Licenses, Think of it as a mechanic Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[Redjack]

Same discussion rules apply as the SIN reboot thread: Please do NOT attempt to dictate to us that your interpretation is somehow fact or that you have omnipotence as to the mind or thoughts of the developers. I appreciate a discussion, not being dictated to.

In conversations about SINs, licenses were discussed as well as backgrounds. In the tabletop games I run/play in, we generally use a license not only for the various licenses but for additional elements we attach to a SIN. For example, a character needs to be listed as an employee of Acme Janitorial they can buy those credentials or the team hacker can hack Acme's server and create them, linking them to a fake SIN. We like to use the "license" mechanic as a flexible way to represent various things attached to a SIN that can be later removed and, of course, scrubbed from the issuing server to remove the SIN number link.

Thoughts?

[Mach_Ten]

this is as I imagine it to be.

anything at all that is not a permanent part of your ID, would be a license IMO.

be that employment, driving, weaponry, or access to security areas.

it is stuff that can be issued and as quickly revoked.

[Tanegar]

this is as I imagine it to be.

anything at all that is not a permanent part of your ID, would be a license IMO.

be that employment, driving, weaponry, or access to security areas.

it is stuff that can be issued and as quickly revoked.

Interesting; I hadn't thought of security access as something that could be represented with a license.

[Redjack]

Interesting; I hadn't thought of security access as something that could be represented with a license.

We considered a more granular rule set but decided it would have detracted from game play rather than enhanced it, so for us, the 'license' mechanic has become a one size fits all kind of bolt on, unbolt thing. Works well in our games. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sendaz]

Making all the extras mentioned above go under the umbrella of 'license' does seem to make it a bit easier.

Could certain real licenses attached to a Fake SIN affect it during a SIN check?

i.e you have some restricted licenses attached (having used your Fake SIN to get a license showing you as a security consultant and even paid for the weapon licenses as part of your cover) but have crossed a border and the guards are checking you over.
Could this presence of the licenses add a modifier to the check, maybe representing the guard paying more attention because they are restricted or maybe a little less because you your licenses show you as a security consultant and therefore in their mind a legitimate guy?

[Shaidar]

It can also help manage the Costs if the players want to purchase a ready-made SIN w/ Licenses for temporary use for a run.

[Bertramn]

Interesting; I hadn't thought of security access as something that could be represented with a license.

Same here. I am interested in the prospect though, and in some guidelines for that.

I for example always thought that the Rating of the License represented how well it is forged,
while now it may only represent how hard it was to forge.

[Redjack]

Like SINs, we generally see licenses as real, fake, & stolen. Real licenses can be attached to fake SINs when the issuing host is hacked. The fake SIN then potentially becomes a liability when the license passes muster, but the SIN is blown... which then blows the license. Conversely, a fake license could be attached to a real SIN. My thoughts here are legal problems for the SIN owner, though in a corrupt legal system that can generally be dealt with via a generous application of nuyen.

One of the challenges for the hacker is to keep the SIN from being blown when the license is used to gain access where a crime is committed.

[Ryu]

Same discussion rules apply as the SIN reboot thread: Please do NOT attempt to dictate to us that your interpretation is somehow fact or that you have omnipotence as to the mind or thoughts of the developers. I appreciate a discussion, not being dictated to.

In conversations about SINs, licenses were discussed as well as backgrounds. In the tabletop games I run/play in, we generally use a license not only for the various licenses but for additional elements we attach to a SIN. For example, a character needs to be listed as an employee of Acme Janitorial they can buy those credentials or the team hacker can hack Acme's server and create them, linking them to a fake SIN. We like to use the "license" mechanic as a flexible way to represent various things attached to a SIN that can be later removed and, of course, scrubbed from the issuing server to remove the SIN number link.

Thoughts?

We do the same for jobs a SIN has (like Bounty Hunter), and also include some logical stuff like concealed carry into that if appropiate. We tend to buy SINs as package deals anyway, so it only really comes up if a License is added later on.

[Shemhazai]

Using the same "Rating equates to quality" mechanic that applies to SINs for credentials, qualifications, registrations, licenses, permits, and clearances is a cool idea. It can be for players who want to better blend in with mainstream society or have a fleshed out secret identity or double life. Even better, it can get the face more engaged in the game and help with roleplaying undercover operations. By attaching a nuyen value to these, it could be like... wait for it... ammo for faces.

