Ok I was thinking about the amount of dice that translate into how leety mic leet a shadowrunner actually is. Lets say people are pulling 5-7 hits on average (due to dice pools of 15-24) does it make the runs a shadow run character stand out? I mean I just think that if there are maybe five incidents where it is shown that a bullet always manages to find the same exact chink in the armor, and using ballistics they can find that the same type of rounds and gun was used would this not narrow who could have done something like that to a select few?

Lets not use guns, but instead look at the pornomancer. I don't think someone who throws 30+ dice at a situation has anything to say about not standing out like a sore thumb. An average of around 9-11 hits would probably make (insert your favorite ultra hot celeb) look like a three month old water logged corpse. Wouldn't someone like this not matter how hard they changed around their face still be easily tracked?

I would just think that an entire team that uses high dicepools are very likely be a huge flaming beacon on every single run that they attempt (assuming that the matter is investigated.) Or (and here is the important part) am I just crazy?

Think you're mostly crazy here.

I don't want to go to heavily into why right now, as I'm mostly hot on another topic on another forum at the moment...

I would think so too. It begs the question of why people with beyond world class skills are still in the shadows, and not raking in millions of yen doing other, less illegal stuff. I mean, if you don't have a problem shooting down random corpsec guards, why would you have a problem training those same guards or maybe serving on a corporate black ops team for significantly more cred?

Being extremely good at somethign and standing out are 2 completely different things, otherwise the best people would be the ones in charge...

This is going to depend largely on what those runners do with those huge dicepools. For example having 20 dice in stealth used to be sneaky isn't going to generate a lot of notice, quite the opposite it will probably almost never be noticed. Having 20 dice in thrash metal guitar and regularly putting on dazzling performances at the local bar will generate attention. Then there are things that would be harder to figure. Really good con artists can go years without ever being picked up on, or they can start attracting attention right away. My bottom line, what the runners do with those big dice pools is more important then just having big dice pools.

Well yes fluff wise it doesn't work out I guess, but I always thought shadowrunners are people who have fallen through the cracks and were either once hot shots, or for one reason or another were just never were given the time of day. Forensics as of today are pretty awesome, and it will probably only get better. Lodging a bullet into the dead center of someone's eye every single time I would think stands out in an investigation. Yes I know there are people unwilling to disclose a lot of information, but seriously I would think that at least the teams crimes could easily be tracked. If the team doesn't show face, or get caught why is it so hard to believe that their actions won't stand out? There are also shadowrunners who don't throw crazy insane dice at a situation, but using custom weapons and all sorts of fancy tricks I would just think will wind up being traceable.

If a mage always walks around using mind probe and mind control, while the sniper always uses his trusty gun armed with armor piercing rounds, and the rigger uses the same three drones why is it so hard to believe?

*edit* On a side note the examples I used on people standing out I believe are valid. Someone who goes about not being seen or a sneaky conman are totally different then the crazy gun adept, or someone who really rocks on something that would draw attention. If a crazy stealth adept or mage walks into a facility w/o raising any bells and whistles and walks out with some crazy hard to get at document I would think it is still something that narrows down the pool of who could actually have the chops to do that. *edit*

Yea, but that has nothing to do with dice pools.

Sure you can start profiling a shadowrunner team, if there is a reason to start with it. Usually you won't have that, and if you do it is not depending on your dice pool.

Mind probe/mind control dissipate after Force hours. Doesn't matter how good you are, the signature is gone.

Always using the same equipment is horribly stupid in SR. At least, if you make a habit of leaving evidence behind. Using a generic off the shelf ares pred is a lot harder to track around than using a special custom loaded something or other gun.

That's really the essence of it. They fall in to patterns of behavior that allows them to be tracked, it's not the scale of their skill that's noticed it's the way it's used. If a sniper is always using the same gun a ballistics profile will get built up on it along with a Method of Operation profile. I think this is what the Street Cred/Notoriety/Public Awareness rules are roughly supposed to track in a very abstract fashion. Maybe the place to handle this is to periodically hand out an extra PA point, say if the team is repeatedly using the same gear and tactics.

Usually that pattern screams inside job.

A social conman IS a pornomancer. At least as close to one as we have IRL for example.

This also brings up another question. Do the different corps and Lone Star all share information? If you hit Ares one run and then Wuxing another are they going to share you method of operation? I could see them profiling you if you keep hitting the same corp.

Okay: longer response:

rolling 80 Dice to rappel down the side of a building? that's an impressive amount of dice, indeed it is. Will anyone notice?

They'll notice that the threshold was 4 and that you made it handily. Lots of people could make that threshold in the rappelling world, among them you won't stand out particularly. Oh, but then they might notice that it was during a hurricane AND a blizzard and you did it while fighting ninja! and having your arm cut off just before you started...


In other words, unless you can point to massive quantities of obvious penalties and nigh impossible feats they did with their skill? Not particularly. Just because I rolled a lot of hits on my massive dice pool of DOOM does not mean that my shot was any more spectacular than any other. What they'll see is that some guy used a 44 magnum to put one bullet into each security guard, killing each of them. Good shooting, certainly. They won't know if its because you called the shot each time or you are just damn good enough to kill with one shot apiece. They won't know all the penalities you had to overcome to do so, won't know what cool modifiers might have helped you out.

The more evidence they have of those, the better grasp of your dicepool they'll get.

