Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.hanse.de>
Subject: How to handle Stealth
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:33 +0200
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:30 +0200 (MET DST)

Hi Guys.

I just came across the fact that there is no real ruling for how to
handle Stealth, so I made up something by my own:

- If you try to sneak across some security device, you make an opposed
test (against the level of the security device)

- If you try to fool some goon, you make an opposed Perception/Stealth
test

- If the goon has Stealth himself, you make an opposed Stealth test,
because knowing where to hide also means knwoing where to look...

All these tests are modified by visibility, awareness of the goon and
so on (don't forget to give POSITIVE modifiers for your players
sometimes, some GMs tend to give ONLY negative modifers). Ties go to
the "passive" part - so if someone is hidden and someone else is
actively looking for him, he needs a success to find him, but if
someone tries to sneak actively past some guy that guy only needs as
much successes as the sneaking character to notice him.

O.k. - that's what I thought of. Comments ? How do you handle this ?

Later,
Georg

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The curse of love is the cause of the pain [...] |
| If you give them a finger, they'll take off your hand" |
| AC/DC - "C.O.D." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-8223482 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 2
From: "Dr. Bolthy von Schotz" <bolthy@**.COM>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 13:34:18 -0500 (CDT)
On Fri, 24 May 1996, Georg Greve wrote:

> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:30 +0200 (MET DST)
>
> Hi Guys.
>
> I just came across the fact that there is no real ruling for how to
> handle Stealth, so I made up something by my own:
>
> - If you try to sneak across some security device, you make an opposed
> test (against the level of the security device)
>
> - If you try to fool some goon, you make an opposed Perception/Stealth
> test
>
> - If the goon has Stealth himself, you make an opposed Stealth test,
> because knowing where to hide also means knwoing where to look...
>
> All these tests are modified by visibility, awareness of the goon and
> so on (don't forget to give POSITIVE modifiers for your players
> sometimes, some GMs tend to give ONLY negative modifers). Ties go to
> the "passive" part - so if someone is hidden and someone else is
> actively looking for him, he needs a success to find him, but if
> someone tries to sneak actively past some guy that guy only needs as
> much successes as the sneaking character to notice him.
>
> O.k. - that's what I thought of. Comments ? How do you handle this ?
>

Sounds just like the rules in Corp Security Handbook... maybe even
NAGTRL when they describe security systems, but I definitely read
something along the lines of of that in CSH... also, many adventures that
require stealth have you make a similar check. In short:
Seen it before. =)



|\ /\ |\ | |\
|/ \/ | \ |\ | \
|\ /\ | |/ \ |
|/ / \ | | \|

http://weber.u.washington.edu/~bolthy
"Remember: Heaven is Blue. Tomorrow, the world."
-Head of the Blue Meanies
Message no. 3
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 19:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
At 04:26 PM 5/24/96 +0200, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:30 +0200 (MET DST)

>I just came across the fact that there is no real ruling for how to
>handle Stealth, so I made up something by my own:
>
>- If you try to sneak across some security device, you make an opposed
>test (against the level of the security device)
>
>- If you try to fool some goon, you make an opposed Perception/Stealth
>test
>
>- If the goon has Stealth himself, you make an opposed Stealth test,
>because knowing where to hide also means knwoing where to look...
>
>All these tests are modified by visibility, awareness of the goon and
>so on (don't forget to give POSITIVE modifiers for your players
>sometimes, some GMs tend to give ONLY negative modifers).

Like when, for instance, your City Spirit is using its confusion power on
the guy(s) you're trying to sneak past.

>O.k. - that's what I thought of. Comments ? How do you handle this ?

That's how we've always done it. Do people really have probs with it?