EDIT: Typed something wrong.

[DeathStrobe]

I actually hate Licenses. I think they're unnecessary bookkeeping. I think the fake SIN should be enough to handwave the fake licensing fees and abstract out the entire licensing system.

It ends up becoming a lot of extra nuyen and insane bookkeeping when you need a license for every piece of restricted gear. And then, what if you have multiple SINs, do you need multiple Licenses now? Then we run in to weirdness if you switch to your Wageslave SIN that isn't licensed to carry that Ares Predator, from your Bounty Hunter SIN which is. Or what happens if you have a license to carry, but no SIN, which you can do by RAW, but doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work that way, I misread it. License are tied to SINs.

I'd much rather have it abstracted in to SINs then be its own thing.

This post has been edited by DeathStrobe: Jan 29 2015, 10:12 PM

[Bertramn]

Word!

[Mach_Ten]

I actually hate Licenses. I think they're unnecessary bookkeeping. I think the fake SIN should be enough to handwave the fake licensing fees and abstract out the entire licensing system.

It ends up becoming a lot of extra nuyen and insane bookkeeping when you need a license for every piece of restricted gear.

And then, what if you have multiple SINs, do you need multiple Licenses now?
Then we run in to weirdness if you switch to your Wageslave SIN that isn't licensed to carry that Ares Predator, from your Bounty Hunter SIN which is.

IT definately deserves a common sense approach, i.e. making it an expense for a specific run to be allowed "concealed carry" for a bodyguard job in AAA sec.
but not necessarily something for everyday use

Or what happens if you have a license to carry, but no SIN, which you can do by RAW, but doesn't make any sense.

I'm deeply involved in SR3 currently and that states specifically that a Fake Credstick (R6) is required to link to a permit

I wonder where they lost the link in editions,

[Lobo0705]

I play that you need a license for a category. So if you owned a pistol, an SMG, and an Assault Rifle, you would only need a single license. If you had restricted cyberware, only a single license would be required.

That being said, I do require a license for each SIN - if you are going to use the license mechanic then those licenses are tied to the identity of your SIN. Thus if your fake SIN saying your name is Henry Smith and work for Renraku has a license to carry a firearm, that license is keyed to that SIN. So if you are trying to bluff your way into Ares using a fake SIN saying your name is John Jones, and that you are an employee of Ares, then the license to carry a firearm registered to Henry Smith isn't going to cut it.

I understand Deathstrobe's point, in that it would save in bookkeeping to eliminate it all together, but I believe if you are going to use the mechanic, you have to have a license for each SIN you have.

ETA - I don't believe you can have a license with no SIN, as getting a license requires a SIN check (page 363) - meaning all real licenses are linked to real SINS, so fake licenses would have to be linked to a SIN of some sort (fake or otherwise).

[Smash]

Personally I think they should be part of a SIN.

If your SIN is that you're a cop then you might have licenses for small arms, and some crowd control weapons. If you're a plumber then you're not getting a license for an assault rifle.

Your milage may vary. I know if you play Shadowrun in the US the idea of restricted weapons probably doesn't make sense, but to me it does, particularly in a Dystopia. This doesn't mean that you can't get them, it just means you can't open carry them.

The other aspect is that if licenses are dolled out to anyone willing to make an application, then that's even more reason to build them into SINs. The paperwork just seems un-necessary otherwise.

Mechanics seem un-necessary. If your SIN doesn't logically allow you to have weapon X then it will be confiscated, you maybe fined or gaoled and your SIN maybe checked. I wouldn't want them to have seperate mechanics.

[Sengir]

I like licenses modeled on Corporation's take. They use pretty broad categories (light weapons, heavy weapns, support weapons) and there are clear prerequisites for obtaining a license legally, typically certain skill levels.

[PraetorGradivus]

Here's a question.
SR5 tells you how much it costs to acquire a fake license.
What about a character who has a legitimate SIN and is a PI.
How much does the Private Investigator , Pistol, and Carry Concealed licenses cost to attach to your real SIN?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Nothing?
They are part of your SIN? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sendaz]

Think he meant how much a real license would cost to obtain.

