True, because it's not just that he's screaming, it's how he does it.

Besides, there are some distinctly positive notes to this fight for Max. Unlike his last gunfight, he's still in the fight after the first Combat Turn. In fact, he's lasted 4 times as long as he did in his first real fight!

Yep, he has found the key to survival...don't make yourself a target.

I told you how many successes the attacker scored on the wiki, you are free to use this information if I have made it available. So yes, you may have Alleycat act accordingly on that knowledge, on the assumption she has guessed about how well her opponent aimed that burst.

In this case, the attacker scored 5 hits, so you need at least 5 hits on your defense roll to avoid being hit.

Just fyi, if you go back you will see that on Phase 12 B2 boosted up B5 back to the catwalk, which is a major reason he was able to make it back in a single complex action.

Mister Juan - Were you looking for something from me? I thought you were waiting on Grendel? Did you email him asking for a post/status update?

I did.
I got NO love.
NO LOVE I TELL YOU!
I AM LOVELESS!!!!!

Er -- WinterRat? Haven't opened the map yet (yay dial-up connection, trying to do that while writing this has already crashed this post once), but B6 is already between me and Scrapheap -- can't be otherwise, since I came up behind him when he was running toward Scrapheap. It's not straight-line between, but it is between -- and Scrapheap should have a clean shot which won't be hindered by the previous suppression fire.

Have to see what you did with the described movement -- east is counter-intuitive, but it is closer to what I intended. Oh, and just so you know, ropes dangling from helicopters continue to be considered viable ways off the catwalk: jump, swing across or down.

Btw the reason I phrased the last command as I did is because it is becoming painfully obvious we have sharply different understandings of the power. So, since you keep interpreting their manner of obedience as allowing them to consider rationally how to obey the command (rather than bypassing rational analysis altogether, which would [for example] have made them jump straight down to the identified goal rather than consider how best to jump down), I'm trying to "speak your language" -- it remains to be seen with what degree of non dice-relevant success.

Edit: PayPal button is up, in the sidebar, just under the menu. (I converted the mention above to a direct link.) It goes to "the blackfly", which is an evolving writing site of mine. If you're okay with regular mail, it's okay to give the address to WinterRat first, before payment: I trust it will come. We've been building this together -- how many years?

Now to get the post up. Sorry all this is slow -- connection is particularly slow today -- and the next part might yet take another hour.

Bandit - FYI, in case you haven't noticed, Grendel's internet connection is still inconsistent. I highly recommend accompanying any posts directed to him with an email with the same information, as I think you will have to work out stuff with him via email on a regular basis until his internet connection stabilizes.

Slip - Are you saying you want the spirit to stop using the Concealment it currently has on you and start using Guard on Max? Just want to confirm.

I agree Scrapheap has a clean shot that is not hindered by previous suppression fire. My interpretation of 'between' was straight-line between, which we agree he is not.

Upon reflection, he is between Alleycat and Scrapheap, but more of a 'V' shape or east-west between. I didn't adequately consider all the possibilities of 'between' in this context and may not have communicated my intent adequately.

The map should clear things up with what I meant and how I'm currently picturing the movement. Let me know if you have any questions or disagreement on the positioning.

Understood on the ropes. You're basically almost right underneath the helicopter's ropes, so you certainly have plenty of options available to you if you want to go that route.

So you know where I'm coming from, I do not consider Commanding Voice to be anywhere near the equivalent of a Control [Blank] spell.

Street Magic pg. 176 describes the power as:

'subliminally influencing the actions of any listeners'

'such commands carry no weight beyond the immediate impetus and the affected characters will quickly reassert their wits, returning to their original course of action'

In this particular instance, for them to drop an entire story (10 meter drop) into a raging gunfight would be pretty much suicidal. It would basically be the equivalent to 'shoot yourselves in the head'. I do not see the description of the power to be sufficent to get them to kill themselves.

Even the Control Spells make it exceedingly difficult to force someone to do something that will obviously result in seriously bodily harm. I see no reason a 0.25 Adept Power should be able to function at that level of mental control. Especially when it's described as an extremely brief subliminal influence, as opposed to outright control.

