Would you then agree that a character who jumps out of a building with a faulty parachute should still get to use Parachuting? It was obviously his intention after all, and maybe he's so superhumanly skilled at parachuting that he could succeed without having the neccessary bag of air over his head. I mean, after all if you can attempt to move around silently while shouting your head off then anything should be possible should it not?

If he says he is not being stealthy then he is not allowed the roll. If he says he is being stealthy but using certain methods that the GM thinks is not, he should make the roll but the GM can impose penalties. This is clearly supported by those who have a say in how the game world is constructed and by the rules themselves even.

The fact that even I can understand but you cannot is truly amazing indeed. You are of course allowed to do as you see fit in your games, but please I know that it is the correct way to do things and insist that it is such.

Yes indeed. He could be so skillful as to be able to rectify his faulty parachute in mid-air. If he is that damn good, then he can.

Except that is rather specifically what he is not trying to do. He is attempting to move around without giving away his position. In some circumstances, shouting out will make that easier, others more difficult. This is reflected by a dice pool modifier. +2 to the perceiver for "Stands Out", or -2 for "Distracted".

Regardless, if the perceiver hears the shout, they will know someone is there if they did not already, but that does not allow them to pinpoint the target's location alone.

And if the fault of the parachute happens to be that it has been torn into confetti?

and @Muspellsheimr: But that is exactly what Infiltration does. If he wants to attempt to distract someone by shouting at them in the middle of the street, that's not Infiltration its Knowledge (Sound) or maybe Artisan (Ventriloquism/Singing). Someone cannot make a pure Infiltration roll under those conditions and have any chance of succeeding.

Actually, your point is not really supported, and you DON'T Know it , or you would understand that that is the case... it is your opinion (and your personal interpretation), and should be obvious form the way that this entire thread has developed...

I look at the result of what he wants to do... And in this case, the action is at odds with his desire... at which point I tell him that it will not work... if he forces the issue, and continues with his action, then he automatically fails the roll... Pretty easy... The mechanic is that he attempts to stealth, but his actions immediately draw attention to himself and his stealth does not work...

Not sure why you are missing this... But like I said, it is your choice to do so...

Keep the Faith

Actually I think my point is supported literally by the rules, so much that I think I know it to be not just my opinion nor my personal interpretation, I know it to be RAW. It is clear and obvious to me that that is what the literal reading of the rules as written would and should do. Which is why I am pointing it out to you time and again and so adamantly besides.

That the action is at odds with his desire is simply a manner of stunting. A cyclist could ride his bike without the use of his hands, I think it is an action that is at odds with his desire to ride his bike, but is he really unable to do so if he is skilled enough? No.

If he was that damn good, it wouldn't have.

If he exited the high area without a parachute, then he would not have been able to make the roll as per the skill description.

I don't know... I see "Immediately Obvious" which requires absolutely no roll for the observer in this situation... you continue to claim that the Instigator gets a roll because he is tryin gto be stealthy and the observer have to overcome his Infiltration check... there are others (Besides Me) have stated that that is an odd interpretation... Yet you continue to imply that you are correct, and we are in the wrong...

This will not be solved here... your opinion of the action does not jibe with the actual action itself... which is why there is so muvch contention here... we will not come to an agreement... we see completely different things in the scenario...

As I said, you are free to use your interpretation, but don't expect the rest of us to agree with you on this...

Keep the Faith

Immediately Obvious is when the character does not make an Infiltration roll. In this case, he does, even though some of his action may impose a penalty. I do not continue to imply that I am correct. I continue to assert that this is how the rules should play out as they are written.

You do not need to agree with me on this, the RAW does not need you to do so.

Again, though, you miss the point I am making... The RAW ALSO supports my (and others) interpretation as well... Because he has drawn attention to himself, by the RAW, He can roll whatever he likes (I would not let him, but if he feels better for doing so, then by all means), but the observeer need not do so because the character has made himself "Immediately Noticeable" and as such, there is no roll to perceive, it is automatic... I guess that I could penalize the Infiltrator if it makes him feel better, but the penalty I woul assign would make the roll moot anyways, so I would not bother...

