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

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

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

-paws

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

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

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

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

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

I like it RAW.

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

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

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

Peter

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

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

-paws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, if you don't actually use the rules, you don't need houserules.

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

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

-paws

I stand corrected.

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

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

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

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

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


Also, the SIN gets flagged.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll happily houserule anything that seems abusable, but otherwise try and leave the system as intact as possible. I try to avoid the "Reflex Nerf" where possible, however, instead preferring to see how things play out and if there are balancing factors to whatever's happening. I'll also try to keep my players informed of any houserules I've made, and will generally ask for feedback if I introduce a new rule.

I've played in games where the system's constantly changing however... They can get confusing. In this case a friend was adapting one system (called "A Wicked Age") into a fairly different system. It was a bit annoying when strategies changed completely from one session to the next where, although the core system remained the same, strategies could vastly vary. IE: Imagine changing the mechanics of combat pool in 3rd edition. In the end, however, the system emerged better (in our collective opinions.)

I think if your playing strictly by the rules on any game, eventually you will need to house rule something. No game designer can account for every situation, nor should he/she have to. nWOD is the closest I've come to not needing house rules and for certain games you still need a few. The thing is you should only ever need a few. SR4 doesn't need many, and most of the house rules I would use in SR4 are personal taste and not some problem with the RAW (with one exception I can think of, datasearch with no program and no computer skill - my house rule would be every computer comes with a datasearch 1 program)

...I'm more a fan of Rare to Medium Rare red in the middle and seared on the outside.

...it's a metaphor.

Shimmy shimmy ya, shimmy ya, shimmy yeah!

I can't speak for the devs, either, but you've piqued my curiosity. Where did they say that?

Given that without the restrict gear quality, the best SIN a runner can get is rating 3, and given taht a rating 3 SIN will fail a test against a rating 1 verified about 1 time in 11, and given that said rating 3 SIN costs 3,000 Nuyen...

If you have to have the SIN verified for every transaction, and you have to have a SIN for most transactions, then you better have a LOT of money, because you will be burning through SINs like crazy. I know some folks assume that your running SIN is ditected after every run. But this would not add up.

Heck, one of the main uses of a fake SIN is so that the cop doesn't get too upset if he decides to stop you. He is going to have a rather better verifier. A verifier 3 will beat a rating 3 SIN about 1 time in 3. That is not a reasonable situation. (Having a fake SIN detected will presumably escalate any otherwise benign encounter with the star.)

And let's imagine a border corssing. Presumably that will check a SIN. With a rather better verifier. But most games assume that even if you have to get clever with your gear, you can cross borders yourself.

In practice, I just end up assuming that the GM will not test the SINs too often. As GM, I would presumably check them rarely, and do something like the threshold approach. Otherwise, the whole game structure comes tumbling down.

Yours,
Joel


PS: Which reminds me. How the heck do you bribe the Star? I don't mean "how do you negotiate it" nor "how much does it take." Mechanically, how does a charchter pay the Star off? I would have ssumed "certified credstick" but there are lots of fluff comments indicating that certified cred-sticks are going out of style, even among the street / criminal set. You sure as heck can't fire funds to the cop's account. (THe Star would monitor that, and that would give you information to do interesting things with.)

Certified cred. That hard cash and certified goes totally out of fashion is just another instance of this wireles craze going well into nonsense land.

That may be less about faddishness and more about a lack of a good description of electronic cash. I'm not saying that Shadowrun has electronic cash, just that it doesn't seem to be present in the rules.

Nitpick: Starting characters can begin with Rating 4 Fake SIN's (Rating x 3 Availability).

RAW, there isn't a border crossing game mechanic. But if you have to, there are official published rule for border crossings.

I do not use house rules. There are rules that are ambigious; there are specific rules that, by themselves, come up short. But those can be shored up by using other rules. SIN verification can be spoofed; you can use Infiltration (for getting into a high security area); you can use your fake SINs sparingly and only when on a job and/or get the SINner flaw, to name just a few methods to get around the problem.

OK quick dumb question about fake SINs and the Erased positive quality: If I have a fake SIN (rating 4) and I've taken the Erased Quality at 10 pts, does that mean that my fake SINs are covered?

For example: I get caught with the fake SIN, but manage to get away. With the 10 variant of Erased that means all "bad" data is removed with 24 hours. Does the fact that my SIN was fake get removed as well?

I would generally say that the incriminating data on whomever´s server vanishes. If the system that caught you was very secure, you would want to take the SIN-stripping option.

It has, from a banking perspective. Pg. 259, Online Accounts. EC requires cash transfers between established accounts, and some banks don´t even store your SIN, while others maintain their customers privacy at all cost.

All one needs for anonymous payments is PayChummer. "No officer, we don´t care. The client choose the privacy option."

I was actually wondering how the SINner negative and the Erased positive worked together, and reading the above makes me think it indeed can. You have a legal SIN still, but can get stuff taken care of. They don't seem to cancel each other out; as I'm sure you'd still want to be very careful what you do with your normal SIN.

From what I can gather, registered credsticks are out but certified credsticks are still used in the shadows and poor areas. The fluff talk on p.12 of Unwired support this, even saying "Most banks accept them" and "Grey market shops and gang-controlled 'distribution networks' accept cert cred almost exclusively." However, if you are trying to impress some hot corp secretary, taking her out shopping and for dinner hoping to get her drunk enough to spill some dirt, well that's another story.

In any case, if a cop is dirty enough to accept a bribe he probably has a way to cover his tracks. Or maybe if you just hand over that shiny new Ares Alpha he found in your trunk he'll forget he ever saw you.

I must point out that the RAW states that the GM should only call for tests when they are necessary in order to determine a random result for purposes of drama and story. I'll provide a page reference when I have my book handy later (unless someone beats me to it.)

That means you do NOT have to check the PC's SIN unless it's in the interests of the plotline. Checking SIN when the hacker goes to the Stuffer Shack for some caffeine s like making a troll take a strength test to move the couch closer to the window. He's going to pick it up, no need to roll dice and risk failure when there's no opposition or stressful situation making failure a possibility. Same with SIN checking, hacking, shopping for gear, ordering booze from the waitress at a club (seducing the waitress DOES take a roll, though), etc. If it's reasonably simple, you don't roll for it. Period.

That's not ignoring the RAW.

In addition to its other issues, Erased and In Debt also can cancel each other out.

Had except for the ammo numbers, and ignoring a couple potential loopholes that are a bit weird (and there really aren't that many). Things really do work out, making changes tends to only lead to making more changes and so on. But I heard they "errataed" the ammo numbers some. If your players' knowledge of the rules details greatly exceeds their self-control YMMV I suppose.

EDIT: You do need to understand how to use rules to use them correctly, as paws2sky demonstrates. If you lack the ability to grok them as a whole, are stuck in what is effectively trivia regurgitation of issolated passages you'd probably be inclined to see "need" to change stuff all over the place like Cain. Truth I didn't need to change the ammo numbers, I just prefered numbers that corrosponded closer to the purposes of the ammo type's real world analogues. And the changes weren't high ripple risks. Actually played with the original numbers for awhile.

The biggest problems I have with the rules are things that are so fundemental and/or missing that it isn't really easy to address. At least SR4 is a step forward from SR3. *shrug*

I make extensive use of the optional and advanced rules and have a few of the tweaking the game rules too, but have more or less gotten rid of all my house rules.

Some of the tweaked ones I really like:

the Logic linking Matrix tests that use program rating as hit cap like Force with spell casting from Unwired. Since the matrix is that wonderful electronic parallel to the magical, it makes sense to our group to make the test identical. My players had a hard time understanding why smart hackers with skill weren't better than dumb hackers with lots of money and good programs.

Hits on skill tests limited by the skill rating x2. Keeps the crazy skill 1 character from performing feats that he normally couldn't.

Edge refreshes ever lunar cycle in game instead of every run.

Edge can't be used to add dice to the pool AND get rule of 6. One or the other. Usually my players use edge to re-roll non hits anyways.

Magic and Resonance loss occurs from stim patch, drug use, or severe medical trauma.

Also, if you lose a limb and replace it with cyber or otherwise don't replace it with a cloned limb, you lose essence at roughly one point per limb (close to the cyberlimb costs).

Other severe trauma causes negative qualities or causes players to usually be in debt to someone who is a benefactor (we don't play a high nuyen game...).

Nanotech for technomancers and Genetech for Awakened =/= good. They have to make the edge tests or hurt their magic/resonance as per the tweak.

AR can only have one Initiative pass regardless of initiative boosters as per Unwired's tweak. We had wired AR hackers never getting hurt and having no sense of danger and likewise countered with enemies who did the same. Setting it at 1 IP was a good move.

Looking at using the security tally from Unwired. It's pretty neat, allows hackers more of a chance of getting into systems undetected, and makes them poking around more challenging unless they plan their stops in a node in whatever order.

I like all of the advanced rules. Magic, Matrix, Medtech, and everything from Arsenal and Runners Companion. If it's written in the optional or advanced sections, the players can count on it being in my game.

On to the SIN discussion, one of my only house rules is that one can't have a license for anything higher than the SIN that license is tied to. Using logic, we assumed that when a license is checked, it's tied to your SIN and checked. I couldn't sit right with having a SIN rating 1 character with a rating 6 license run around with restricted weapons and have the Star and public security being fooled because their license was good but their SIN was crap. I figured that if they need to check for the license, they'd check the SIN too, since it's more or less instantaneous.

Basically, I run a really gritty campaign in which I don't want to kill your character, but just give them a lot of scars and trauma to make them interesting. After all, as said in Calvin and Hobbes, "being miserable builds character."

Agreed.

I believe what you're working for is on page 54 of the BBB, under the Making Tests section:


-paws

We play it as is here and don't have any problems with it.