Heheh... Wasn't me that cursed you... Though looking at you, whoever did curse you was definitely of an evil bent...

Har har. May your face fall off.

Heheheh... How rude

being distracted is very clearly defined. you count as being distracted when you are not taking an observe in detail action. additionally, the third modifier is "Perceiver is actively looking/listening for it". not just "perceiver is actively looking/listening", but the perceiver is in fact "looking for it". looking for what? well, specifically looking for whatever is being perceived.

"Are there any camouflaged blimps in the sky?" - you get +3 dice to detect camouflaged blimps in the sky. those bonus dice should probably be clearly marked, because they don't apply to anything else other than noticing camouflaged blimps in the sky.
"I'm spending an action to observe in detail. Do I notice anything?" - you get your regular dice pool to detect camouflaged blimps in the sky.
"Have I noticed anything unusual?" - you are at -2 dice to detect camouflaged blimps in the sky.

now, you can certainly argue what you would *like* the rules to say. but as has been pointed out, that clearly is not what the rules *do* say, and it's absurd to claim that they do. you don't have to like it. you don't have to use it in your home games. you can state what you think it should be, you can give reasons why you think it should be different, but none of those facts change the fact that the rules say that unless you spend an action to observe in detail, you get a -2 penalty.

now, as for whether or not the information about cyborgs is rules or not, that's just pure BS. it doesn't need numbers to be rules. otherwise, the section for using perception which clearly states "Gamemasters should limit their uses of Perception Tests, only calling for them when something is not mmediately noticeable or when a situation is so hectic that certain things might be overlooked." would not be a rule, and in order to properly play the game by the rules you would have to check perception for everything, even obvious things (which are given a threshold of 1, which is a number and therefore by your completely arbitrary and nonsensical basis a rule). it's in the rules section, not the fluff section, therefore it is a rule.

in fact, if that wasn't obvious enough, we have this on page 151: "The following rules provide you with the mechanics necessary to use them in your game."

it also discusses the previous fiction (ie not rules) having introduced three concepts, one of which is cyborgs, and then tells us that the rules follow. we can then go down to the cyborg section, and lo and behold, in this clearly marked rules section, it tells us that cyborgs are prevented from ever getting bored when active. they have stuff that reminds them to stay constantly alert and perceiving. so, that modifier for being distracted and failing to spend a simple action to observe in detail never applies unless they're spending all their actions on other things explicitly.

now, i suppose your players could attempt to pull some stupid stunt where they observe in detail every turn explicitly, but that's the players being douches and has nothing to do with the rules of the game. the players could also announce that they're doing a knowledge test every single turn just because they can, or that they're doing anything else on every single one of their turns just because they can. the problem is not that they have to be specifically observing, because the exact same situation where we substitute any other test would make for a game equally as crappy.

Player: I'm looking for sneaking ninjas.
GM: ah, so you're not looking for sneaking pirates. Distracted, -2 to spot the pirates.

Overly specific perception checks aren't your friend.

If you could kindly find the reference for where it says 'observe in detail is for a single specific object or effect' that would be great, cause as things sit, after reading the perception section repeatedly, it looks like its bonus dice for everything perception related that round or not, wheither you are specifically looking for it or not.

Observing "in detail" does suggest you're observing something specific. Maybe that was just an unfortunate way of phrasing it though, not what they meant.

Observe in detail isn't, but to get a +3 bonus to perception test you have to be activly looking for it, so for that you have to state what the it is your looking for.
And all of that was clearly said in the post you quoted

In no place in the rule does it even suggest you must be looking for something specific, merely diverting attention to actively search your environment.

Since you brought it up again, if the rules wanted cyborgs to never have to take Observe actions to avoid the -2 Distracted penalty, they would say so. The rules don't say it, so cyborgs are distracted exactly the same as everything else.

Now, I think I've made the consequences of the slavish reading of the distraction abundantly clear, so I won't go through it again. It's obvious that you aren't distracted by the task at hand with no task at hand; read above, above, and above for why.

While writing this you were at a -2 to notice the corp strike team moving into place behind you with Narcoject.