And how the RULES should play out, according to your interpretation, is often ludicrous, as you fail to recognize that not everything requires a roll to adjudicate, or that your interpretation is an outlier...

So, in this case, why waste the time rolling, if it is not going to matter... I guess if you want to waste time doing so, you could, but why bother with something that is just going to waste time...

Anyways... Like I said... moot point, Null Resolution.

Keep the Faith

He may or may not have drawn attention to himself by those actions. By the RAW, it is what the test decides. The sound could "stay out in some way", in fact, to notice the yelling itself requires a Perception test!

In a similar way, the GM can decide for whatever reason that a ninja trying to hide(attempting an Infiltration roll) in darkness(favorable modifiers) and wearing some manner of stealth suit(more favorable modifiers) under Concealment(even more favorable modifiers) is immediately obvious. By your interpretation of the RAW as I understand it, he certainly can do so.

Which is why you have a GM to adjudicate... in some instances, the GM may decide that your idea may work (and the character would get a roll)... I personally can't think of any instance off the top of my head, but it may indeed be possible. In other circumstances that tactic will not have a chance in hell of working, and should be stopped by the GM (or amended by the character) before any further time is spent upon it...



Indeed he can, if for some reason that attempt would never succeed... but in your example, I cannot think of a reason NOT to allow the roll... because that is EXACTLY what Infiltration is for... But, I may also allow the character to roll and just not explain why he was spotted, if in fact the opposition never in fact rolled because he was Immediuately Noticeable for some reason that the character was unaware of...

However, Infiltration is not for allowing a roll for someone whose sole tactic is to yell "Here PIGGY PIGGY PIGGY" to a Lonestar Cop while he is attempting to hide in the middle of a street (or moving from the middle of the street to a cornber of a building)... it is the scenario that you are proposing that is in disagreement with the skill in question... Yelling is not conducive to Infiltration, and that is what the majority of individuals who have disagreed with you are trying to point out to you...

Recast teh situation such that the character is ACTUALLY trying to use stealth, rather than drawing attention to himself, and you might get more agreement...

Now, having said that, if the guy yelling is a distraction for another team member that is sneaking, then the OTHER character may make a infiltration roll while the Lonestar Cop throws a beat down (or at least tries to throw a beat down) on the antagonistic character (and I would applaud the antagonistic character for a using novel approach in allowing another team member (or even the rest of the team) to bypass the Lonestar Cop), but I am sorry, that antagonistic character will never succeed in infiltrating in the scenario that you have described, at least not at a table that I play at anyways...

Keep the Faith

Infiltration is for allowing a roll when someone wants to sneak around undetected by either other characters or security sensors. Instead of throwing a rock to distract the guard, he is using his voice. It may not be a good idea, it may backfire on him, but that is for the dice to decide. Yelling may not be conducive to Infiltration, but that does not mean that the character cannot pull it off.

The situation is such that the character is actually trying to Infiltrate, his method may unfortunately end up drawing attention to himself, but because it is what he wants to do, thus he uses Infiltration and is opposed by the cop's Perception.

Actually no. RAW says sometimes the GM gets to decide that a test is simply impossible. This would be some of those cases.


No, this isn't a good analogy. Lets try someone who's attempting to preform an action by doing its opposite. Lets see.... someone who is starting a fire using ONLY wet grass and a bucket of water. You seem to think if they make a good enough survival roll they can throw the water at the grass in such a way as to make it light on fire. I'm of the opinion raw says not just no, but hell no.

when something is immediately obvious. Someone in the middle of an open street screaming at the top of his lungs is just that, immediately obvious.

I think we'll all probably just run this how we like and say to hell with dissenting opinions. The question is, how does Concealment modify the situation? Does a concealed character provoke perception tests by virtue of giving his target a penalty, even if under normal circumstances the action wouldn't deserve a test, such as a character not using Infiltration walking down a sidewalk? I'm pretty sure that's how this argument got started...

I'm of the opinion that yes, by virtue of having a penalty the watcher would have to make a perception check to sense a target of concealment no matter their circumstances.

No, sorry it doesn't. If hearing someone yelling actually required a perception test, then the threshold for hearing talking which is 30-60 decibels quieter would be so high most people would not have the perception dice required to allow them to carry on a normal conversation.