If you have any questions how I'm going to interpret something, you're always free to ask, but hopefully my brief description above gives some guidance to how I will interpret future uses of this power.

I think perhaps you may be misunderstanding the entire concept of "subliminal". Apologies if I come across as strident on this, but ... well, let’s just say I have at least the same degree of knowledge in this field as you do of accounting. Don't respond to this point by point, please; but read it all the way through first.

The nature of subliminal influence is literally sub-liminal, operating below the threshold of consciousness, and thus of rational analysis. This is why the holy grail of subliminal directive is an advertiser's wet dream, precisely because there can be no rational analysis of the directive (in that particular case, to buy). As a relevant point, here: the subliminal impulse is -- has to be -- of extremely short duration, in order to remain below consciousness: but it influences throughout the next, longer-lasting action (buying). (For simplicity, I'll ignore how an initial impulse to buy, and to buy one way and not another, is translated into a deeper brand loyalty and higher overall consumption. Ironically, such manipulations also tend to have far greater effect in markets where ideology focuses more strongly on the primacy of rational choice. In some manner, the firm belief that rationality is primary seems to increase vulnerability to sub-rational influences.)

This is the major reason that only imperatives which operate on a similarly sub-rational level, such as imminent death (more on this later), can have any opposing effect: which, in Shadowrun, is usually represented by raising the required threshold. The text of Commanding Voice allows for this:

Note that the text places no restrictions whatsoever on the nature of the command beyond a word length limit. It says only that the command subliminally influences the actions of any listeners and that "[s]uch commands carry no weight beyond the immediate impetus"; which reinforces that there is an immediate impetus toward the goal of the directive -- only.

(Look at it from a different perspective. If such commands did carry weight beyond the immediate impetus, then they would also carry with them the ability to consider rationally based on other knowledge, and perhaps to resist more strongly.)

There is a resisted roll involved here: CH + Leadership v. WL + Leadership. In effect, the power's user is trying to get the other to go along with something not really understood through sheer force of personality (enhanced by magic, although there are all kinds of real-world examples where magic does not seem to be necessary to such reaction). Given that you are trying to bring in rational analysis as part of the quality of resistance, I think it is important to stress here that the resisting attribute is not Logic, nor is Logic tied with the Leadership skill. (Nor should it be.)

How a command is received subliminally is significantly different from how the same command might be perceived rationally. Thus the phrasing of a command will usually be different when intended to be perceived subliminally than when intended to be rationally analysed. Remember the old D&D distinction in the [first level!] Charm spell: between telling someone to kill themself and holding that ancient red dragon off for "just a minute"? [/ducks the stream of thrown duodecimal polyhedrons] Regardless of its source, it makes a good point: a subliminal directive focuses only on the immediate goal of the directive, not on possible consequences of taking the action.

The classic real-life example is gambling -- and I think economics also has an equivalent, in lottery real payoff vs. perception of likely payoff. Rational analysis tells us of very different likely results -- and we all have the ability and knowledge for such analysis -- but the entire structure of gambling is set up to avoid just such analysis. Casinos never tell the gambler their intent is to relieve them of a certain percentage of their cash. Quite the contrary, all the emphasis is on winning -- even though we all know that the realistic chances of walking away with more money than we arrived with are very slim indeed. But how many people, entering a casino and knowing this, manage not to gamble at all?

An example which makes use of the same principle in the opposite direction is the entire military structure, where the recruit has to learn how to react to orders without thinking about them. Absolutely it is counter-intuitive to turn and charge into an ambush -- but that's exactly the kind of order the military recruit has to learn to take, without thinking, if they are to have any chance of survival in combat situations. The soldier has to trust the command blindly. Insert rational analysis here, at the point of command, and by the time the soldier reacts, it will be too late.

These examples illustrate part of the large network of psychological mechanisms that Commanding Voice takes advantage of.