--
"I remember my first sexual encounter because I kept the recipe."
- Jeff Dahmer
Message no. 4
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.hanse.de>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 23:21:57 +0200
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 23:21:53 +0200 (MET DST)

> Sounds just like the rules in Corp Security Handbook... maybe even
> NAGTRL when they describe security systems, but I definitely read
> something along the lines of of that in CSH... also, many adventures that
> require stealth have you make a similar check. In short:
> Seen it before. =)

*smile* Great. I think I should get those sourcebooks... ;-)

Later,
Georg

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The curse of love is the cause of the pain [...] |
| If you give them a finger, they'll take off your hand" |
| AC/DC - "C.O.D." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-8223482 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 5
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 23:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
> >- If you try to sneak across some security device, you make an opposed
> >test (against the level of the security device)
> >
> >- If you try to fool some goon, you make an opposed Perception/Stealth
> >test
> >
> >- If the goon has Stealth himself, you make an opposed Stealth test,
> >because knowing where to hide also means knwoing where to look...
> >
> >All these tests are modified by visibility, awareness of the goon and
> >so on (don't forget to give POSITIVE modifiers for your players
> >sometimes, some GMs tend to give ONLY negative modifers).
>
> Like when, for instance, your City Spirit is using its confusion power on
> the guy(s) you're trying to sneak past.

> That's how we've always done it. Do people really have probs with it?

Nope. No probs... Stealth vs. Perception, with the modifiers on
pg 185, and successes measuring mow much you get as per pg 186 (SRII)...


---Tom---
Message no. 6
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 13:05:30 +0100
Tom Pendergrast said on 23:51/24 May 96...

> Nope. No probs... Stealth vs. Perception, with the modifiers on
> pg 185, and successes measuring mow much you get as per pg 186 (SRII)...

I make it a test in which both Stealth-user and perceiver roll against a 4
plus applicable mods, and the one with the most successes wins.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
But to make the news and front page, you got to aim higher.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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------
Message no. 7
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 22:28:44 +1000 (EST)
Georg Greve writes:

> I just came across the fact that there is no real ruling for how to
> handle Stealth, so I made up something by my own:
>
> [Snip Stealth rules]

Sounds good to me, but you might want to consider doing as Gurth does and
having both tests made against a base TN of 4, rather than against the
opposing sides attribute/Rating. The reason I suggest this is to avoid the
classic "double jeopardy" <hopes he spelled it right this time> affect.
To
explain, consider this example:

Runner with Stealth 2 trying to sneak past super observant guard
with Intelligence 6.

Runner rolls 2 dice against TN 6 (modified per the situation, cover,
lighting, background distractions, etc.)

Guard rolls 6 dice against TN 2 (again, modified)

It is _extremely_ unlikely that the runner would sneak past if there were no
modifiers. In effect the runner is being punished for having a low skill
_twice_ - once because he has only 2 dice to roll for his test, and once
because the TN for his oppoennts test is so low. Similarly, the guard is
beign rewarded for having a high Intellignce _twice_.

In my view, it is better to have both TN's a set 4, rather than the
opponents skill/attribute/Rating/etc. This way, people with high numbers
are not rewarded double, and people with low numbers are not shafted doubly.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a20 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E@ W(+)>++ N- o@ K- w(--) O@ M- !V PS+
PE Y+ PGP->++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI- D G+ e>++ h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > Nope. No probs... Stealth vs. Perception, with the modifiers on
> > pg 185, and successes measuring mow much you get as per pg 186 (SRII)...
>
> I make it a test in which both Stealth-user and perceiver roll against a 4
> plus applicable mods, and the one with the most successes wins.

Err.... oops, that's what I meant; Stealth successes vs. Percp.
successes, both at TN 4, + mods... :)


---Tom---
Message no. 9
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
<snippage>

> Sounds good to me, but you might want to consider doing as Gurth does and
> having both tests made against a base TN of 4, rather than against the
> opposing sides attribute/Rating. The reason I suggest this is to avoid the
> classic "double jeopardy" <hopes he spelled it right this time>
affect. To
> explain, consider this example:

<snip stealth 2 vs. Int-6>

> It is _extremely_ unlikely that the runner would sneak past if there were no
> modifiers. In effect the runner is being punished for having a low skill
> _twice_ - once because he has only 2 dice to roll for his test, and once
> because the TN for his oppoennts test is so low. Similarly, the guard is
> beign rewarded for having a high Intellignce _twice_.
>
> In my view, it is better to have both TN's a set 4, rather than the
> opponents skill/attribute/Rating/etc. This way, people with high numbers
> are not rewarded double, and people with low numbers are not shafted doubly.

That is my biggest bitch about SRII... even a difference between
skills like 3 and 4, or 5 and 6 is monstrous... I mean even a 1 point
diff changes everything... take 3 vs. 4 : the 3 dice are going to average
1.5 successes, whereas the 4 dice are going to get 2.6~ successes... the
3 hardly stands a chance, and the 4 isn't that much bigger... with both
vs TN4, the avg goes to 1.5 and 2... much better I think... I try and
avoid Skill(rating) vs Skill(rating) whenever possible... besides, two
guy that are really good (say 12), have only a 1 in 3 chance (approx) of
getting even one success... (rambling still) I guess that is why magic is
so nasty... you get nuked by th TNs twice... espescially if you don't
have a Bod/Will of 6...


---Tom---
Message no. 10
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.hanse.de>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 00:12:03 +0200
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 00:11:58 +0200 (MET DST)

> Runner with Stealth 2 trying to sneak past super observant guard
> with Intelligence 6.
> Runner rolls 2 dice against TN 6 (modified per the situation, cover,
> lighting, background distractions, etc.)
> Guard rolls 6 dice against TN 2 (again, modified)

So an extremely good guard notices a newbie-runner... what's bad about
that ?

> It is _extremely_ unlikely that the runner would sneak past if there were no
> modifiers. In effect the runner is being punished for having a low skill
> _twice_ - once because he has only 2 dice to roll for his test, and once
> because the TN for his oppoennts test is so low. Similarly, the guard is
> beign rewarded for having a high Intellignce _twice_.

Nope. This is a kind of screwed logic - and if we'd start with this
one, we'd have to rewrite the whole Sourcebook. Every Magic works on
this principle, bargaining, charming... all these work with the
"opposed test". The runner HAS a big disadvantage, yes, but it IS the
disadvantage he HAS - I mean a skill of 2 is barely good enough to be
called an "amateur" - how can you expect him to have only a slight
chance to sneak past a super security guard ?

> That is my biggest bitch about SRII... even a difference between
> skills like 3 and 4, or 5 and 6 is monstrous... I mean even a 1 point
> diff changes everything... take 3 vs. 4 : the 3 dice are going to average
> 1.5 successes, whereas the 4 dice are going to get 2.6~ successes... the
> 3 hardly stands a chance, and the 4 isn't that much bigger... with both

Come on - 1 point IS a HUGE difference. With a 1 you're an absolute
newbie and with a 6 you're a professional. This means there HAS to be
a HUGE difference, otherwise: where do you expect this level of
professionalism to come from ? Is there a lightning that's hitting the
poor guy between 5 and 6 ? One point IS a lot and it SHOULD make a BIG
difference - otherwise it would mean if you have 3 couch-potatoes
sneaking up on 3 special forces troopers which are trained to the max
at least ONE would SURELY succeed...

Or if this didn't convince you: An individual with 30 points TOTAL for
skills is already HEAVILY trained. This means one point is 1/30th of
the skills/knowledge/training/experience of someone who's REALLY good
already. The problem is that one point doesn't SOUND much, but it IS
much - and if you want your game to have at least a small connection
to reality it HAS to be a lot.

According to Stealth there is a second thing to keep in mind: Security
guards don't tend to make sneaking up to them very easy, you get
negative modifiers ALL the time when trying to sneak. This means
someone with a skill of 6 (which is expert level) wouldn't stand a
chance to sneak up to a baby if both roll against 4 + Mods. The usual
mods are about +2/+3 for the sneaker and -2/-3 for the perceiving. This
means someone with a Perception of 2 would usually detect someone with
a Stealth skill of 6 if you take the 4+mods for both... this is quite
unsatisfying in my eyes.
If this were true you could rewrite our whole history because no
assassin would ever have been able to sneak up to his victims.

> guy that are really good (say 12), have only a 1 in 3 chance (approx) of
> getting even one success... (rambling still) I guess that is why magic is

Someone with a skill of 12 is a GOD at what he does. How can you
expect some ordinary goon to defeat him on his special skill ?

Later,
Georg

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The curse of love is the cause of the pain [...] |
| If you give them a finger, they'll take off your hand" |
| AC/DC - "C.O.D." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-8223482 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 11
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 18:41:36 +1000 (EST)
Georg Greve writes:

> Nope. This is a kind of screwed logic - and if we'd start with this
> one, we'd have to rewrite the whole Sourcebook. Every Magic works on
> this principle, bargaining, charming... all these work with the
> "opposed test". The runner HAS a big disadvantage, yes, but it IS the
> disadvantage he HAS - I mean a skill of 2 is barely good enough to be
> called an "amateur" - how can you expect him to have only a slight
> chance to sneak past a super security guard ?

OK, I didn't explain myself enough. What I am actually against is the
practice of using skill/attribute/Rating/etc X as the number of dice that
one participant rolls, as well as the TN for the opponent. Think about it
this way. If super observant guard has an Intelligence of 6, then is his
ability to perceive going to be affected by the skill level of the person he
is attempting to spot? No. The skill level of the person he is attempting
to spot will determine their ability to hide/remain unseen, and this ability
will be a constant and will _not_ be affected by the ability of the guard to
perceive them. You see? A persons ability to remain unseen is independent
of the ability of another person to spot them. Thus the TN for them to
remain unseen should not be based on someone elses ability to spot them. It
should be some environmentally determined number.

How well the person does at hiding will be based upon the number of successes
that they can generate. If they generate many sucesses, then they hid well,
if they generate few, then they hid poorly. A person with a certaion skill
will be able to hide with quality Y, whether the person looking for them has
Intelligence A or B.

If we used a method such as you describe, then a person who is hiding with a
skill of 2, and who scores 2 successes, is hiding an awful lot more poorly
than a person with a skill of 6 who stuffs up and only scores 2 successes.
This is so because the TN for the person trying to spot them is dependant
not on the environment in which they are hiding, but on their base skill at
hiding. Even though, as per SRII rules, 2 successes is 2 successes, and
regardless of how they were generated they should have the exact same
effect. If I am a klutz at hiding, but luck out and do it well, am I hidden
any less well than a guru at hiding who belches at an inappropriate moment?
If we both scored 2 successes, then we both should be hidden with an equal
degree of quality. This can only be obtained if the chance of someone
spotting us is based on the number of successes we obtained, not on how good
we are at a particular task normally.

By using an external base TN of 4, modified by environmental factors, then
the chances of success are based upon how well we do - our number of
successes, not upon how well we _should_ have done - our skill Rating.
Remember, in SR it is the number of successes that determines how well you
perform a given task, not the Rating of an appropriate
attribute/skill/Rating/etc. The rating of your ability (eg Stealth skill)
will have a direct affect on the number of successes that you generate, and
thus an _indirect_ affect on the quality of your work, but the Rating itself
does not determine how well you do.

In the stealth example, this cuts both ways. The ability of the stealther
to hide is not affected by the ability of the stealthee to spot. So we use
a base TN of 4 and modify. Likewise, the ability of the stealthee to spot
is not affected by the ability of the stealther to hide. So again, we use a
base TN of 4 and modify. How well each side went is determined by the
number of successes that they generated. We then compare the successes to
see who performed the better.