He could, he could also decide you gun shoots gummy bears, and candy, and your chem grenade explodes into a shower of skittles just so your opposition can "taste the rainbow", however gm's who make calls which are totally out of line with common sense like that are often found without players to run games with.

Pg 136 SR4a says Now the situation being discussed it not hectic, or is there anything else going on which might prevent the character from noticing what is going on. As such by RAW the GM is perfectly justified is saying it is immediately noticeable.

Game... Set... Match...

You see, this is why the Common Sense quality is vitally important as it forces the GM to ask, "Uhm, do you <i>really</i> want to do that?" And, as we all know, the answer is never "no", the answer is always "Oh, hell no, no way, no how, I was just kidding."

First of all, the quote your provided said "should," not "must." A minor detail, but an important one when trying to argue the rules in general.

That said, the thing you're forgetting is that this situation all revolves around the use of a powerful form of magic that encompasses all senses. It doesn't make you invisible, but it damn well comes close. It can potentially throw your voice, create a host of echoes, or mimic your voice coming from every bird in the area. Just like it can move terrain around to disguise you, distract you when you look in the right direction, or cause some natural disturbance that blocks your line of sight whenever you do. Even if the person being concealed is doing everything in his power to be spotted, the power requires observers to make a Perception Test in exactly the same fashion as if the player were actively trying to use Infiltration (which he isn't if he's standing in the middle of the street yelling). The shouter isn't the one forcing the Perception Test; the spirit is.

If it fails, and it most definitely will except in the most extreme of bad luck cases (as pointed out in an earlier post), so be it. But the Perception Test is still required by virtue of the power's effect.

The perciever loses dice equal to the magic of the spirit, all fine and good. However then the cloaked person starts making themselves obvious by shouting. You CAN'T hide your position, by making noise like that, it just doesn't work.

It does when the magic in question is an active, mutatable power that's constantly adjusting and manipulating the environment. Doubly so when the power affects all the noise you're making, too. It's not a penalty to Visual Perception Tests.

But the character is using Infiltration, even if he is making such actions that are detrimental to his intent. As such the situation should not be immediately noticeable even if it is not hectic.

Yelling is one of the threshold 1 examples in the Perception test tables.

Correct, that is immediately obvious. Someone trying to sneak to the middle of the street, while trying to yelling loudly in such a way that disorientates and confuses is not immediately obvious.

The original situation was that the character was not explicitly trying use Infiltration while doing all that.

My take was that the character was trying to use Infiltration while doing all those things, adding such slants to those actions such that while even if normally they may be immediately noticeable, they are not longer so because the character is doing so in a manner that befits the use of Infiltration.

Point. Point and game.

As Dr Funk states, Concealment affects all the senses, not just vision or just hearing, it affects Perception and all the senses Perception uses.

No, the character WANTS to use infiltration. I can't think of a single reason why he should be allowed to conduct 2 mutually opposing actions at the same time, and it seems like I'm not alone in this regard.



Did you miss the part about only making them roll of they could reasonably miss it? Its not terribly reasonable to say you miss someone yelling at you from the middle of a quiet street, as such by the text in Using Perception, NO ROLL IS REQUIRED.



Actually is more so, because of how ridiculous it would look. I'd be more inclined to say the character missing someone just walking down the street casually because there's nothing special about their actions, but when trying to sneak in a place with no cover, and yelling at the top of their lungs.... that will get you noticed right fast. Automatically, and no roll required.


Sorry but a skill to make you unnoticed can not be used while intentionally broadcasting your position like that. The rules clearly state only roll when there is a reasonable chance the characters could miss the event/object in question. Since the event is actually emitting an active signal which by its nature will make the source readily apparent, there is no need/reason to assume it will not be noticed, and as such no roll is needed.


Yes and can dampen sound coming out of an area. Nothing in the description by RAW would even hint it is able to trans-locate the apparent origin of a noise far enough away from the source that the source will not be found by looking for it. The character can NOT yell in such a fashion as to disorient others with volumes less then 110 decibels, and you'd need more then force 6 concealment to hide a noise that loud. As such the sound escapes the area, makes it to the listener, and the apparent source is attributed to the first noise to reach their ears. This would be the shortest distance, and as such the true path back to the person doing the yelling. Physics says you lose, RAW agrees. Unless the GM is being very nice the rules suggest no roll is needed.

