Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Masks and Cameras
Date: Wed Feb 13 11:00:02 2002
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Jonathan wrote:

> Well Mask wouldn't fool a camera. Physical Mask would and in that case I
> don't know if someone in a guard station watching the security monitors
> would even get a chance to resist since it's just a projected image not the
> illusion itself... Basically it falls onto how you read the rules, physical
> mask is suppose to work versus technological devices (cameras and monitors)
> but would it affect someone watching a monitor...Personally I'd say Physical
> Mask fools the camera thus someone watching the monitor doesn't get the
> spell resistance check basically security would see what the camera sees.

If you're going to run it that way, then the target number to
affect the camera should be its Object Resistance Rating (SR3, p. 182).
Since cameras are highly technological, the target number would probably
be an 8 (which includes electronic equipment). If the camera were highly
sophisticated and did on-board image processing or incorporated pattern
recognition software (i.e. was more complex than just a simple camera),
I'd rule it a "Highly Processed Object (computer)," which has a target
number of 10+. Otherwise, cameras are too easy to fool.
But even if you can fool the camera into relaying the physical
image, you still have to fool the guy on the other side of it. Part of
the Resistance in Mask (IMHInterpretation) is getting the illusion to be
believable. It's little things like shading the contours of the skin
correctly, getting the movement and lay of the clothes right, adding
little details like pores, razor stubble, or little droplets of sweat.
Even if the camera is fooled into realying the image, someone watching the
camera still has a chance to notice that the shadow that you cast isn't
right, or that the clothes seem to defy gravity. Depending on the
resolution and capabilities of the camera, you may have some bonus
or penalty to your rolls, but that's up to the GM to decide.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: Masks and Cameras
Date: Wed Feb 13 12:25:01 2002
> If you're going to run it that way, then the target number to
> affect the camera should be its Object Resistance Rating (SR3, p. 182).
> Since cameras are highly technological, the target number would probably
> be an 8 (which includes electronic equipment). If the camera were highly
> sophisticated and did on-board image processing or incorporated pattern
> recognition software (i.e. was more complex than just a simple camera),
> I'd rule it a "Highly Processed Object (computer)," which has a target
> number of 10+.
Otherwise, cameras are too easy to fool.
> But even if you can fool the camera into relaying the physical
> image, you still have to fool the guy on the other side of it. Part of
> the Resistance in Mask (IMHInterpretation) is getting the illusion to be
> believable. It's little things like shading the contours of the skin
> correctly, getting the movement and lay of the clothes right, adding
> little details like pores, razor stubble, or little droplets of sweat.
> Even if the camera is fooled into realying the image, someone watching the
> camera still has a chance to notice that the shadow that you cast isn't
> right, or that the clothes seem to defy gravity. Depending on the
> resolution and capabilities of the camera, you may have some bonus
> or penalty to your rolls, but that's up to the GM to decide.
>

Very good points.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Masks and Cameras, 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.