Empathy Software, New Idea on Balancing It Options

[Trigger]

So, I have been thinking about how to balance Empathy Software for the game I am running on here and this is what I came up with:

When using the Empathy software to aid in a test, first make a test using the Empathy Software's Rating as the dicepool. The hits scored on that test are added to your Social skill test as a positive dice pool modifier. Edge can be used on the Empathy Software test, with hits capping at the Empathy Software's Rating. A glitch on the test results in the program having trouble reading an aspect of the person it is reading, applying a -1 modifier to the next test using the Empathy Software against that person. A critical glitch on the test results in the system incorrectly identifying the emotion of its target and applying a negative dice modifier equal to half of the programs rating (rounded up) to the Social Test on which it is used.

I figure this is like the software running a Judge Intentions test every time you use it for a Social Test. (The text on Empathy Software allows you to make a Judge Intentions test with it, using just the Empathy Software's Rating as the dicepool, which is where my idea for the way to run it came from.)

My thoughts on this ruling is because the emotive recognition software is relatively new in the game, and thusly not perfect, and also because I do not think that the software would be able to always accurately read people's emotional state by their face and body language. An orc or troll's mouth area is going to show emotional changes differently than other metatypes dues to the presence of tusks. With people watching things in AR all the time, you can't accurately tell what a person is feeling by eye movements and where they are looking.

What do you guys think about this?

[Thanee]

That might be a reasonable way to use it without outright banning it (what most people probably do).

It's actually something I use as a general house rule for complementary skills (i.e. if you have a fitting (usually knowledge) skill for a task you can use it as a complementary skill with exactly those rules: make a roll before the actual roll using the complementary skill and hits scored give bonus dice to the actual roll you make afterwards; if you Glitch / Critical Glitch you get a penalty to the roll).

Bye
Thanee

[Rotbart van Dain...]

What do you guys think about this?

Sounds like a Teamwork Test, except broken because it allows the use of Edge for the Software.

[Karoline]

Sounds like a Teamwork Test, except broken because it allows the use of Edge for the Software.

You can use edge on any other teamwork test, so why is that broken?

Besides, using edge to get more hits on something that only gives you a bonus to the actually important test is practically a waste, so I don't think you're going to see it happening much. I mean I can get +6 dice and exploding sixes on my 3 DP test that only gives me bonuses to my con test, or I can just give myself +6 dice and exploding sixes directly onto my con test. The second option is going to be about 4-5 times more effective, so why burn edge on the teamwork test?

It is nice that it is there if you have sucky software and want to avoid a critical glitch, but it otherwise isn't likely to get used much.

[Warlordtheft]

My comment is that the software (even at the higher ratings) is easily duped. And a con roll (1) will easily dupe the program. Of course the target of the empathy software must know it is being used on him/her. I''d also note it only works on metahumans, and not sapient critters.

[BlackHat]

I would be tempted to use similar rules for other kinds of sensor-softs, which would otherwise be kind of useless.

There are softs that use their rating as a dicepool for visual or audio perception... meaning they can rarely see something right in front of them - and will almost never see something that a character can't see on his own - but allowing an "operator" to use them as "teammates" in a teamwork test suddenly makes them viable as a +1-2 die bonus. I think teamwork tests are even how the book suggests you handle multiple characters looking for someone (or one person avoiding the attention of multiple characters).

Seems like applying that same logic to social sensor-softs will work well.

Only problem that jumps out at me as a possibility is if a character with, say, 10 emotoys, could "network" them for a +10 bonus? The rule might want to include some sort of cap on how many teammates are reasonable.

[BlackHat]

My comment is that the software (even at the higher ratings) is easily duped. And a con roll (1) will easily dupe the program. Of course the target of the empathy software must know it is being used on him/her. I''d also note it only works on metahumans, and not sapient critters.

I think the dice roll made by the software is essentially a Judge Intentions roll (which the software can be used to make). Trigger mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think he repeated it here. if anything, it would be an opposed test pitting con vs judge intentions, but going back to the teamwork analogy for perception vs stealth you don't roll an opposed roll against the teammates... the teammates just generate dice (roughly 1/3 of what they have, themselves) and then you roll the opposed roll against the team's final dicepool. I think the same thing would happen here, which is how Trigger's rule would already handle the situation.

Edit: This is assuming that you're attempting to dupe the user with that same con roll.

[Fuchs]

I'd not allow networking with programs, or similar "Helpers" - that becomes real unbalanced real fast when it comes to programs.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

You can use edge on any other teamwork test, so why is that broken?

For you, not for other people.

[Karoline]

For you, not for other people.

True, but the point is it can be used. It isn't like edge being used on teamwork tests is some radical new concept. And like I said above, there really isn't much point in using it except to make sure you don't glitch or critically glitch. But if you're worried about that, you shouldn't be using the software in the first place.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

True, but the point is it can be used.

If the rolling entity has Edge.

The Software hasn't.

[Karoline]

If the rolling entity has Edge.

The Software hasn't.

Software isn't an entity. I don't see why you're so stuck on this point. It isn't like it offers a huge advantage or anything.

I mean you can use edge when you hack someone, and that is a program at work.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Software isn't an entity.

If it runs by itself, it is.

I don't see why you're so stuck on this point.

Because it's an exception contrary to any other rule - and it's not needed, either.