The only time that I can think that a situation such as you describe occurs
is with magic. The caster of a spell has a TN of the targets appropriate
attribute, and rolls a number of dice equal to the Force of the spell. The
target has a number of dice equal to his attribute, and rolls against a TN
equal to the Force of the spell. In the case of magic, I'd say that it was
deliberate. All the other examples you describe, such as negotation, have
different sets of numbers for their TN's and number of dice to roll. In the
case of Negotiation, each side rolls their Negotiation skill dice against a
TN of the oppositions Willpower. If each side rolled against a TN of the
oppositions Negotiation skill, then I would see a problem.

Besides, using a base TN of 4 is the official SR rules, at least for
perception tests - see page 185 of SRII.

> According to Stealth there is a second thing to keep in mind: Security
> guards don't tend to make sneaking up to them very easy, you get
> negative modifiers ALL the time when trying to sneak. This means
> someone with a skill of 6 (which is expert level) wouldn't stand a
> chance to sneak up to a baby if both roll against 4 + Mods. The usual
> mods are about +2/+3 for the sneaker and -2/-3 for the perceiving. This
> means someone with a Perception of 2 would usually detect someone with
> a Stealth skill of 6 if you take the 4+mods for both... this is quite
> unsatisfying in my eyes.

Well, lets take a look at a typical situation shall we. A security guard
with Intelligence of 4. And attempting to sneak up on him is Mr Stealthy
Physical Adept with a Stealth of 6. Say Mr SPA is wearing camo gear from
FoF. Say the guard has low light cybereyes. Say it's at night.

Guards mods: -4 since Mr SPA is moving (action very obvious)
+4 for Mr SPA's camo gear
+2 for Mr SPA being partially hidden (assuming he
can find a bit of cover)
+1 due to partial light

Mr SPA's mods: Um, I can't think of any - what do you use?

I'm sure I've forgotten various mods (which you'll hopefully tell me), but
it pretty much looks like the guards mods add up pretty fast.

Of course, magic and high tech gizmos will affect the outcome dramatically,
but I'm just assuming no such things are in play above.

Since both have the same TN, 4, Mr SPA looks like getting home free to me.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a20 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E@ W(+)>++ N- o@ K- w(--) O@ M- !V PS+
PE Y+ PGP->++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI- D G+ e>++ h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: sl@****.hh.provi.de (Steffen Lassahn)
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:38:18 GMT
On Fri, 24 May 1996 13:34:18 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:

>require stealth have you make a similar check. In short:
>Seen it before. =)

Der Mann hat ja sooooooooo recht!

Steffen


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steffen Lassahn sl@*****.de (work) |
| Tel. +49 (0)40 250 72 98 sl@****.hh.provi.de (home) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| You are young only once. But if you do it right once is enough! |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 13
From: sl@****.hh.provi.de (Steffen Lassahn)
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:48:26 GMT
On Sun, 26 May 1996 14:38:18 GMT, you wrote:

>On Fri, 24 May 1996 13:34:18 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
>
>>require stealth have you make a similar check. In short:
>>Seen it before. =)
>
>Der Mann hat ja sooooooooo recht!
>
>Steffen

Sorry, mixed up the adresses. This message should have gone to the
original poster only. BTW, the language is German and means "The man
is sooooooooooooooo right!"

Sorry again, Steffen


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steffen Lassahn sl@*****.de (work) |
| Tel. +49 (0)40 250 72 98 sl@****.hh.provi.de (home) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| You are young only once. But if you do it right once is enough! |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 14
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.hanse.de>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:48:11 +0200
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:48:07 +0200 (MET DST)

> OK, I didn't explain myself enough. What I am actually against is the
> practice of using skill/attribute/Rating/etc X as the number of dice that
> one participant rolls, as well as the TN for the opponent. Think about it
> this way. If super observant guard has an Intelligence of 6, then is his
> ability to perceive going to be affected by the skill level of the person he
> is attempting to spot? No. The skill level of the person he is attempting

Why not ? If the other one knows very good how to conceal it should be
harder to see him as if he is walking there in the open.

