I was simply arguing his second quote, rather than the first.

For what it's worth, I agree that it's possible to perceive, I just think a reasonable interpretation of the fluff would suggest to a GM that they apply some kind of dice penalty to the perception check.

Concealbility in the area of -2, perhaps?

Honestly, if FFBA is -6, I would think (using the fluff as a guide) armor clothing (-4) and armor vest (-2).

I was going to put vest as more concealable than clothes, but I just re-read the descriptions of both.

ETA: Probably put the Actioneer at (-2) as well as it is described as "discreetly" armored.

A reasonable GM would know that going visibly armored is likely a social faux pas, and invent a system to actually let people notice that, yes.

A reasonable writer who had ever played the game system he's working on would have thought of that in the first place.

Or, you know, remembered that the concealability table in SR4 didn't cover nearly everything either.

I think that the fear is that making the game over complicated will make it less accessible to new players.

The solution is to have optional rules which allow players to fine tune the game to their tastes, possibly up to and including rules for rope degradation based on weather time storage and care of use. That isn't something that needs to be in the core book, but having a splat book dedicated solely to stating the nitty gritty details wouldn't be out of the question. Given some of the complaints about 5th maybe itd be a good seller.

If nothing else, that actually sems like a pretty good candidate for a PDF or two. Maybe a Grifter addition to the Coyote's/Assassin's Primer line (Variant Face to go with Variant Rigger and Variant Sam) would be a good thing for the social stuff, too.

Be careful which fluff you use as a direction of what the rules actually mean.


"Devices that are bricked never
fail non-spectacularly. Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are
common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."

And nothing is worse than when your wireless thong breaks out in a fire when bricked.

Adds new meaning to wardrobe malfunction. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I would think a reasonable person could see the gulf of difference between the implications of the armor vest text and the bricking text. Although, is there something particularly wrong with the text you are quoting? That's pretty much how every GM I have encountered handles bricking.

Suffice to say, I would be pretty unimpressed if I purchased armor clothing and every single NPC I encountered detected it as such since the description of it being "almost impossible to detect as armor" was merely fluff. There is clearly a purpose to that statement.

And yet, everyone knows that the Berwick Line is armored (Yadda, Yadda, Yadda)... all someone has to do is recognize the Fashion you are wearing to know that it is potentially armored. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Not really all that difficult an endeavor...

And yet, the line of clothing you refer to is clearly not the "Armor Clothing" from the BBB, which was what was referenced.

"Armor Clothing" is most likely offered by a variety of different clothing manufacturers who also sell regular non-armored clothing, so distinguishing between the two may very well be challenging.

Perhaps... But the same goes there too. Manufacturers make things (and if you do not think that those things are distinct and different lines, you are probably deceiving yourself), and those who follow those things will be in the know. No need to actually SEE the discrete armor in that case.

Much the same as gun nuts can debate for endless hours the minutia of gun manufacture that the average person does not even care about. They know, so it shows. I know people who follow Fashion to that degree of insanity. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Not really.

1)There are plenty of clothing manufacturers (particularly catalog and online) that create products that are made with different quality materials, one tends to cost more than the other, but they are identified as the same product.

2) If personal armor is as ubiquitous as suggested by the books, there are almost certainly versions that don't even have a visible label.

With that said, if someone does have knowledge ranks in Fashion, I would certainly allow them to make a check.

The Curse of the Double Post Strikes Again!

Considering how common firearms and gangs are, why wouldn't everyone wear some form of armor if they are leaving their home?
Especially considering how relatively cheap armor is.

If you are poor you need it just because of where you live.
If you are rich you need it because you are a target (and if you can afford a 1000 nuyen suit you can afford to pay a little extra for protection).
Everyone else would need it just in case of spill over.

I can see the super rich using it has a fashion statement (I'm so rich I can afford clothes that don't look like they are armored or our Security is so good that we don't need it).

Given if you are sporting a lot of armor in a high security zone you are going to stand out but in the Sixth World I would think that the lack of some form of armored clothing would make you stand out more.

Hell, I bet Doc Wagon gives a discount if your employees are wearing some form of armored uniform.

yes, there is a problem with that.

what happens when someone bricks your wired reflexes and reaction enhancers? the descriptive text would suggest that you should be completely paralyzed, and quite likely in need of immediate hospitalization; sparks and fires and smoke inside your body, and particularly right next to your spinal cord, are generally considered to be bad things. it further suggests that you would need surgery to repair your cyberware, which most likely should need to be completely replaced (and you probably now have a legitimate medical need for it because any of your actual spinal column that was around likely just got destroyed)

but that's not what happens. instead, you just lose your bonus. and you don't need any sort of specialized service to get it repaired, just an electronics kit that magically reaches inside your body and repairs everything no problem.

in fact, that's kinda screwy with cyberware in general. and tbh, should cause additional problems with certain regular gear... i wouldn't want contacts or earbuds to get bricked with the descriptive text in place, but officially all that happens is they stop working. and you can replace the parts that just lit on fire, shot sparks all over the place, and released a bunch of smoke for absolutely free; a person with street lifestyle, no money, and an electronics kit can repair it just as easily as a person living a high lifestyle with thousands of nuyen in the bank and an electronics kit (provided their skill level is the same). there isn't even any permanent damage to the equipment unless the person repairing it does something horribly wrong.

You're making a presumption that all of the things listed must happen, but the text doesn't support that. It's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what can happen when a device is bricked. IMO, the reason for the list is to explain that a device getting bricked is particularly obvious to the owner of the device. For internal cyberware, I imagine internal diagnostic software would light up like a Christmas tree, the area could be warm to the touch/glow, etc. Should this cause additional damage to a body? Maybe, but CGL decided that was either a little too complicated for what they wanted or imbalanced.

The game uses abstraction all over the place, if that doesn't reach your realism threshold, you can certainly introduce house rules for

So, you are saying use the fluff to determine this thing (armor and the concealability thereof), but don't use the fluff to determine this thing (such as what happens when your gear is bricked).


What is what I was pointing out.

???

I would use both. Like I said previously, the list is not exhaustive and a GM can certainly expand on it to provide appropriate examples for internal cyberware.

A description that includes the word "never" seems pretty all-encompassing.

Pretty much how I read that too... Never means Never. *shrug*

Of course the issue isn't the word "never" but the definiton of the phrase "fail non-spectacularly" and what that entails. IMO, it means it will always be noticed by someone, particularly the owner and it's up to the GM how to determine what a "spectacular" failure means for internal cyber.

*shrug*

With that logic, again form fitting has no benefit. Because no matter what you are wearing that manufacturer [robably has an armored line and I might just not be able to detect the armor, but it is probably there.

I know you're having trouble with the semantics here, but I think we can all pretty well understand that 'never fails non-spectacularly' means 'always fails spectacularly', right?

"Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."

That line's got no real ambiguity to it, and the implications of any of the above common features occurring in internal cyberware are quite obvious.