It could be argued that in the military sense, the commands are intended to maximise a soldier's well-being -- but in many cases those commands are given and taken in the full knowledge that some of those soldiers will die. It's counter-intuitive to take an action which could lead directly to one's death, but sometimes such actions must be taken. One of the classics, in Shadowrun, is "geek the mage first", with a close second being "take out the elemental". (The WW1 equivalent was to charge the machine gun nest.) To kill a spirit, melee combat used to be required, always. If a command comes to jump down on the mage (or elemental), where both are known to exist: there is NO logical reason not to take that command exactly at face value. Even analysing to the point of dividing the jump might take one complex turn too many -- maybe what's needed is to kill the mage and the elemental, NOW. (This might well be the case if it had been noted that the mage had taken over another teammate with a Control spell; or if a summoning needed to be interrupted.)

But all that is background rational analysis, simply to point out why the command would work on a subliminal level. A professional team fighter would already be prepped for such commands, already knowing that they won't always make sense based on what any single individual might see or know. Interestingly, the very professionalism is what grants the vulnerability. Less professional units would have been targeted differently.

And yet these are two very different directives, which -- I hear for the very first time -- are apparently being interpreted in exactly the same way. Not only is there nothing in the text to support this manner of interpretation, but it sets a foot onto a very slippery slope indeed -- because, if you think about it, in the shadows of the Sixth World, a very large number of actions indeed could lead directly to death, and many people operating in those shadows are paranoid.

(This part, incidentally, is what provoked this post: because if you really believe this in the context of Commanding Voice, we have a major problem.)

Since Commanding Voice is subliminal, below consciousness: the target of Commanding Voice should not be able to act based on knowledge which comprises no part of the original directive plus their own abilities. (However potent, a subliminal command to "Walk!" won't make a paraplegic walk -- though they might well try.) Based on that knowledge alone, within the person's own abilities, this directive looks far more reasonable than "shoot yourself in the head". The jump itself not only would not kill them, but had a very good chance of not hurting them at all. Very few magicians do well against outright physical attack by someone very good at it.

Thus

WinterRat, that was entirely the point! What is subliminal is not -- by definition -- rationally analysed.

The second point, that of time-relevance

ties in to the many differences between Commanding Voice and a Control spell.

First, the Control spell only needs to overcome the resisted threshold once. After that, no further rolls are needed as long as the spell is sustained unless sharply divergent orders are given (say, of the “suicide� variety). Thus, once active, the Control spell forces the target to do whatever and keep on being under control for as long as the spell is active; and they don't even get a second resistance roll unless a command is given that is seriously counter-intuitive.

In contrast, each command given through Commanding Voice allows a new resistance roll, each and every time. It's also easier for most targets to resist Commanding Voice (attribute + skill) than a Control spell (attribute alone).

Second, Control spells last as long as they are sustained (ratio of 1:potentially infinity), leaving all the magician's actions open after the initial casting. If subsequent resistance rolls are triggered, they do not take away from the magician's actions.

In contrast, Commanding Voice uses a complex action to achieve a maximum of one complex action (their next immediate action) by the target (1:1 ratio) -- if the resisted threshold is overcome (again, each and every time). Further, subsequent attempts to use Commanding Voice on the same target within the same 24 hours become more and more difficult, creating an effective absolute limit of 1/2 x (CH + Leadership + EG) complex actions per target, and that's assuming perfect rolls.

Third, there is no limit on how Control commands are phrased beyond line of sight, probably because such commands are not subliminal but pure and utter domination. Commanding Voice commands have strict parameters: length, common language, must be heard. (There is solid psychological grounding for these, but it goes beyond what has been canon-written, though it doesn't contradict it in the slightest.)

Still think it functions at the same level of mental control?

As a final point, you reference the price of the power to determine what it should and should not be able to do. The main forums are full of objections to developer choices about bp and power point costs. (If you want a counter-example that directly affects Alleycat, one of the most common objections is that elves are hugely bp-overpriced based on what you get.) I think the interpretation of the power should be based primarily on the text, not on the cost? -- although as it happens, I think it is appropriately priced for what you get.