> will have a direct affect on the number of successes that you generate, and
> thus an _indirect_ affect on the quality of your work, but the Rating itself
> does not determine how well you do.

It does affect the quality of your work indirectly AND directly. Your
skills get raised due to experience. This means you instinctively know
how to move in a more effective way (the higher TN for the spotting
goon) AND you know better when to move and where to hide (more dices
for you).

> In the stealth example, this cuts both ways. The ability of the stealther
> to hide is not affected by the ability of the stealthee to spot. So we use

Exactly. That's why we don't subtract the perception rating from the
stealth skill. It IS harder to sneak up to someone who's good at
perceiving, though.

> Guards mods: -4 since Mr SPA is moving (action very obvious)
> +4 for Mr SPA's camo gear
> +2 for Mr SPA being partially hidden (assuming he
> can find a bit of cover)

If he moves he can't be hidden... and if he should have IR (which
isn't that unusual, especially for guards), he'd have something about a
-2 mod total.

> +1 due to partial light

O.k.

> Mr SPA's mods: Um, I can't think of any - what do you use?

What about his problems due to bad light conditions ? It DOES give you
problems if you hit a table you didn't see...


I think we can agree to one point at least: The TN 4 (modified) is
acceptable, IF the GM thinks of FAIR modifiers because Stealth is VERY
weak if you play it this way. I still prefer the opposed test because
it does pay attention to the skill levels of the observing and the
sneaking character. I have to admit, though, that the "both roll
against 4" approach is very common for SR.

It all boils down to this: You can play both in my eyes, but you have
to decide which fits better. IF you play it with the TN 4 you depend
much more on the good will of the GM to let you sneak up to
someone. Everyone should use whatever fits best into his game...

Later,
Georg

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The curse of love is the cause of the pain [...] |
| If you give them a finger, they'll take off your hand" |
| AC/DC - "C.O.D." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-8223482 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 15
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 18:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
<stealth snip>

OK, I can see your point... however there isone thing that will keep me
doing things the way I have described... If you have stealth rolled
against perception like you decribed, it requires many different rolls...
one roll per person vs each opposed person... if you have say 4 players
that are sneaking up on 3 guards, that is twelve rolls you have to make,
and twenty four comparisons (successes vs successes)... that's a
helluvalotta rolls... with TN4 + mods, its only 3 rolls for you... quite
a difference... I guess I'm one for speeding up the game (been a
heavy-duty roleplayer for years now...) :)

---Tom---
Message no. 16
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 18:30:03 +1000 (EST)
Georg Greve writes:

> > If super observant guard has an Intelligence of 6, then is his ability
> > to perceive going to be affected by the skill level of the person he is
> > attempting to spot? No.
>
> Why not ? If the other one knows very good how to conceal it should be
> harder to see him as if he is walking there in the open.

Yep, it is. But the extra difficulty in spotting someone skilled in hiding
is represented by the larger number of successes that the observer will be
required to generate. It is not represented by an increase in the TN that
the observer needs to get in order to generate successes. An observer will
scan an area with equally high scrutiny whether there is some klutz trying
to hide in there or whether some Stealth Master is trying to hide in there.
The difference being that rather a few more successes in looking will be
needed to spot the Stealth Master.

> Your skills get raised due to experience. This means you instinctively know
> how to move in a more effective way (the higher TN for the spotting goon)
> AND you know better when to move and where to hide (more dices for you).

This is where I disagree. Yes, by improving your skill you do know how to
hide better, but this fact is represented already by the extra dice you have
to roll, and the extra successes you will probably generate because of this
fact.

> > In the stealth example, this cuts both ways. The ability of the
> > stealther to hide is not affected by the ability of the stealthee to spot.
>
> Exactly. That's why we don't subtract the perception rating from the
> stealth skill. It IS harder to sneak up to someone who's good at
> perceiving, though.

Huhn? Subract the Intelligence attribute fom the Stealth skill? Why ever
would one do that? There is _no_ precident for doing anything like this in
SR - tests between opposing sides are carried out by Opposed Success Tests.
And yes, of course it's harder to sneak up on someone who is a good
perceiver - because they will generate more successes on their perception
test.

> If he moves he can't be hidden... and if he should have IR (which
> isn't that unusual, especially for guards), he'd have something about a
> -2 mod total.

Well, IR in SR is Thermographic. Looking at the table on page 89 of SRII,
thermo vision gives a +2 modifer in partial light. That's why I chose Low
Light instead - better for the perceiver. And yes, if the sneaking person
is moving, he may or may not be able to remain hidden. So I'll assume the
worst, that he's not.

As a result, the guards mods come to:

-4 for Mr SPA moving
+4 for Mr SPA's camo gear
+1 for partial light (assuming Low Light amplification in the guards
cybereyes)

For an overall mod of +1.

> > Mr SPA's mods: Um, I can't think of any - what do you use?
>
> What about his problems due to bad light conditions ? It DOES give you
> problems if you hit a table you didn't see...

Yeah, I see what you mean. For this I'd apply the melee light modifiers,
sound reasonable? In this case, if Mr SPA has cyber Low Light eyes, then he
gets +0 (since in melee the visibility mods are halved, rounding down, page
102 SRII).

So Mr SPA rolls against a TN of 4.

Since Mr SPA has a stealth of 6, he'll likely get 3 successes. Since the
guard has a perception of 4, he'll likely get 1, 2 if he's lucky. Looks
like Mr SPA gets home free - even while moving with no cover. This kind of
circumstance represents a typical cicumstance in my view.

> I think we can agree to one point at least: The TN 4 (modified) is
> acceptable, IF the GM thinks of FAIR modifiers because Stealth is VERY
> weak if you play it this way.

Yes, I pretty much agree. But I don't think it's quite as weak as you do,
but anyhow.

> I still prefer the opposed test because it does pay attention to the skill
> levels of the observing and the sneaking character.

So does an Opposed Success Test where both sides roll against a TN of 4 -
the skill levels of each side are represented by the numer of successes they
generate.

> I have to admit, though, that the "both roll against 4" approach is very
> common for SR.

My answer to this is that it is because the designers thought about things
when they came up with the system - it's intentional.

> It all boils down to this: You can play both in my eyes, but you have
> to decide which fits better. IF you play it with the TN 4 you depend
> much more on the good will of the GM to let you sneak up to
> someone. Everyone should use whatever fits best into his game...

Yup, entirely right. Although Toms point about the roll against TN 4 method
cutting down drastically on dice rolling is one that had never occured to
me, and a quite good one in my view.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a20 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E@ W(+)>++ N- o@ K- w(--) O@ M- !V PS+
PE Y+ PGP->++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI- D G+ e>++ h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 12:12:14 +0100
Tom Pendergrast said on 18:24/26 May 96...

> OK, I can see your point... however there isone thing that will keep me
> doing things the way I have described... If you have stealth rolled
> against perception like you decribed, it requires many different rolls...
> one roll per person vs each opposed person... if you have say 4 players
> that are sneaking up on 3 guards, that is twelve rolls you have to make,
> and twenty four comparisons (successes vs successes)... that's a
> helluvalotta rolls... with TN4 + mods, its only 3 rolls for you... quite
> a difference... I guess I'm one for speeding up the game (been a
> heavy-duty roleplayer for years now...) :)

There's no need for making 24 rolls if four players neak up on three
guards. Seven rolls is enough -- each player rolls once, and keeps
re-rolling any sixes. Write down *all* the rolls, or keep them in mind.
Each of the guards does the same. Then, compare each player's successes to
those of each guard. That's a lot of comparisons, I know, but it's
basically the same way of handling things as when an area-effect spell
gets cast.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I only wanted something else to do but hang around...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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 How to handle Stealth, 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.