Eh: there is a guy who tosses playing cards like gambit, only without the mutant power, then quickdraws a revolver and cuts the card in half in midflight. Its an impressive trick, and he's damn good at shooting from a quickdraw. But we only KNOW he's damn good because he insists on demonstrating it with every shot. He is shooting against a fuckload of penalties every time he shoots, and he hits every time.

Now: if your 'massive Dice Pool of Doom' players are regularly doing something just to make a challenge for themselves they'll stand out a hell of a lot more than if they just succeeded at more ordinary stuff all the time. Dice pools in and of themselves do not 'stand out'... its what you do with them. Do ordinary stuff exceedingly well just doesn't draw much attention. Its doing extreme stuff reliably that draws attention.

This is an interesting question. It really depends on the Corps and the locale of the run. If all the runs happened on different extraterritorial corporate grounds probably not. On the other hand all the corps regularly spy on each other (hence why runners are in business) so even if they are not sharing the info still may get passed around. Sometimes it may be to the advanatage of two corps to work together, some corps get along better than others after all, and they might share info. Lonestar, Knight Errant, and any other contracted law enforcement cops may be required to share info with other entities (such as the UCAS FBI) as a term of their contract. Finally, while it would not be common, the information could always be obtained via legal action in the corporate court. Of course if the targets are not all extraterritorial Corporate grounds belonging to different corps (which would be more typical), repeats are more likely and patterns will start to build up.

If the best person ever does multiple jobs, they might assume that the jobs were all done by the same person, because no two people in the same area could be that good.

But that doesn't mean they could find the person later. Just because you're great doesn't mean everyone will know it, especially if you keep it under your hat. Or even if it's well known, people in the shadow community aren't known for volunteering information to cops or corps.

A good real life example is the Green River Killer. A very identifiable pattern and it still took decades for Gary Ridgeway to be identified and caught.

All valid points, and yes rappelling down a building like a crazy mofo would not bring the heat. Now doing it like a pro when everything around you is exploding is a different matter. Most GM's generally throw a combat situation at a team, and does the crazy gun adept whip out his gun and start nailing people with short narrow bursts to the head? Your bet your ass they generally do! How hard you bring the hammer allows people to know how hard it was brought.

Yes your signature could not be traced if someone used mind control and mind probe, but when the character who was used like a puppet finally wakes up he/she knows that they were mind probed.

Now there is something to be totally said about the amount of public data and how much an event is investigated, but don't shadowrunners build up a rep in some small way? If they do things silently and great care do they build a general reputation for it or is it only the Johnson that hired them?

I never thought having your actions be traced one way or another was a good thing or a bad thing (since there was a long discussion about how shadowrunners would probably not be totally annihilated if it was found out that they pulled a run on a facility.) I was just thinking how much does it create a stir when large dice pools come into play? 4 successes over the threshold is a critical success. If someone can constantly critical success in combat I just thought it would make some sort of pattern.

*edit* Yes not showing face = awesome, but I would just think that eventually it does create a sort of buildup that shadowrunners should know that the more runs they do it does create more standing pressure for PC's to be creative and not use plan A in every situation. I was thinking as a GM that the mounting pressure on a team to not get caught and make a run even more pro makes sense. It also would allow me to throw bigger challenges in their face, while at the same time making sure the one trick pony finds himself another trick. *edit*

I think you would start to stand out under a large string of conditions.
1) The even is recorded and disseminated.
2) People become aware of the penalties.
3) Something like gear/ware/spell/type of spirit/MO, link enough repeated events to indicated a pattern/individual
4) You allow said profile to get linked to you

A runner should be doing everything they can avoid meeting conditions 1, 3, and 4. 2 Is unavoidable in many cases. 3 is almost completely under the character's control.

If the character are running for a cause I could see a pro-file getting build up quick. "hey para-critter research facilities are getting hit with a team that can slice though all on-site magical defenses, and use "demolish gun" cast by a shaman". If you are taking random jobs all anyone could deduce is that lots of high level jobs have magical back-up and X% of them have wreck gun used.

Very true, but any GM who wants to have a good story arc will probably not just create random runs for the party to do. Very likely a team will hit a corp or government more then once (in a plot arc,) and eventually they will hit a corp more then once if they have played the game long enough.

Well, if this is something you want to keep in mind in a game, what you need to do is keep sort of a 'card counting' system on each potentially 'legendary' dice pool the players bring to the table.

It goes a little something like this:


Determine the 'baseline' for a shadowrunner who doesn't stand out, be it hacking or shooting or what have you. Put it in terms of number of hits if you want smaller numbers or 'DP' if you want more granularity. Either way lets say you think the 'average' Shadowrunner has a pistols of 12, say. thats a 4/12 baseline, either number works.

Now: when the player does something, determine if your baseline could do it 'on average'. Shooting a man to death is something a '12' could do with a heavy pistol with one shot, shooting a troll to death... less so. Leave off armor and defense scores for the moment. Or leave armor on... Now: it doesn't matter if the target is defending himself from being shot since that's not a 'quantifiable factor' in forensic science. But called shots to the face are: Could the baseline do a called shot to the face and still kill a motherfucker? Sure he could.

Now, the key is to factor in recordable/recorded penalties. Darkness? Doesn't count unless you can prove the shooter lacks lowlight or thermal vision. Wound penalities? Probably not unless, again, you have a very strong record of just how hurt he was.