This seems terribly sensible. What's wrong with you?

Clearly your LSD is low. I find it funny that unless you are actively trying to find naked people (like say, dressing housewives through a window) while walking down the street, it's just as hard to notice a streaker by walking down the street as it is if you were reading War and Peace, playing the stocks game, and persuading Nebraska to vote you Govenor.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you need to announce: I take an OiD action for streakers.

Not needed. Personal attacks are against the ToS.

Wait PBangarth's post is okay? But That obvious joke reply from Killfr3nzy is not?

1) I think my post didn't draw a warning because I wasn't flaming the person I quoted, I was attempting humour. Obviously, I failed.

2) Killfr3nzy, I think Mooncrow, you and I are on the same page. His original post suggests that someone walking down the street would not be penalized in seeing the streaker, just because he wasn't actively looking for naked people. They would get their basic roll without negative or positive modifiers. Isn't that what you are saying, too?

read the original post which you quoted again. observe in detail removes a generic penalty. it has absolutely nothing to do with getting a +3 bonus, it merely determines whether or not you remove the -2 penalty for being distracted. this is now the second time someone has pointed out that you misunderstood the original post now, with the first time being the post by Mäx.

so the sneaking ninjas/pirates thing does not apply. you can be specifically looking for sneaking ninjas, and that has nothing to do with whether or not you're taking the -2, except for the fact that if you're specifically looking you would most likely have spent the action to observe in detail and would not suffer the -2 penalty (on a side note, ninjas are masters of disguise and as such, someone keeping an eye out for sneaking ninjas could very easily be also keeping an eye out for the possibility that those ninjas are disguised as (edit: something other than) ninjas )


nope. some things don't need perception checks, which i've already quoted. a streaker walking down the street typically won't need a perception check unless they're walking down a very crowded street and they're not particularly near you. but yes, in the event that you were not particularly paying attention to your surroundings while walking, you would be at a -2 to perception checks. just because you're not actively and visibly doing something doesn't mean your mind is focused on your surroundings. you could just as easily be thinking about that TV show you just watched, daydreaming about being a prime runner who can punch a dragon in the head and knock it out with ease, or any number of other things.



the rules don't say that cyborgs don't need to take the observe in detail action. they say that cyborgs are always alert, or in other words, they are able to constantly spend actions to observe in detail without getting bored of it and thinking of something else. now, if the cyborg is using all of its actions on something else, it could still be distracted potentially, but a cyborg that is on guard duty is going to always be spending those simple actions.

If that's true, then we're right back where I said we were: all PCs (and NPCs) constantly declaring Observe actions. Cyborgs are not different at all.

Well, when I looked it up, I was pretty surprised;



It's an unfortunate rule; you're always either focused (+3) or distracted (-2), there's no middle ground. There is a point to it though; Observe in Detail costs a Simple Action. If PCs are always taking Simple Actions to Observe in Detail, they cannot take any Complex Actions, ever. Particularly in combat, when actions are at a premium, there is an opportunity to do sneaky stuff with less chance of people noticing.

Of course, as a GM I'd have to inject some common sense in certain cases.
- If some other action also requires an integrated Perception test to spot the target, such as casting a spell at a somewhat-concealed target, that's a "free" Perception test, with no penalty for being distracted by the very thing you're trying to spot.
- Taking Aim at someone clearly means you're not getting penalties on Perception tests to spot things about the thing you're aiming at.

But that should be obvious.

Yes, it makes sense in combat, and in any other situation where there's a task at hand to distract you. In all other situations, you still have to constantly declare Observe actions.

That's the problem: it *only* makes sense if you're in an Initiative Pass context. If you're watching TV, or programming, or whatever, you have plenty of available Observe actions, so you're never distracted; even though obviously you should be. Guards on patrol, again, would never be distracted, because they're not using up their actions. Ditto for many Extended Tests, which tend to be distracting, but which may well leave you with plenty of 'free' actions to Observe… all the time. And the ever-present fun fact that all your PCs will be declaring so that they don't have to take the -2 (again, even when they actually *are* distracted). Talking, for example, is a free action; Dropping Prone, apparently not distracting at all; you do the math.

Yeah, I think we're all in agreement on what the rules actually say - the question is if those rules are nonsensical to the point of upsetting gameplay.

Yes, but then some of your attention is devoted to typing this. On the other-hand, if you're standing around with your hands in your pockets just taking in the scenery, I don't really see the -2 applying.

See, technically writing was a free action, leaving me 2 Observes in that Pass alone.

No, I didn't misunderstand the original post. A statement was made that observe in detail requires you to look for something specific, for which I pointed out is not actually listed anywhere under the observe in detail action as a requirement.

Not so much I think. I think people should be able to see that spending a Simple Action every IP to Observe in Detail all the time is unlikely; you'd never get anything done in your life if all your Simple Actions were leaking away.

But yeah, sneaking along while keeping a careful watch out - makes you go a lot slower. Makes sense to me.

No, only when you're *not* actually distracted.

alright, let's look back here. i was responding to:

"I see three "Observation" modifiers...

-2 for Distracted
+/- 0 for neither distracted nor observing
+3 for Observing in Detail (i.e. +3 for actively Looking)

Those are your choices...
If you are neither observing, nor distracted, you have no bonus/penalty...

My opinion anyways..."

and i responded with:

"being distracted is very clearly defined. you count as being distracted when you are not taking an observe in detail action. additionally, the third modifier is "Perceiver is actively looking/listening for it". not just "perceiver is actively looking/listening", but the perceiver is in fact "looking for it". looking for what? well, specifically looking for whatever is being perceived.

"Are there any camouflaged blimps in the sky?" - you get +3 dice to detect camouflaged blimps in the sky. those bonus dice should probably be clearly marked, because they don't apply to anything else other than noticing camouflaged blimps in the sky.
"I'm spending an action to observe in detail. Do I notice anything?" - you get your regular dice pool to detect camouflaged blimps in the sky.
"Have I noticed anything unusual?" - you are at -2 dice to detect camouflaged blimps in the sky."

notice the first paragraph discusses that the -2 is the difference between spending an action or not spending an action, with a further observation that the +3 modifier is not for observing in detail, it's for looking for something specific. then, just in case my point was not clear, i very clearly listed THREE different situations, one of which specifically used the normal dice pool without getting the +3 bonus while spending an action to observe in detail, and none of which required that you have something specific you're looking for to observe in detail (although it seems probable that if you're looking for something specific, you're doing so actively with an observe in detail action)

you, sir, appear to be arguing with the wrong person. you want to go nitpick someone's post, you go nitpick the guy i quoted and corrected, don't nitpick me for correcting him.

Says the individual who thought I had been corrected twice... when I said the 'observe in detail action did not require a specific intended target of observation? I think the pot is attempting to call the kettle black.

But here is the crux of the situation... If your TASK AT HAND is to be guarding, then by definition, you are NOT DISTRACTED while you are on Guard Duty (So NO DISTRACTED Penalty). And If I wanted to focus more on my task at hand by looking directly for Infiltrators (Whether they be Pirates or Ninja) then I would also benefit from the +3 for Actively Perceiving... Makes sense to me... And completely contradicts what our good Friend Jaid opines... But then again, I am only quoting a quote of a Book Reference...

NOTE: Task at hand is the deciding Qualifier in the quote that is from the Books...

Wait, unless you specifically state you are making an observe in detail action you are at -2. You are totally distracted by the task at hand of looking for things out of the ordinary to see the things that are out of the ordinary.

Actually...



Now... Your surroundings are whatever are outside the purviews of the Task at Hand. You are performing a task... You are dedicated to that Task... You are completely occupied by that Task, and you will make perception checks within the purviews of that Task at no penalty)... anything else outside of your current task (within the boundries of your surroundings) will be noticed with a Perception Check at a -2 (Distracted by your Task)... Unless of course, it is obvious, at which point you make no roll whatsoever (This is, of course, a GM Call)...

Now, any other interpretation is ludicrous, as you would otherwise suffer a -2 Dice penalty to everything that you do (Including your Task at Hand)... So Obviously, your Task at hand is not penalized...

So what Tasks at Hand are your pursuing?
Whatever your Task is, of course...

Guard Duty
Combat
Spellcasting
Writing a Novel
Putting a Car together
Cleaning a Gun
Building a House
etc.

Your CURRENT Task is not penalized for perception Purposes... It cannot work any other way...

I tend to agree with Tymeaus and Yerameyahu for the most part, but figured I'd chime in.

In combat it's pretty obvious, you need to use the Observe in Detail to remove the -2 penalty, simply by the nature of combat rules, and this makes sense considering how distracting combat is. Don't take the action while in combat and you suffer the -2 penalty. Easy.

Out of combat is a different story. Since most GMs don't play IP to IP, one can assume that in a period of a minute a person can perform many Observe in Detail actions and have similarly several distractions during that time. This is where the task at hand part becomes important really. If the task is directly involving observing then that task should be considered an extended Observe in Detail action, being renewed without the need to declare and thus removing the -2 penalty. Examples would be patrolling, standing guard, watching a monitor for activity etc. The GM is still free to bring back that -2 penalty if they like though; if they feel the NPC or PC isn't devoting enough of their time to an observing related activity, or has a reasonable reason (like having music playing in your cyberears while patrolling).

Funny thing is that the -2 distracted modifier and the +3 Actively Searching aren't mutually exclusive and the two modifiers could potentially be in use at the same time. Also, the +3 Actively Searching doesn't require an Observe in Detail action either, it's just the norm. But for example if you knew what you were looking for and were distracted in the middle of your search you could still be reasonably eligible for the +3 Actively Searching Bonus. For instance, you were looking for a credstick. That's a +3 bonus. While looking someone started shooting at you and you began combat. In the middle of the fight a table gets overturned (it had the credstick on top of it). You're certainly distracted unless you stop fighting, but your life is on the line so you keep shooting. Well, the GM gives you a Perception check. You get the -2 distracted bonus but since there is no mechanical action "Actively Searching", it doesn't necessarily stop when other actions are taken, and the GM might (and rightly so) give you the +3 bonus at the same time, resulting in a +1 modifier. This works because by RAW "Actively Searching" is a situational modifier, not a type of action.

*Edit: Accidentally posted WAY before I was finished. Apparently I have forum hotkeys, who knew?

it does not much matter what your current task is, if you don't take an observe in detail action, you are at -2 to perceive. if your task at hand is perceiving, then presumably you are actively perceiving, by spending a simple action to observe in detail, and therefore do not take a -2 penalty. if you are shooting or spellcasting, then you still take it. you either take the time to make sure you've got a fix on their location (spend a simple action) or you take the penalty. even in the middle of combat, when you're shooting at someone, it still makes perfect sense that if you spend a bit of time perceiving you will be better at it.

now of course, like i said several times, you only have to perceive in the first place if the situation calls for it. in many cases, you won't need to make a perception test at all, because the target is just not that hard to spot. but if the situation calls for a perception check, then you either must spend an action to observe in detail or take the -2 penalty. claiming that you should somehow not get the penalty because you're shooting or casting a spell at someone is silly, because you *can't* shoot at someone or cast a spell at someone until you have already perceived them; otherwise you wouldn't know where to shoot or cast a spell at.

so first you perceive the person, and then once you actually know where to aim, that's when you get to spend your action to shoot at the person. alternately, you may attempt to shoot blind if you have a rough idea of where the person is, i suppose. but either way, you can't be aiming your gun at the same time as you're trying to figure out where someone is, because if you're trying to figure out where someone is then you obviously don't know where to aim your gun, and any aiming of the gun would be pointless.

That whole issue doesn't matter, because you're right (and wrong): situations of shooting *wouldn't* have perception tests (for the purpose of shooting that target), and shooting tests don't suffer *perception test* penalties. As you say, you've already perceived the target by the time you're considering shooting (blind fire is a separate issue). There is no 'not getting the penalty', because that penalty doesn't exist. That was settled on page 1, so we can ignore that.

So… "if your task at hand is perceiving, then presumably you are actively perceiving, by spending a simple action to observe in detail"? Sounds like somebody just argued that the Observe action is *assumed* in some situations, and therefore the -2 penalty doesn't apply when it doesn't make sense.

LOL.
You were corrected twice, i did so almost immidiatly after your post.
Maybe read the whole thread again before posting, so you have your facts straight and don't make pointless accusatoíons.

point being, you must perceive the target before you shoot. therefore, there is no perception test as part of the shooting test. you must already have perceived the target. (and actually, i believe i already acknowledged that perception modifiers don't apply to spellcasting or shooting tests at least once, so i'm not sure why you feel the need to rehash that)

in attempting to perceive the target, you must either spend that simple action, or take the -2 penalty. that's all there is to it. if you are now shooting at them, it's because you perceived the target, either by taking the test or by beating their infiltration (or exceeding the threshold, depending)

and yes, i'm assuming that if someone is actively guarding, then they are spending the simple action to not be distracted. because actively guarding is essentially actively making perception tests, and actively making perception tests is called observing in detail in game terms, and observing in detail is done by spending simple actions. i'm not sure what your point is, here. naturally, if something comes up that would keep them from spending a simple action, they go right back to taking -2 on their perception tests. and if they're *supposed* to be guarding, but aren't really paying attention, then they just wouldn't be spending the simple action even though they're not spending it on something else.

So smoke (normal and thermo) effects your shooting as does cover and partial cover. I think every one agree's to that? So why shouldn't the same modifiers apply to casting a spell? This goes around the whole perception question of LOS. After all you need LOS to shoot some one with a firearm or at least the potential of LOS.

I said you were right (about having already perceived the target). I don't think anyone seriously suggested that you can detect a hidden target *and* shoot it in the same action.

Now, if you were just standing around looking for targets, that's a Surprise test anyway, not a Perception test.

My point is that I said a dozen posts ago that you have two options: either require characters to constantly take (and declare) Observe actions, or admit that you're not distracted by the task at hand if there is no task at hand. You just did, by assuming that people on guard duty don't take -2 *and* don't have to announce Observe actions.

Those do apply to casting spells. They're Visibility penalties.

Visibility modifiers absolutely affect spellcasting rolls.

SR4A page 183 - "The Spellcaster rolls Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers."

I will have to go back and check my book but while I agree with you Mooncrow i don't remember the RAW saying anywhere that visibility modifiers affect spell casting. I may have just blanked it though.

Sorry, posted, then went back and edited in the page and quote.

I did find it. The thing I find interesting is that they don't treat partial and full cover as visibility modifiers. At least on that chart. They have them under the defence modifier chart. As to my thinking it is still effecting the spellcasters ability to see the target should those modifiers be added onto the targets resistence tot he spell?

Well, for cover, it's kind of an all or nothing thing as far as spellcasting's concerned. But then that goes back to the LOS debate^^

That used to be the way it was handled. They made the change mostly because it was such an often overlooked modifier. People tend to recall modifiers that grant dice rather then subtract. Additionally, it also now mirrors how cover works with mundane attacks made against them, also making recalling more likely.

Also it falls a little under the metagaming/cheating part... previously the caster might recall and not speak up because it decreases their pool, but with the change it doesn't alter their pool, it increases the defender's. Mentally, having big pools is very satisfying so the spellcaster is more likely to speak up just because it doesn't hurt theirs. It's also easier for the defender to remember and in their best interest so they're more likely to remember. Silly, I know, but it's human nature. Point is they changed it to be easier to remember and include.

Speaking of a need to read, someone MIGHT want to review the text they are quoting. POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

It also removes the whole "more likely to crit glitch just bevause they're harder to see" thing. Though that change was more for gun users, having it this way keeps it consistent.

That too.

Edited for dumbassedness

jimbo, he's just talking about Cover.

Indeed...

Edit: Ninja'd