The rules are abstract. Both the Concealment power and Perception Tests included. Everything includes a wide array of possibilities. Do you get a bonus to Perception Tests based on pinpointing the origin? Yep! Guess what, that means Concealment can do the inverse (by making it harder to pinpoint it) since it penalizes your Perception Test in general. Whether it's by muffling the sound, throwing it around, creating echoes, or whatever else, it simply doesn't matter. That's the fluff of the power, not the effect. Perception Tests include things like pinpointing, obviousness, etc., and Concealment affects all of that.

Because the character wants to use Infiltration, a roll becomes necessary.
It is not automatic, a roll is still required. The modifers from having no cover and making a noice may be enough to enable the perceiver to notice or reduce the Infiltration dice pool such that he can not get a success. But it is by no means automatic.


I am sorry but a skill to make you unnoticed can be used while intentionally obsfucating your position in a manner that befits that skill, even if such action in itself may be immediately noticeable or obvious. RAW says you need to roll, thus physics in Shadowrun (not real life physics) say you need to roll.

actually throwing it around is a very different effect from muffling it, and if you think otherwise I would have to question your criteria.

It's no different than saying that Concealment shuffles some trees around to hide you or have a large bird land in front of a security camera. The end effect -- rules wise -- is exactly the same, but the method used to get there is different. And it has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other modifiers (such as your attempt to pinpoint the direction of the sound). It's abstract. That means it's not just one well-defined, immutable thing. It's any number of different things.

Just like most everything else in the game.

For example, wound modifiers. They can be caused by a shot crippling your leg, the light headedness of massive blood loss, or simply the wracking pain of a brutal blow by a baseball bat. You're still getting the same wound modifier even though the reasons for it are vastly different.

Abstract.

Uh,, not it doesn't, just like if a character wanted to make a cookie baking check by throwing some cookie doe through a jet engine, I wouldn't be allow any checks either.


actually the rules say if GM feels its automatic, then its automatic. Several people who run/play shadowrun a fair bit say they would consider it automatic, therefore.... its automatic.


Yes it can, however the manner of obfuscation would have to be one which was not directly and immediately traceable back to your present position. The example given is however directly and immediately traceable to the person present position, as such is immediately obvious, and no roll is needed. Sorry you keep saying RAW requires a roll, and I've cited chapter and verse where it says you don't.

Yes, it does. You bake a cookie with "Cookie baking" skill, the circumstances may be adverse in the extreme but it should still be a roll. The rules also say that a player's use of the Infiltration skill is opposed by Perception. What you are saying is tantamount to saying just because the GM says you fail, you fail. That may work in a game with a GM but for the purposes of this discussion, the GM is none of these people, neither you nor myself.

You have cited neither chapter nor verse that says you don't for this case. You have stated that you feel it is immediately noticeable, and by being immediately noticeable the rules say that the GM should not call for a Perception check. As neither you nor I is the GM, this line of argument is moot. The GM can feel something is immediately noticeable even if the character critically succeeds on his Infiltration roll, that is his prerogative, just as it is also within his scope to ignore the rules entirely.

But the fact remains that the player wishes to make an Infiltration check and carry it out in such a way that demonstrates his superior skills, hence his doing it in the middle of the road and making noise which may be usually anathema to Infiltration. Infiltration checks are opposed by Perception checks. Thus Perception checks need to be made. All I state is that the player wishes to remain undetected while doing certain things and that Infiltration is the skill that is used per RAW and that Perception opposes Infiltration in the manner stated in RAW (p136 SR4A). With sufficient skill and talent, you can pull it off.

I think some people are discounting the vague and magical nature of the Concealment power here. It seems there may be an order of operation problem. Some say the real world Infiltration comes first. How can you realistically describe a situation with a person walking in broad daylight and yelling being stealthy? While others are saying that the situation is that a person is under the unknown power of Concealment and they then try to sneak around in broad daylight while shouting.

Again, I believe the scenario explored is that someone who has already had the Concealment power placed upon them and is trying to do something. Whatever they do (Infiltration, