not using house rules in 4th Options

[Maelstrome]

ive heard plenty about the house rules people use. does anyone not houserule over the RAW.

[paws2sky]

I've run SR4 by the RAW, not even using the published Optional Rules, and I think its playable with no house rules needed.

That said, many people here dislike certain aspects of the system and tweak things to their taste. I have yet to find a game system that doesn't apply to though.

-paws

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I've run SR4 by the RAW, not even using the published Optional Rules, and I think its playable with no house rules needed.

You think is perfectly fine that the best Fakes money can by, described as 'no one will ever know the difference' have a decent chance to flat out fail against an average security system? Especially SINs that are checked dozens of times a day by RAW?

Well, I don't, and I houserule it - turning the Fake dice into a threshold.

[Wesley Street]

I always use the RAW. I've yet to houserule anything.

[Blade]

I've played it quite RAW, though we might have forgotten or misinterpreted one rule or another (it's hard to apply strictly all the rules you'd need to apply).
As a GM, I don't know if I've ever GMed any game without using houserules... Well, except for my house games.

[Aaron]

You think is perfectly fine that the best Fakes money can by, described as 'no one will ever know the difference' have a decent chance to flat out fail against an average security system? Especially SINs that are checked dozens of times a day by RAW?

I think you might be confusing checking a SIN with verifying a SIN. It seems to me that most SIN checks are just to see that you have one, like what happens with your driver's license (in the US) when you try to get into a bar or when you test drive a car. SIN verification would then be like what the cop does when she pulls you over or the insurance company checks your identity.

[DireRadiant]

I like it RAW. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ElFenrir]

I don't think I ever played a game without houserules. Well, of course the first few times it's RAW; that gives us an idea of what we like and don't. There are a handful of things that got houseruled due to them just fitting more in our games. It's not even a lot, but they're there. Again, I can't think of a system I ever fully agreed with 100% as written.

[pbangarth]

I tend to go RAW, but in the middle of fast and furious play I may make a ruling on the fly for which I can't think of/find RAW. That could be construed as house-ruling.

The part of SR4 RAW that bugs me the most and would be the place I would be most likely to make a house ruling is in the rule on defaulting. I think it is too easy to get away with doing a skill you have never practiced.

Peter

[paws2sky]

You think is perfectly fine that the best Fakes money can by, described as 'no one will ever know the difference' have a decent chance to flat out fail against an average security system? Especially SINs that are checked dozens of times a day by RAW?

Well, I don't, and I houserule it - turning the Fake dice into a threshold.

Calling for nit-picky stuff like at every turn just bogs down the game and is no fun for anyone. I only require for Fake SIN checks when someone has a reason to be wary of the SIN holder. For instance, if the holder is acting suspiciously, the facility is on heightened security, the holder is packing an excessive amount of heat or armor, etc.

The house rule you mention is a reasonable one, I think, but I don't feel the need to make that change (or any other) change to the RAW at this time. Let's not forget how stupidly cheap Fake SINs are compared to, say, 3rd edition. Also, Fake SINs are a great "extra" for those times when the employer doesn't have a lot of cashg

-paws

[Ryu]

I think you might be confusing checking a SIN with verifying a SIN. It seems to me that most SIN checks are just to see that you have one, like what happens with your driver's license (in the US) when you try to get into a bar or when you test drive a car. SIN verification would then be like what the cop does when she pulls you over or the insurance company checks your identity.

What examples for what causes a SIN check do the English rules use ? "Buying new trousers or crossing a border" (German edition, pg. 260) would not support your interpretation (which is definitly the sensible way, considering the mathematical odds of the test).

[Muspellsheimr]

The house rule you mention is a reasonable one, I think, but I don't feel the need to make that change (or any other) change to the RAW at this time. Let's not forget how stupidly cheap Fake SINs are compared to, say, 3rd edition. Also, Fake SINs are a great "extra" for those times when the employer doesn't have a lot of cashg

Cheap compared to other editions does not equal cheap. & by RAW, unless you remain in your house the entire day, every day, a Rating 6 (aka "impenetrable") Fake will fail at most after a week.

[Wesley Street]

I tend to go RAW, but in the middle of fast and furious play I may make a ruling on the fly for which I can't think of/find RAW. That could be construed as house-ruling.

I consider that "making a judgement call", not house-ruling. House-ruling would be taking a published rule and changing it to fit your group, like saying a certain light pistol can do 7P damage instead of 4P because that makes more sense for you.

[Aaron]

What examples for what causes a SIN check do the English rules use ? "Buying new trousers or crossing a border" (German edition, pg. 260) would not support your interpretation (which is definitly the sensible way, considering the mathematical odds of the test).

I can't speak for the German rules. Now that I think about it, I can't really speak for the English rules, either.

But you know, I have no problem with runners going through fake SINs like toilet paper. I mean, I'm not sure they're intended to be foolproof ways into the system so much as tools to make life a bit easier. I believe there's a reason why equipment has Availability ratings: if you want it Right Now, use your SIN, otherwise you have to go through more subtle channels.