Then you have to add in reasonable assumptions as bonuses too. IF only one guard was shot, by surprise, you have to assume aiming. You can assume smartlinks and other benefitial mods that are likely.

Once it's all said and done you have a few options:

It was possible for your baseline to do the shot
It was difficult for your baseline to do the shot
It was impossible for your baseline to do the shot.

Now: if it was possible, no change, but if it was difficult you add +1 to a tally (starting at zero). If it was impossible, you add +2.

There is a flipside, however. Everytime they FAIL you do the same thing in reverse. If the shot was impossible, and they failed, you add nothing. If it was difficult and they failed, you subtract one and if it was 'possible' and they failed you subtract 2. The farther from zero they stay on either side, the more famously good or bad they are.


Of course, you CAN expand this by determining their 'potential average' ability, that is the 'public' perception of how good they are by reverse engineering what their likely DP baseline is based on the shots they regularly make.

I'd recommend keeping a spreadsheet of rolls if that's what you're trying to do.

It doesn't matter how much overkilling they are doing, mind you. People die from bad luck wounds all the time, and bullets that kill armored folks are obviously not, generally, punching through armor they couldn't reasonably puncture but hitting areas where the armor is weak (end?) or non-existant. Defensive maneuvers are almost impossible to quantify (though setting up a baseline assumption of how dodgy people are as a factor isn't uncalled for... but it'll be low), and high body ditto. A single bullet in the right place can kill anyone. Sometimes that right place isn't that hard to hit.


But thats a LOT of work for little payoff. On the other hand, if you players WANT to be known for their leet skills, it also gives you a reason why they aren't.

"Billy, try doing more extreme shots if you want people to know how badass you are. Maybe richochet a shot off that guys helmet into his buddies eye. Do it three or four times in a row so people don't know its a fluke..."

Teams that are serious one trick ponies have a pretty obvious MO.

Well whatever happens, these guys always do X, Y, and Z... even if that really isn't the best way to go about it.

I think that's very independent of dice rolls.

Yeah, but just having that straightjacketed MO does not necessarily imply that they have extreme Dice Pools of Doom.


Of course, every time I see a post about how 'hyper optimal specialized Runners are the way to go' I just get all twitchy inside.


Just because it is commonly true at the table, where GM's often fail to bring players to task for not taking useful skills even at low 'subsitance' level, does not make it objectively true.

The bad guys, apparently, always try to square off with the guy best suited to stop them in their games. Which is funny, 'cause in real life most people go after the guy they are sure they can beat, unless they have an emotional reason to go after someone else 'get him, he called my wife a dirty trog!'....

My post was a somewhat extreme take on how to handle the potential reputation/MO building of extreme dice pools of doom, in accordance with the OP. I, for one, am far to lazy to actaully TRY something like that....

Not to throw this too far off topic... but why does it make you all twitchy inside?

@Spike, yeah that is a lot of work but you can use your line of thinking and just wing the whole thing ... which is actually pretty much how I roll. My table goes to such lengths to remain untraceable. It really isn't that much work to keep track of everything the world could know about them, and quickly decide what of that any given NPC would have assess to.

On this thread I think "Huge dice" and "One Trick Ponies" are getting conflated. Huge DPs are hard to deduce and harder attribute to an individual/profile. One trick ponies are much much easier to ID and attribute.

A bit too much knowledge of how this sort of thing really works in the world? That's a stretch, but it sort of works.

See, Shadowrun seems to be based on some weird idea of a 'bank heist movie', like Oceans eleven, where you got your social monkey, your vault guy, whatever. That sort of works okay, but if you pay attention, even still, you'll have several 'social monkeys'... more exactly cross overs between specialization, even then. Sure: Frank might be your 'go to guy' for hacking, but if he's busy with the main project, Joey and Timmy are pretty decent at it too, they can easily handle stuff like taking control of the CCTV network or spoofing outgoing calls to the cops. Meanwhile Frank is immersed totally in breaking the glacier that covers the paydata.

Real life 'operators', that is Special Forces, terrorists and more tend to work under similar principles. Anything worth knowing how to do 'in the field' is worth EVERYONE knowing how to do 'in the field'. Sure, you may only need one guy that actually knows how to build a bomb, but you don't take that guy with you to hijack a plane.





This goes back to what I said about making me twitchy. See, the GM tosses up a 'net threat' for the party, and then lets just the hacker deal with it. That's common, which is why hyperspecialists work. But its also lazy and very unrealistic. The hacker can't be everywhere and do everything, and free instant communication/johnny on the spot behavior is easy when bullshitting around a table, but if you start mapping shit (like we do for gun combat...) it gets a bit harder. Why should we treat all the social stuff and hacker stuff as things that 'one guy' gets to do.

Its should go like this: Sure you have your face, but lets say the Sammy gets the call from the contact. He can't just hand the phone off, its too desperate a situation, the Face is busy doing something, and the contact is skittish as it is. That Sammy better have at least a few points of social monkey in him or the contact 'walks' and they lose access to that asset.

On the op, the hacker is busy dealing with the rigged LMG equipped light drone pinning the party down while the hammer drops. Then the Adept notices that his commlink is being hacked. What? He doesn't have any computer skills? He doesn't notice that he's being hacked? Well, I guess the entire party's network is compromised utterly.

That's realistic, that's what SHOULD be happening to the party on runs. Maybe not every fight, but often enough that a team of hyperspecialists starts to feel the pain. Maybe they lose someone early... like the demo guy getting dropped by a sniper en route to the mcguffin... which happens to be boobytrapped.

Frankly: Not doing this sort of thing is lazy and sloppy GMing. It's kid gloving the situation. If the party doesn't have good 'E-coverage', then they won't get hired to do jobs requiring it, certainly. But they WILL get hired if their e-coverage comes from one specialist, even if that guy goes down because he looks frail and easily droppable to the sec guards looking to reduce incoming fire.


Hyperspecialist only teams are horribly riddled with glaring fault lines, which is why, again, real world types don't use them. Not touching those faultlines in a game, particularly like Shadowrun, is ignoring the elephant in the room.

Thus it is horrifically bad advice brought on by lazy GMing. Its ubiquity is what makes me twitch.

Most gun bunnies (sammies or adepts who specialize at killing shit) generally have 1-4 points in ettiquette, and 2-4 charisma. Even the over super specialized fantastical ones.


Sadly, agents fix this one up nice and easy. Hacker buys and cracks an agent. Distributes it to the team. Along with analyze. The agent is better than any generalist would be for detecting intrusions, and for a quick fix, it can either notify the hacker (if the hacker wants to fight, he can jump over and pwn the intruder) or it could just reboot the commlink, booting out anyone.



I disagree. Its very easy to make a hyperspecialist, with 2-4 skill in the key other areas (infiltration, ettiquette, and buying an agent).

Plus, some roles aren't fair to call "hyperspecialists", since being a hacker, mage, or face takes an entire set of skills. And general combat types can usually be specialized at their main combat schtick, good at a few others, and either have an entire extra specialty (such as field medic), or be pretty well-rounded. Even a hyper-specialist, such as Cain's Mr. Lucky, can still have the bare minimum of skills for basic functionality outside of the specialty. You only get the one-trick ponies from people who hyper-specialize and botch their min-maxing.

Then this moves to 'what is an adequete dice pool'?

Give the sheer volume of Sammies I've seen with 1 charisma, even a 2-4 dicepool for ettiquet might not make an adequet pool for a given situation.

A nervous reluctant contact who would rather walk than wait a few minutes for the Face to pick up the line (or in fact, would walk the moment the situation gets more complex that 'you and me talk... right fucking now'... is probably NOT going to respond to '3 to 5 dice' very well, and ettiquette might not even be the skill needed. Maybe he thinks the guy on the commlink is the dude they just whacked, and the Sammy's stuck trying to Con him?

Until you dicepool starts hitting 8 its not going be be adequete for referencing 'cross trained'. Not every player needs every skill crosstrained to that level, but certainly a 'well rounded' character should have more than one secondary area they are competent in (and, as I just pointed out, that typically involves several skills...)...

As for Agents, first of all, I've addressed that numerous times, and I'm sure you've seen some of my responses here: again, game mastering skills become important. Point the first: Controlling an agent properly requires taking time to issue it commands, and if the hacker has a standard issue set of commands he's written down for 'everyones pet agent' then he's probably missed a trick. You bet that is going to come up, agents are not AI's...

More imporantly, as a GM I get to make calls on things not covered by the rules. As a GM Its my DUTY to make that Hacker crack that program in game, and preferrably while juggling other duties.

But lets get to that GM calls: Since everyone on the team is using identical software (all cracked copies...) I can provide a bonus to enemy Ewar checks once they've sussed that out. If I want I can even rule that cracked software (lacking copy protection) is easier to crash.

But I know what you'll say: that's houseruling.

Sure it is, then again, so is declaring that enemy security teams include at least two e-war specialists.

But lets move away from 'houserules' for the moment: Do you really want to trust your teams security to a blind piece of software? I mean, the GM can roll the software's pool behind a screen without telling the players anything, and a skilled hacker (complete with edge) should be able to roll right over it.


But tell you what, since I know this isn't going to go anywhere as is, how about you tell me the typical dice pools for your average team of hyperspecialists and I'll point out the specific weaknesses.

Or better yet, you can tell me exactly what advantage having a dude who can do one thing to superhuman levels four times over (in four different fields) is significantly better than having four dudes who can do several things to elite professional levels with lots of crossover, and several other secondary jobs to moderately professional levels.

I mean, a pornomancer can totally wring every possible drop out of one contact/johnson, but a team of four can still have a guy who can wring pretty much ever drop out of that same contact/johnson, if a bit slower and with more work, while having three other contacts being worked at the same time to more than adequet levels. And that's just one level.

First, I don't count attribute 1 characters. if they have an attribute at 1, I consider the player to be min-maxing to the point of stupidity (in general) and wouldn't accept one. Now, if someones character background and such could justify a rating 1 attribute, I might let it slide.

I'm a big fan of at least 2, if not 3 in every single attribute. Why? Because, you just should have it.

As far as you being willing to point out holes, post any of your "well-rounded" characters, and I'll point out the holes just as easily.

To me, properly min-maxed characters have to be able to get at least 3 hits by trading in dice before situational dice modifiers come in, that means 12 dice base(which also translates into an average of 4 hits if rolled). They should have at least 4 to 6 dice as their basic dice pool for everything else with a backup Edge of at least 3 to 4. These characters have a triangular/pyramid shaped dice pool structure.