It isn't like it offers a huge advantage or anything.

Spending Edge may be the single biggest advantage a character has.

I mean you can use edge when you hack someone, and that is a program at work.

And your skills.

[BlackHat]

I don't think the edge thing is particularly unbalanced, but I also don't think its necessary. Like Karoline pointed out, nobody would use edge on a "secondary" roll rather than one their "primary roll", so it would almost certainly be relegated to the job of canceling out glitches. If you don't like the idea of allowing PCs to do that with their edge (since the program glitched on its own), fine. The program will impose a 1-3 die penalty, and the character's edge can instead be used to add dice (and make ALL of the dice exploding) to the primary roll, which, most of the time, would be sufficient to negate the penalty imposed by the software hiccup.

The end result is pretty much the same - if not in favor of a character with 3+ edge, or low rating software - and doesn't violate anything by allowing a PC to lend edge to autonomous device rating rolls.

[Molly Hayes]

Mostly I am a third edition girl, but I own the 4th edition books. What about this thing makes them imbalanced? I tried to read up on them but I couldn't figure them out, much less what makes them a game breaker.

[Fuchs]

Mostly I am a third edition girl, but I own the 4th edition books. What about this thing makes them imbalanced? I tried to read up on them but I couldn't figure them out, much less what makes them a game breaker.

By RAW they add their rating to your social skills - up to rating 6 for 600 nuyen.

[Molly Hayes]

So I could have say Negotiation 5, add this on and it would be an 11?

[BlackHat]

The main argument is that they are a cheap and easy way for anyone to get 1-6 more dice on all social tests. Its like enhanced pheromones, but you don't have to pay essence, and its a tenth of the price. They're certainly not balanced against other options, such as that, but they hardly break the game - especially if dice pool limits are enforced.

Other than the slight social faux-pas of pulling out a keychain toy at a meet, or turning your commlink's built in camera on the Johnson, almost anyone can pick up the free dice easily. Someone who wants to do so secretly has to go through a few more hoops, buts its still not bad. It does become a bit of an arms race, though, and eventually the Johnson pulls out a tiny man-in-a-suit emotoy to watch the Runners in return, and every face basically *has* to buy rating 6 emo-soft to stay relevant.

[BlackHat]

By RAW they add their rating to your social skills - up to rating 6 for 600 nuyen.

To be fair, the 600 nuyen version is an "emotoy" which is the device I eluded to in my previous post. The unmentioned disadvantage is that an NPC could easily stand up and walk away from the negotiation if someone pulled one of these out and set it on the table. I imagine its like asking the J to please attached this polygraph machine before we negotiate the price for the run. That, or he pulls out his rating 6 emotoy, and the two toys basically cancel one another out.

[BlackHat]

So I could have say Negotiation 5, add this on and it would be an 11?

Also, you normally get your charisma + negotiation (+ other modifiers), and with the toy you get charisma + negotiation + 6 (+ other modifiers).

[pbangarth]

It does become a bit of an arms race, though, and eventually the Johnson pulls out a tiny man-in-a-suit emotoy to watch the Runners in return, and every face basically *has* to buy rating 6 emo-soft to stay relevant.

Exactly. As with so many 'advantages' that players think they can pull over the competition, if the PC can buy it, the NPC can, too.

[Ascalaphus]

I'd say it might be cleaner to treat the software as separate from the character; it has it's rating as dice pool to judge someone's intentions. If it succeeds, it adds a +2 dice to the character using the information (the generic +2 for some favorable influence). The higher the software's rating, the better it's chances to succeed in giving the bonus.

I'd consider letting the software roll it's rating * 2; many other independently rolling devices do so. Or let it use a Sensor's rating; the better the sensors, the more data the software has to use in it's assessment.

[Karoline]

I'd say it might be cleaner to treat the software as separate from the character; it has it's rating as dice pool to judge someone's intentions. If it succeeds, it adds a +2 dice to the character using the information (the generic +2 for some favorable influence). The higher the software's rating, the better it's chances to succeed in giving the bonus.

I'd consider letting the software roll it's rating * 2; many other independently rolling devices do so. Or let it use a Sensor's rating; the better the sensors, the more data the software has to use in it's assessment.

The only problem I see with this is you very quickly get players going "Well, why can't I just make a normal judge intentions roll and get a +2 on my roll?". To which I would personally be inclined to answer that they could. It does after all allow a player to do something naturally that other people have to have tech to replicate (Kind of like having lockpicking skill instead of relying on an autopicker)

[Draco18s]

So a rigger can't spend edge on his drones?

Spending Edge may be the single biggest advantage a character has.

Lets look at this.

Rating 6 EmoSoft, rolls 6 dice. Statistically 2 successes. +2 DP mod.
User has 5 Edge, so using edge on the test gets 11 dice, statistically about 4 successes. +4 DP mod.

Compared to
Rating 6 EmoSoft, rolls 6 dice. Statistically 2 successes. +2 DP mod.
User has 5 Edge and spends one on the actual skill instead. +7 DP mod and exploding 6s.

Even if they spend Edge on both, that's 2 Edge for +9 dice, where 1 Edge gets them +7.

[Ascalaphus]

I think it's best to treat the empathy soft as a "second opinion"; it makes it's own assessment of a person, it doesn't make yours better. But if it has a different result than you have, it would be a warning your own assessment might be wrong.