lacing was gotten just for
the sheer strength it offers.

Mike

Mike
Message no. 49
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Cyberware Detectors?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 21:13:31 +0000
On 20 Apr 98, Paul Gettle disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

(Oh, and sorry for the late reply, but I had lots of things to do
lately, and the ShadowRN mail piled up in my mailbox...)

[...]
> bioware. On the other hand, what does cyber look like under thermal
> imaging? It doesn't get as warm as flesh and blood, does it? Thermal
> cameras couldn't detect internals, but gross exterior changes:
> limbs, dermals, maybe eyes, would show up, don't you think?

Well, limbs and eyes are IMC easily detected using thermal
vision. Dermals - well, no player of mine ever has dermal armor, and
since orthoskin covers the entire skin, there are no
easily spottable temperature differences.

[snip 6 minus essence*10]
> I'm not so sure about that rule. Wired 'flexes and cyberlimbs will
> almost always set off the alarm, but the target number to detect a
> vehicle control rig 1 is a stunning -10. An encephalon 3 would have
> a target number of -5.
> For my concept of a cyberware detector, I'd like it to have a bit of
> smarts, and be able to determine the gross category of individual
> pieces of cyber at the low end, and make finer distinctions at the
> high end. That way, if the runners are trying to crack a site that
> can only afford a bargain basement CyberDetector, they might be able
> to convince the sec-guard that the "extensive bodily wiring" that
> the thing is picking up is just a set of skillwires, and not
> 'flexes. If they go through one of the high end models, with better
> pattern recognition software, the runners would be a lot less likely
> to convince the personnel that the reading of "Tactical Computer"
> the machine just gave was a false positive, that all they have is an
> encephalon.

Errr... Sorry? That's one nifty cyberscanner you have there, officer,
capable of seeing what's inside a silicon chip... ;>

(BTW: IMO, wired reflexes and skillwires look practically the same on
roentgen and similar scans, so getting your "skillwires" registered
is going to help you. Of course, then there's the old "throw a
firecracker behind his back and see how he'll react" test, but that's
why you NEED reflex trigger... ;>>)

[...]
> Imagine an Air Force base. It'd be a nightmare if every pilot with a
> Vehicle Control Rig would set off the alarm when they went through
> the detector. Similarly, at an airport, a geek with 1500MP of
> essence friendly headware memory and a datajack shouldn't set off
> the alarm, because he's not going to bring down a plane with it.
> That same geek should set off the automatic gun emplacements if he
> tries to get through the security checkpoint at a Corporate Secure
> Offline Data Storage Facility, because there, he poses a big threat
> of data theft.

Urrr... And how does CSODSF determine that the geek has 1500 MP of
software memory on those chips of his, and not an orientation system
plus 100 MPs of skill programs?

[...]

Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.12 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ L++ P E--- W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O+ M-
PS+(+++) PE Y+ PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR - regularly.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cyberware Detectors?, 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!