Min-maxed hyperspecialists should have 1 dice pool that they can trade dice for 4 hits - 16 dice with at least 4 dice for their other dice pools, but with Edge of at least 4 to 5 now. They have roughly the same skill structure as normal min-maxed PCs but the sides of the triangle are curved in a concave manner - they have the same minimum dice as the others but trade in more of those non-essential dice for higher dice pools in their primary specialty but if the merde really hit the ventilateur, they can perform as well as their other min-maxed counterparts.

>Give the sheer volume of Sammies I've seen with 1 charisma, even a 2-4 dicepool for ettiquet might not make an adequet pool for a given situation.

Honest question, what is the volume of Sammies you've seen with 1 charisma? If it's dump shock most of the "Critique my <blank>" style threads posted by newbies with builds like you are talking about get blasted for it. The rest are pure though experiments. If it's RL experience why did you stay at a table with a GM who let that fly, or keep GMing for players who don't learn or leave when you tooled them for pulling that a stunt like that.

*thinks*

I don't think I've sat a table with a 1 anything anybody since I was under the age of consent. The rare exception being someone playing a physically disabled character.

Typically we all just point and laugh if you try to claim that you are a properly functioning runner with a 1 in any attribute.

An Attribute of 1 means that you are either too new to the game to know that it is a poor choice, or you are interested in playing a character who is genuinely dysfunctional in some way - an antisocial loner, a dumb as a brick troll, a basement geek hacker, etc.

But the viability of certain character concepts depends on both the GM and the game world. Just as some characters would get chewed up in a high-powered game, some characters are too flawed to work in a "realistic" or "professional" game. I don't understand the knee-jerk hostility towards Attribute - 1 characters though. If I were the GM, I would explain to the player why it would be a bad idea to have that Attribute at 1. For Charisma, for instance, you will not be able to default on social skills. An Attribute of 1 does merit some explanation. An Attribute of 2 is just below average, but an Attribute of 1 is clumsy, stupid, antisocial, etc. and needs an explanation in the character's background.

I agree with quite a lot of what you say except for the fact when dealing with the fact that software is not awesome and you shouldn't entrust the party with it. An agent 6 functions at a logic 6 character essentially, which means it's pretty smart. I mean if people summon a force 6 spirit does it has to be given very, very specific instructions and can't infer about anything you say? If a spirit can inflect on an order given can't an agent. Plus we entrust a lot of our technology by means of a firewall. We have encryption today that takes forever to crack.

Now SR is different granted, but come on.... a r6 agent with r6 programs should be pretty damn good.... I mean in a game I played in our adept hacker had a tough time taking on a single r6 agent (partially due to the fact he only rolled 3 more dice.) He ended up losing the first two encounters with it.

Anyways I just feel that there are select things that a shadowrun team can do that will easily put you into the spotlight. There is just so much to be said about how under wraps a team has to keep themselves from .

I was also thinking that I had an electronics character that rolled 18 dice and every once in a while would roll something like 10-14 hits to remove vital pieces of electronics on the spot. I mean 10-14 hits... so the GM made had the character remove an entire computer core in about four seconds. This happened I think like three times on three different runs. Part of me was kicking myself, because doing something like that would obviously raise a huuuuuuge flag for what kind of crazy specialist is doing that run. I mean if someone was looking at the vid feed someone had to do a double take. Or lets say I got about 12 hits using edge to jam an area (go r3 cerebral enhancers and log 5) is there anyway to tone it down because 12 hits on jamming an area will just shut everything down no matter what. Maybe I didn't actually want to do that good, but I just think sometimes doing that good will not work in your favor is all I'm saying.

I mean if a gun monkey shot people like that wouldn't that put a ton of people on edge? With 12-14 hits you could bean someone with a cupcake and they would be out for the count.

Actually: I don't really read critique my character that much, and I tend, sadly, to game with people who are ten years younger than me. I also see GM's who don't WANT to punish people for doing stuff, or pile on restrictions like 'no 1's' or what-have-you that you wind up with somewhat bizzare characters anyway just trying to work in the maze.

Then you have the inevitable troll sammy, who's heavy penalties (especially in previous editions) made it perfectly normal to have a fairly common character type at the table who almost NEVER had a 2 charisma, and was treated like a faaking social butterfly if they did. Obviously less applicable now, but the mindset still carries over sometimes.

Then there is the debate about if 2 is actually average, how bad could 1 actually be. Not wanting to go there, because frankly, we're already on a tangent as is.

Toturi: I don't consider a 12 DP remotely hyperspecialized. Hell, i don't really consider a 16 all that hyper either. I can build 'mook guards' that start with 12DP once smartlinks or other AR bonuses are applied.

Masterofm: I can point to a few serious flaws in your argument about agents. First of all, contrasting them to spirits is utterly missing the point. Spirits are understood to be actually intelligent, while software is explicitely NOT intelligent, merely mimicking it. Thus there are rules for agents rolling to understand unclear orders or taking action in the absence of orders and no such rules for spirits.

Now here is the thing: with an 18DP there is no way a 10-14 hit range is 'normal' for you. Everyone has a moment of extreme luck or brilliance from time to time (rolls statistically above average), once in a while events do not a pattern of excellence make.

That said: consider the opening of Die Hard, when the guy shoots the security Guard in the face, killing him instantly.

We have no evidence that the bad guy is a particularly good or bad shot. All we know is he can point a gun at a guard and kill him in one shot at point blank range. Lets extrapolate out that this guy happens to be a gun adept with a dice pool for 'pistol to the face' of 22. Just because. Does it make the guard any more dead that he rolled seven or eight successes stataistically? Maybe he tossed in his Edge of 5 and rolled 27 exploding dice... what is that? 12 hits? Guard is still dead and we, watching him do it, can't tell.