(Please note that I'm not asking you to read what's been written in the main forums on this power. Even if others do consistently think it should allow suicidal commands with a threshold of, say, 4, we might not agree here. I'm trying to stay as close to text canon as possible, only.)

Still, as a cost point of comparison:

• Killing Hands (Physical damage instead of stun) costs 0.5 power point
• Berserk (+1 to all physical attributes and affected damage tracks for Magic = minutes, -1 to all mental attributes same period, free action to trigger, no drain) costs 1.0
• Enthralling Performance (not resisted, # of hits modify perception thresholds to all viewers for CH x 10 minutes) costs 0.5
• Elemental Strike costs 0.5, and doesn't even have drain

As a last note on cost, each and every spell now only costs 5 karma to acquire, the number of spells not limited by Magic attribute -- unlike adept abilities, which are so limited. In terms of power, the spell grows more powerful without cap based on a single attribute, as well as foci which can effectively increase that pool. Since it is based on CH + Leadership, the power of Commanding Voice is capped.

Finally, this power, as described, is most likely based off the Bene Gesserit "Voice" from Dune. For what it is worth, the power there is explicitly described again and again as reaction without thinking. For example, one person unties a captive's bonds, even though rational analysis would tell them this was suicide -- and indeed he is killed by that captive as soon as untying the bonds allowed it.

I'm sorry if I sound sharp on this -- but I thought we had this straight some time before, and I had thought the only problem was that I hadn't been wording it closely enough to your understanding of what was needed to evoke a specific reaction. Instead, your answer now uncovers a completely different interpretation where the power will NEVER be capable of some reactions because you think it should not be ... and that is not what the text says. If cost is your major issue: a gun is cheaper, is easier to use, is more likely to cause direct damage, and only requires a simple action to do so. If it is that this adept power simply should not have that amount of power, ... all I can say, after all I have said above, is that Shadowrun magic can be potent. As to whether it should be, in a canon game that is a developer issue, not ours.

GMs have to deal with character abilities that seem counter-intuitive to them all the time. During the Blimp of Doom scenario, I had a similar moment with Dragon: "He should not be able to do that!" But the strict reading of the text, plus the dice roll, said yes, he could: and so I bit the bullet and said yes, he did do that, even though the outcome utterly changed what I had believed to be the threat level. (Incidentally, SR4 makes it far, far more difficult to pull off the same thing.) You are now facing exactly the same situation with one of Alleycat's core abilities, one taken specifically for this kind of situation; and which, more importantly, defines who she is. Will you keep telling her that she cannot do that, based solely on your feeling that she should not be able to do that?

One quick reply to this, I have no problem with character abilities that seem counter-intuitive. I have no problem with stepping outside my own box of what is 'normal' to me. Alleycat's very existence should be proof enough of that.

However, when you ask if I will tell Alleycat she cannot use one of her core abilities specifically taken for this kind of situation, based solely on my feelings, you are asking a question you have not demonstrated any probable cause to ask.

My decision was based off of reasoning and my own logical interpretations, which I will expound upon when I fully reply to this. It seems the disparity in our thoughts may hinge on a different interpretation of the idea of 'subliminal'. Let me note I am open to the possibility I do not correctly understand the concept, and if upon review I am wrong, I will change my ruling.

But there is no point at which you can demonstrate or justifiably conclude our interpretations (and my subsequent ruling) differ solely because of feelings or personal dislike for either the power or its position as one of Alleycat's core abilities.

If you want to tell me my interpretation is wrong and argue as to why, that's certainly your prerogative to do so.

If you want to insinuate I am allowing a personal prejudice to illogically and unfairly form the sole basis for my decision, I think you need to present more conclusive evidence before you can start walking down that road.

After listening to all your points, I agree with this statement. However, I do not agree that it means the target [person(s) affected by subliminal influence] acts blindly without rational consideration of how best to go about carrying out that directive.

To use your case of subliminal advertising, your logic would suggest if I am at a car dealership, and I see something that subliminally influences me to buy a car I immediately buy the first car I see. I do not consider anything else; I just immediately buy the first car I possibly can.

That would be the most immediate, direct and literal path of acting on that subliminal influence. I think that is dramatically overstating the power of subliminal messaging. Your own article suggests that subliminal influences do not exert that precise level of control over people, so why should Commanding Voice have that kind of influence?

The way Commanding Voice is written, I contend there is a difference between the directive itself and the way that directive is obeyed.

My basis for this is found in the following statement:

It specifically states the only weight the command carries is the immediate impetuous. That is, the weight is in the directive itself. It says absolutely nothing about influencing how the target carries out said impetuous.

You suggest that they should have acted immediately and in as direct a fashion as possible, without considering at all how to carry out the directive. That they should have acted in a literal and unthinking way. But if the command carries no weight beyond its immediate impetuous, then all you can reasonably expect from it, no matter how many hits you achieve, is that they will do what you say. There is nowhere in the power’s description that supports the notion of being able to dictate how the target does what you say.

I agree that if I am subliminally influenced to buy a car, I will buy a car. Which car I buy, however, is an entirely different story. Similarly, while Commanding Voice forces someone to do something, I see nowhere in the rules indicating commanding voice has a level of control that forces them to obey in a specific way, even explicitly stating the only thing that carries any power over the targets is the immediate directive itself.

In fact, I would think you would want me to interpret Commanding Voice the way I have been, because it’s to your benefit that your targets act unthinkingly to obey your directive yet do so in the most optimal way they can. Where exactly is the downside in it for you if that is my interpretation?

If your intention was to get them to the ground floor, you could have said, ‘jump to the ground floor’ and they would have done exactly that. To me, it seems the issue is that you wanted to achieve two things:

1) Have them jump to the ground floor AND
2) Kill the enemy mage/onto other people

They all did the first part of your command (jump down) and B2 and B5 acted in the best way possible to carry out the second. B7 followed your orders to the best of his ability, even when it required rational thought to do so.

The fact that you couldn’t fit two such commands into five words strikes me as a limitation of the power, but I don’t think I at all nerfed the power by having them act in a way that was rationally considered. About all you can say they didn’t do is shoot at the mage or jump onto A11. But by your own interpretation, they use their next immediate action to do what you say and that’s it. The reason they didn’t shoot at the mage was because they ran out of actions within the time frame allowable to achieve both your directives. Basically, you tried to tell them to do something they could never have done, because they didn’t have enough actions to fully complete your orders, due to the duration of Commanding Voice.

It would have taken B2 and B5 at least a Complex to jump and a Simple to fire; B7 needed two Complex Actions to jump twice. The fact that there was something underneath him when you issued the command is a factor you did not take into consideration when you made the command. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t obey what you ordered. If you wanted him to run to a spot were he could jump without landing on something in order to jump down on those men, wouldn’t that require rational analysis since there was no one directly beneath him he could jump down on without jumping to the shelf first, then off the shelf onto A11?

So in summary, I agree there is no place for rational analysis of a directive issued by Commanding Voice. [As a side note, if you try to issue obviously directly harmful commands I will make it extremely difficult, because if direct dominance and control (e.g. Control Thoughts) has a very difficult time getting a target to do that, I do not believe subliminal influence, no matter how subtle, should be more effective.]

EDIT: By 'obviously directly harmful' I mean commands along the lines of 'shoot yourself in the head' (i.e. direct suicide), not the 'hold off the dragon just for a minute' (i.e. indirect suicide) types of commands.

I disagree there should be no rational analysis in how to carry out a directive. I do not see what the problem with this is though, because I’m not playing it like a wish spell in D&D where I try to screw you if you don’t word things exactly right. I was actively using this interpretation for your benefit, that the influenced people followed your commands to the best of their ability, even if thought was required to do so. The only way you can say I didn’t have them act optimally is if your primary intention was to get them to the ground level, and nowhere in your commands did you indicate that to be either a priority or a direct order.

Therefore, I do not believe in the slightest I am nerfing one of Alleycat’s core abilities. In fact, I think I have made it stronger by my interpretation. Consequently, in the practical and philosophical sides of the argument, I fail to see how there’s a problem at all, because you come out ahead in both instances.