[DireRadiant]

p. 261 SR4
"Whenever a character uses her fake identity to pass an
ID check (whether for buying a dress or crossing a border),
she must make an Opposed Test pitting her fake ID’s rating
against the rating of the verifi cation system."

So, an "ID Check" is an authentication test of some kind. The "buying a dress or crossing a border" are examples of when such an event could happen.

The RAW doesn't explicitly state that the "ID Check" dice test must occur every single time the fake SIN is used. The examples are in parentheses, which typically gives the information in them less weight as far as rules go.

If the GM chooses to require the player make an "ID Check" dice test every single time the fake SIN is used, it is the GM making the fake SIN useless, not the rules. Just the same way as a GM can make a players armor useless by shooting more bullets, requiring more Resistance tests until the PC fails. The number of ID Checks or Body damage resistance tests a PC gets to make is entirely within GM control.

Bullets or ID Checks tests, all dice tests I require as a GM are to make the game fun and dramatic for the players. A random ID Check when buying the soychips down at the stuffer shack might be fun, as can the sense of relief at the border crossing not running an ID Check. Either way, it's my GMing and presenting the game world that is causing that check or not.

This isn't a board game where we check a PCs movement skill and make a dice test for each step the PC makes.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Sure, if you don't actually use the rules, you don't need houserules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[paws2sky]

Sure, if you don't actually use the rules, you don't need houserules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Riiiight. Do you folks (not just Rotbart here) honestly make a test every single time a character uses a Fake SIN for, well, anything?

If I go to the Stuffer Shacker and buy a choco-gooey bar, you're telling me I'm risking compromising my Fake ID?

-paws

[Aaron]

I stand corrected.

And yeah, if my players want to buy stuff, I make them roll their Fake ID. Per the rules. Net result is that players have to either plan ahead or improvise solutions.

As to the Stuffer Shack, I'm not sure that they'd bother with more than a Rating 1 SIN verification device, as long as they get their cred. Heck, all the verification really does is tell the operator that your SIN is invalid. A dude at Stuffer Shack probably isn't going to call you on it, and if he is, he can probably be persuaded by a little Intimidation or cred. Even checkpoint guards can be convinced that it's in their best interests to skip the SIN check.

[ElFenrir]

I always treated a Stuffer Shack/Mall store/something of that nature as sort of a credit card thing of today. One failure is, more than likely, not going to have the cops there. I'm likely to give them another shot at it; i know that there has been times where a credit card won't go through the first time, but it will on the second, and it's perfectly valid. But if it fails again, they may ask for another form of payment. They have certified credsticks, and I can't help but think a roadside burger stand might be just fine with accepting that. I'm sure Pretzel Joe just wants his cred.

[Heath Robinson]

If I recall correctly, the SIN check retries the check if it fails first time, then prompts the user to ask the person some questions to verify their identity if the second check fails. It is meant to be quite easy to pass if you've got a decent SIN or a decent memory.

[hermit]

You think is perfectly fine that the best Fakes money can by, described as 'no one will ever know the difference' have a decent chance to flat out fail against an average security system? Especially SINs that are checked dozens of times a day by RAW?

The glass ceiling of 6 again, because people like Lonsing thought counting to 10 was too hard on SR players.

If I recall correctly, the SIN check retries the check if it fails first time, then prompts the user to ask the person some questions to verify their identity if the second check fails. It is meant to be quite easy to pass if you've got a decent SIN or a decent memory.

Also, the SIN gets flagged.

[Heath Robinson]

Which has what effect? Flags are literally pieces of binary data. In absence of the context a flag means nothing.

[hermit]

Flagged as in, marked as a suspicious ID that needs to be kept an eye on. It's mentioned in Unwired, IIRC.

[Ryu]

I can't speak for the German rules. Now that I think about it, I can't really speak for the English rules, either.

But you know, I have no problem with runners going through fake SINs like toilet paper. I mean, I'm not sure they're intended to be foolproof ways into the system so much as tools to make life a bit easier. I believe there's a reason why equipment has Availability ratings: if you want it Right Now, use your SIN, otherwise you have to go through more subtle channels.

As I said, your interpretation is the sensible way of using the RAW mechanics. Keep your SIN from being verified, and you are good to go at any rating. Mess up and you still have a shot.

I prefer SINs with a history. "Your SIN is false" as a constant threat is kind of bland - one could add a few alternative consequences of a failed test: Meaner background questions, an LE Officer that demands a bribe for not investigating your purchase of an LMG(despite license), your car or flat is searched, your movement pattern tracked for some time. A failed test would have consequences, but not necessarily jeopardise the run. Roll in the tie result by demanding that the SIN beats the scanner or else.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I mean, I'm not sure they're intended to be foolproof ways into the system so much as tools to make life a bit easier.

Sure, when the devs wrote: 'If it's high quality, nobody will ever recognize the difference.' they actually meant 'If it's high quality, everbody will recognize the difference after a month.'