Extrapolate back. Maybe he has a merely athletic agility of 4 and, as a hardened criminal is competent with a gun for a skill of 2. Guard dies just the same. Maybe he did the called shot for damage, rolled his two dice, added his pathetic two edge (human minimum) and capped the dude with an unmodified 10P shot to the face.

Again, we, watching it unfold, can not tell. What makes you think some guy working from a limited view camera (no fancy steadycam, multi angle perfect edits for us) or just from forensic evidence alone, can tell? All we know is some dude got shot in the face from close up and died on the spot.

Same goes for pulling your computer core. No amount of witnessing can tell any more than 'he pulled it by the book perfect'. Maybe you knew what type of computer core you were pulling and practiced on a model until you could do it in your sleep. Maybe you were taught hardware on that particular model and know it like few others. Nobody, not even the players, can say with authority why you got that many successes that one time. All they can say is you pulled it like a pro.

Now: If you'd pulled it like a pro while you intenstines dragged on the floor, your eyes had been plucked from your head and you had no tools... then they'd go "Damn, that motherfucker knows his shit!" Overkill doesn't really leave evidence that can be read in most cases.

I look at things on a 1 to 1 basis. Maybe thats wrong, but if a r6 agent doing it's thing with an r6 program and a logic 6 hacker is doing the same thing you get the same results. If a high logic hacker throws 12 dice and the agent also throws 12 dice why is the agent retarded? It feels more like a personal call on weather or not you think agents are bright or not. It just seems to me like you are making a judgement call on the whole situation, and thats fine. My thoughts are if it operates like a logic 6 being it should be bright enough to interpret orders and not just sit there and ask for more. I mean think about drones. When they operate independently are they insanely stupid, or can a r6 agent or pilot act independently sometimes? Maybe or maybe not, but that is totally a call that is up the individual GM.

There are times forensics/security could tell someone was a remarkable shot -- but simply from looking at the corpse of a single (or even two or three) kills? Not so much.

The end result of a successfull combat-oriented trigger pull is "bullet in other guy." There is no immediate discernable difference (in real life) between someone who sprays and prays with a second-hand AK 47 in some sandy shithole in the middle of the third world, and someone who methodically double-taps someone with a top of the line VEPR or other not-second hand AK. The end result is "7.62 projectile causing damage." A headshot might be someone carefully lining up the sights and putting one right where it's meant to go, or it might be a combatant tripping, squeezing his trigger as he falls, and the round flying into someone's brainpain.

Now, sure, certain things might make a character get a sort of "unaffiliated reputation" amongst forensic scientists. Using an unusual caliber (particularly a light one, and still killing people really dead) might narrow things down to you (IE, not just being another chump with a Predator or Manhunter). Repeatedly using the exact same called shot manuever ("Hey, Frank, we've got another guy with a .32 in each eye, through the sec-visor") probably would get noticed if you killed enough of the same corporation's folks with it.

Anything caught on tape may stand out -- look at the gun handling in any assortment of action flicks and you can immediately tell the difference between, for instance, the John Woo and Michael Mann schools of gun handling -- but that would depend no just how outlandish your character was being about it. A killer with a pistol in each hand could dive around in slow motion like Chow Yun Fat, or he could just matter-of-factly kill folks like Gabriel Byrne assaulting the ship in The Usual Suspects.

It's not so much a matter of die pool as of what you do with it. Two guys both firing a Predator at someone's head point blank (as in the Die Hard example Spike brought up)? There's just plain no way to tell. If a security camera were to catch someone doing an Equilibrium series of flips and rolls and dives, with both guns blazing, in order to get to a security guard and blast him in the head? Sure. That might stand out.

But there's no rule that says "with great power comes great flashiness." Not everyone with a high die pool in with a handgun is going to cartwheel around and shoot people while they're upside down (in fact, most won't) in mid air. They might just be very precise, quick, and smooth, all while using proper stance, sight alignment, and all the rest that goes with being a well practiced shooter.

There's nothing innately visible about a high die pool.

@MasterofM, All I have to say is that IRL you yourself seem to be able to spend edge OOC when you need a good roll. When you made that roll your hardware DP was what, 13-15ish? I can't expect 75% hits before edge, but you seem to be able too consistently you really need it So for us non Mr. Luckys out there we need a DP of 30-36 to expect 10-12 hits

About the Agent, it doesn't have a logic stat at all. The fluff describes it as a "dog brain", so I take that to mean the scale of agent intelligence ranges from over-bred mop dogs (1) to working shepard types (6). Spirits have an actually logic stat meaning that it is equivalent to meta-human logic. They have a wholly alien context so they may need actually rolled that logic to figure stuff out that adults native to the plane just don't.

That said, agents are scary good at what they do. Routing your wireless a choke point with crazy IC. Throw 10k comlink with 60k software to buy an agent analyzing anything that connects to the node. An agent constantly scanning the airwaves, and another agent on standby to pound things what need a pounding. Next actually buy a different firewall for the comlink that runs your PAN. This way they have to spend a least a few rounds breaking to the juicy node while they get hammered from the other side. Even if this doesn't make you matrix-proof, it shuts down anything but a highly skilled well funded decker or a TM. More importantly it means you are not an IT liability to the real decker on the team.

You note that I said, at least that certain amount of dice pool. At least. Magic 5 + Spellcasting 6 + Focus 3 + Mentor bonus 2 = 16 Dice or 18 if you add in Specialisation. It is my experience that the Spellcasting pool is usually the hardest to inflate, hence my minimum pool of 16. And I never claimed that 12 was hyperspecialised either, I merely said that the character was probably min-maxed.


Ohhh, I like that - With Great Power comes Great Flashiness. There's a certain panache to it.

I admit, the discussions with ''How much is Too Much'' and ''What Constitutes a good amount of other dice'' and ''what exactly is minmaxing'' can get really, really blurry.

Believe it or not, talking about how 'people should be able to do multiple things', i know some folks who don't cross skill too much because they actually think it's cheap. They don't WANT to step on the toes of other party members. I mean, they don't build one-sided characters, but ive know some folks(and have been there myself), that would look over a character's attributes and skills afterward and say ''wow, my gunslinger adept owns with guns, but he also rolls 12 dice for a couple of social and stealth skills, too! Not to mention he's really good with a sword and actually has computer skills.'' And this character IS very, very possible to make at chargen, even without using our houserule of no availability limit at chargen. You can build it by the book in every way, and make one. Sometimes a low attribute or lack of a particular skill can really add something.

I mean, I don't think a 1 is bad in and of itself. It's the reason BEHIND the one that i look at. Someone making the supertwink troll sam with 1's in Charisma and Logic just to get higher scores in everything else, i will tell them to do something about. A buddy of mine, though, has an awesome character concept for a young street fellow(who is also an adept discovering his different powers), has a 1 Logic. And he plays it up beautifully. He's got a reason for it; he's extremely intuitive and street smart, and even has a decent Charisma(3 i think) but all but uneducated formally and really new in some ways of the world; and it fits really well. So i won't discount a 1 until i see all the other things attached to it.

Going back to the 'skill crossovers', typically our groups have characters who have good skills in maybe 2-3 areas. Enough to do some crossover but not enough that they overshadow the people who ARE specialized in such. My current character throws around 5-7 dice for Etiquette(Street). (3 charisma, 2(+2) skill). IMO, that's not bad. He rolls a rather impressive 11 for Infiltration. (Custom Cyberlimbs are really, really, REALLY nasty we are learning). i don't want him to overshadow our covert ops/face or covert ops/demolitionist(both of them are very stealthy); but he definately can sneak around and get the job done. My character handles the melee heavy lifting; he is by far the most proficient and dangerous there, and also decent with firearms; but his firearms don't overshadow our gunslinger or former military man, however. But he can hold down his own in a firefight and not be a liability, as can everyone(the whole party has some skill in a firefight.) Not much in the way of computers, though. But we have two other characters who can handle computer things, one really well and one pretty well. And we have one vehicle specialist; but we all can at least drive and one other person has some small Gunnery skill as well. (I think my husband might be the only heavy weapons guy, however. That might be an instance of 'you only need one'. )

So we don't have ''full team crossovers'', but we have at least two folks, sometimes three, that can handle different aspects, and it works wonderfully. And yeah, some of our die pools get pretty high in some areas, mainly our specialties.

And remember, when it comes to skills, there are DP modifiers that can come in, especially with Social Skills. The Social Skill Modifier table is big, and it's got alot of bonus or minuses. That 5-7 DP can easily become higher under the right situations; and on the the other hand, the character with the 14 social DP can end up getting alot lower if it's the wrong ones. Perception's another one; it's easy to get some extra dice there if needed, so not everyone needs a 5 in the skill.

That is one nice thing about group chargen, everyone can kind of figure out where they want to be in their speciality and where they want to cross over. I know this was a bit of a tangent, but IMO, the whole thing with ''how many dice should runners have in X'' is rather subjective.

Actually, you're wrong. SR4, 214, "In game terms, the Pilot attribute stands in for Computer, Cybercombat, Data Search, and Hacking skills, as called for. It may also represent an agent, IC, or drone’s “Mental attributes� when called for (usually Intuition and Logic, and sometimes Willpower)."

Pilot substitutes for mental attributes. Dog brains were SR3. SR4 has fully equivalent brains.

Which means if you ask your agent to guard your comlink it will lick your face and do a trick? Makes agents a little more crazy though, but on the other hand they are only crazy on the matrix, and probably only have their stats linked to the matrix. Kind of like how spirits just work better on the astral (well at least in terms of understanding and interpreting orders) then?

Our group uses the optional rule that limits the total number of hits on a test to 2 x the skill. This really helps to balance things out. To hit the what is an adequate dice pool, my number is a bit lower probably 10. If you can get 7 of that out of stat + attribute you can usually pull the last 3 out of proper equipment. I'm with Spike on not handwaving away glaring faults in a group. This doesn't mean I pound the characters for not having those skills by making them face challenges that specifically exploit those faults, but rather I make them spend time and money to hire specialists when they can't do something or they get lower paying jobs more appropriate to what they can handle.

I have to disagree with that. As Mossad has demonstrated numerous times with their assinations against key terrorist figures, terrorist organizations tend to rely on a handful of specialist for all but the most basic needs. On hte 'operator' side are groups like the US Navy SEALs. SEAL's are trained to be highly specialized in a single role, and are only required to have a passable level of competency in a single secondary role.

That's the way op teams work. The entire team/cell is going to have a basic combat-related skill set(shooting and the basics of placing explosives for example) beyond that they rely on specialists.