It is somewhere in the notes, now have to go digging for them. Not like any of us ever do things legitimately you know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[DeathStrobe]

I'd assume legal licenses should be free since it means your gun can be traced back to you, maybe through ballistics or more realistically by leaving a data trail of every sensor recording that you were at the scene of a crime/shadowrun.

It'd be too much of a liability for my taste.

[Lobo0705]

There is no cost listed to obtain a license legally. What it says in the book is: (SR5 pg 363)

"Acquiring a license (legally) is, again, dependent on the laws of the
country. For the most part, acquiring a license involves
making an application, paying some sort of fee, a SIN
check, and possibly passing one or more certification,
testing, or training programs. The exact details of acquiring
a license are left up to the gamemaster, but government
bureaucracies are notoriously slow and frustrating."

For me, I wouldn't charge the player's too much, maybe 50 or 100 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) or so. I mean, from a realism standpoint, there should be some fee. I am hard pressed to think of some license that you can obtain in the real world legally that doesn't have some sort of fee attached to it.

[DeathStrobe]

I'd assume that a legal license would just be abstracted into lifestyle. After all, real licenses have recurring costs. And assuming you are not living on the streets like a dirty SINless, and actually have a real SIN and tied your residence to your real SIN, which is going to cause real problems if you need to burn that SIN because you made a run against the wrong people and they blow up your house.

You know...there is no reason why players should be allowed to have a legal license or use their real SIN on anything. Common sense would dictate that no runner would be that stupid to give people real information about themselves which can be used against themselves. But then again a greenhorn would make that mistake, and then they'd have to buy off their sinner quality or else have more problems down the road. Burning a real SIN shouldn't be as easy as burning fakes, which is why it costs karma.

[PraetorGradivus]

For me, I wouldn't charge the player's too much, maybe 50 or 100 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) or so. I mean, from a realism standpoint, there should be some fee. I am hard pressed to think of some license that you can obtain in the real world legally that doesn't have some sort of fee attached to it.

My thoughts exactly...you even got to pay a fee to fish in this country for dragon's sake

[PraetorGradivus]

I'd assume that a legal license would just be abstracted into lifestyle. After all, real licenses have recurring costs. And assuming you are not living on the streets like a dirty SINless, and actually have a real SIN and tied your residence to your real SIN, which is going to cause real problems if you need to burn that SIN because you made a run against the wrong people and they blow up your house.

You know...there is no reason why players should be allowed to have a legal license or use their real SIN on anything. Common sense would dictate that no runner would be that stupid to give people real information about themselves which can be used against themselves. But then again a greenhorn would make that mistake, and then they'd have to buy off their sinner quality or else have more problems down the road. Burning a real SIN shouldn't be as easy as burning fakes, which is why it costs karma.

It all has to do with their background...
for example, a character with Limited Corporate SIN and DayJob might work for Lonestar 20 hours a week...his SIN would require permits that allowed him to carry the pistol/security armor and any other restricted item that Lonestar allows him during his working hours.
Of course, he's a crooked cop, so when he's not working for Lonestar he's working an angle in the shadows.

[Sengir]

It all has to do with their background...
for example, a character with Limited Corporate SIN and DayJob might work for Lonestar 20 hours a week...his SIN would require permits that allowed him to carry the pistol/security armor and any other restricted item that Lonestar allows him during his working hours.

Somebody who carries arms as part of his job shouldn't need a license. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Shaidar]

Somebody who carries arms as part of his job shouldn't need a license. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As long as said person remains on the sovereign territory of their employer I'd agree 100%; however, with corporate balkanization that has occurred in the 6th World even Lone Star/Knight Errant are treading on foreign soil to accomplish their daily beat patrol. So I'd judge that the UCAS might require that LS/KE personnel be licensed within the UCAS bureaucracy in order to Lawfully carry firearms and security armor.

[ShadowDragon8685]

As long as said person remains on the sovereign territory of their employer I'd agree 100%; however, with corporate balkanization that has occurred in the 6th World even Lone Star/Knight Errant are treading on foreign soil to accomplish their daily beat patrol. So I'd judge that the UCAS might require that LS/KE personnel be licensed within the UCAS bureaucracy in order to Lawfully carry firearms and security armor.

I would expect that Lone Star/Knight Errant requires, as part of their contracts to do security, that their officers be granted blanket authority to carry any required arms and armor to do their jobs.




Anyway, I fall into the "Abstract it into Lifestyle" camp re: licenses. There's enjoyable amounts of granularity (Oh, how I love me some gear porn,) and then there's annoying ones that serve only to give the GM an excuse to be a dick. ("Ah-HAH, but you don't have a license to carry the holdout pistol you picked up off that ganger and are planning to sell to your fence next time you see him! Mr. Lone Star is going to run your ass in for illegal possession of a weapon.")

[Sengir]

As long as said person remains on the sovereign territory of their employer I'd agree 100%; however, with corporate balkanization that has occurred in the 6th World even Lone Star/Knight Errant are treading on foreign soil to accomplish their daily beat patrol.

If a country or company contracts LS as police, that contract should logically include the privileges normally afforded to police. And if the contract says that patrols should be unarmed or not carry anything heavier than a pistol, a permit of the individual officer would still be overruled by that contract.

[Shaidar]

However, the bureaucratic fees for the Licenses would help give UCAS and smaller municipalities a purpose.

[Mach_Ten]

There's enjoyable amounts of granularity
(Oh, how I love me some gear porn,)

and then there's annoying ones that serve only to give the GM an excuse to be a dick.
("Ah-HAH, but you don't have a license to carry the holdout pistol you picked up off that ganger and are planning to sell to your fence next time you see him!
Mr. Lone Star is going to run your ass in for illegal possession of a weapon.")

I want a balance between the two :

I want the Runners to be afraid to carry illegal weapons and gear, and for there to be potential for repercussions.
As GM, I want a mechanic to realise the risk and the penalty.

Without the former, players can just walk around toting PACs
and if I try to enforce the rule (to my agenda, not being a dick and making it every LS/KE suddenly psychically knows you are carrying)

How about a similar rule to Defaulting ?
Buy a license/permit = automatic success or at least reduced risk of being fined or abducted by the cops

Without a LIC you Default to your Fake or Real SIN (with appropriate modifier)

Thus a Runner masquerading as a Body guard with an illegal weapon is met by police.
"You have a permit to conceal carry Sir?"
"Uh ... no, it's in my other pants (TrollMod) ™ Officer"
Officer looks suspicious "So what are you doing?"
"Well, I'm bodyguarding Mr Johnson here" winks at face
"OK Sir, I believe you, lets see your Identification please"
"Uh-oh !" .... officers head is vaporised

[Sengir]

Well, if licenses are tied to your SIN there is no physical license you can leave in your other trousers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Mach_Ten]

Well, if licenses are tied to your SIN there is no physical license you can leave in your other trousers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Very true (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, besides the obvious untruths of our runner trying to outwit a patrolman.

Does the defaulting mechanic satisfy anyones quandaries over licences and SINs ?

I.e.
A runner with low charisma and etiquette "can" buy a licence if he feels it necessary on his current run
It is then tied to whichever SIN he uses (real or fake) indefinately.
OR
He relies on his charm and fast talking to default to his SIN, hoping his .. Job, background, incredibly well endowed bank balance or just dumb luck.. Will help the patrolman decide to let him slip.

[Sengir]

I.e.
A runner with low charisma and etiquette "can" buy a licence if he feels it necessary on his current run
It is then tied to whichever SIN he uses (real or fake) indefinately.
OR
He relies on his charm and fast talking to default to his SIN, hoping his .. Job, background, incredibly well endowed bank balance or just dumb luck.. Will help the patrolman decide to let him slip.

It's probably fair to assume that the average beat cop does not know the full ins and outs of every law, which leaves plenty of room to claim that your occupation or the gun you are carrying are exempted from the permit under Statue A 38. But I would handle it as a simple social test, with a good SIN providing the "plausible evidence" modifier.

[Mach_Ten]

It's probably fair to assume that the average beat cop does not know the full ins and outs of every law, which leaves plenty of room to claim that your occupation or the gun you are carrying are exempted from the permit under Statue A 38. But I would handle it as a simple social test, with a good SIN providing the "plausible evidence" modifier.

Or the cop does what all police do, default back to technology or process.

in other words, pull out the scanner

in this case then we have rating SIN + complementary dice in etiquette .. vs. scanner.