As for the thread's general topic, I don't think a massive die pool should stand out. When beginning characters can throw 20+ dice but are so low on the totem pole as to not be rated in the meta-rankings of the runners' world; it's not going to be an issue. To paraphrase Jason Lee, when everyone is special, no one is.

-NR

From pg 227.

Pilot programs represent a special type of OS—a system with specialized functions featuring [b]semi-autonomous decision-making algorithms.[/b]

Pg 213





Sidebar of Pg 214.




Also from the sidebar, but this one includes 'A rule'.

Note that no other 'NPC Intelligence' in the game requires a rule to roll for 'what to do' in case of unclear orders. Note the example that I didn't quote was an order for a drone to 'bump a vehicle', hardly hugely complex, but something lacking from software. I'm reasonably certain that pilots (and Agents, who function as pilots) can't even default on a 'skill', if they don't have the autosoft/program they are screwed. But I'm not willing to gamble on it.


Now, most of what I just quoted was lacking in any sort of rules, but it does establish, fairly certainly, that programs are not AI programs, and are not intelligent. In fact the bit you quoted, to my reading, says 'use the rating for these stats for tests' not 'agents/pilots have the same mental capacity of people since they have the same stats.'

Hell, if programs were that smart, we don't even need people anymore, just a bunch of rating 6 agents running around and some rating 6 pilots doing the physical labor. Collectively they are vastly smarter than the whole of humanity, since they are all deeply intuitive geniuses, driven and charming. I'd rather hang out with my Rating 6 agent (charisma 6? Seems likely) than just about anybody but that elf porn star...

Or... not.


Of course, my really serious question is 'how the hell are your characters getting all this wizbang software with ratings of 6 all the time? I mean, starting commlinks and software is, as a general rule, limited to 4's across the board unless your GM just lets you violate availability willy-nilly or spend six months to a year of downtime between runs coding all that shit yourself. Even if you get a single rating six agent, you then have to take the time to crack that sucker (but I got lazy and decided to stop looking for the cracking rules. I do know we're talking an extended test with some 30 hits required, but I can't remember the interval)...

IF this is that big a problem in your games the GM needs to stop handwaving away the rules designed to make it difficult to do. Hell, in game I'm planning right now the only rating 6 software the NPC's have is the stuff guarding the corporate HQ black accounts or other extremely 'hard targets'.... you know, the stuff you might END a campaign with, not start it. I swear every time a discussion about matrix security comes up everyone treats rating six like I treat snicker's bars... something any granny can get just by headed down to the local stuffer shack.

I didn't claim that agents were an AI. Just that, they are fully capable of making their own decisions. Yes, a gray area (such as ordering your agent to do something that isn't covered in its skills), or something very convoluted (probably in there to break fancy orders that break rules), deserve to have it roll to see how well it does. Then again, Pilot (6 in this case) + Response (6 most likely, to allow full use of the Pilot) = 12DP. And the agent can fairly reliably get 3-4 hits on its comprehension tests. Which is a fairly reliable program. As far as your "they don't have the same mental capacity" arguement. Yes, they do. Whether a character is rolling his 6 logic for understanding something, or the agent is rolling its 6 pilot to understand the same something, they are functionally equivalent. Yes, fluff says they are different, and they are... but we don't live in the gameworld, and for us the players, the difference between 6 logic dice and 6 pilot dice is functionally none.

Now, ordering your rating 6 agent to analyze a node, and alert you when it detects intruders is hardly a gray area, or convoluted orders. Also, agents don't default on skills, the Pilot rating counts for computer, cybercombat, data search, and hacking, as I quoted.

Apart from Agents/IC/pilots, availability for rating 6 Matrix Software is 12 or -...
Rating 4 Agents/IC/Pilots are 12 availability...
Response and Signal can be upgraded to 5, which is 12 availability, during CharGen...

18 dice? 20 dice? Wow, that makes me feel like my players are severely ... handicapped. Most roll only 10-12 dice for their PRIMARY skills.

Yes spike I totally agree with you that it seems like everyone and their grandma can get a r6 program... if that granny is a shadowrunner. In the shadowrun world shadowrunners are not the norm. They get the high end gear that the rest of humanity just doesn't have the knowhow or money to get. All r6 is, is top of the line military grade hardware. The fact that there are some people sporting crazy insane items, but by far the SR world most people just don't have what a shadowrunner is packing. This generally gives them a significant edge over John Q. Everyman. It's not insane. AI's are insane. They are out there and they will take a r6 agent, eat it as a light cal snack and move on. Also when someone has a dice pool of 20+ they need something to explain why they are shadowrunners instead of top gunmen. Also my thoughts were that people who roll so so many dice, and are obviously shadowrunners narrows down a teams profile. Maybe it's me but I think that a shadowrun character is almost one in a million, not one in five. Professionals sport 6 dice at their skill, and specialists sport maybe 8 or 9.

Has anyone seen myth busters on the man who was just awesome at the quick draw? Imagine that guy busting out his chops during a run and then try and put 2 and 2 together.

I will now post the links of awesome *edit* well at least in dealing with people using quick draw, or firing very very fast *edit*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y

http://youtube.com/watch?v=woILVt30QV8&feature=related

Now tell me if someone pulled that sh*t that people would be sitting around scratching their head and wondering "who done it" in the Shadowrunning community.

It's up to your game style. 8-12 is what I consider a more normal level too.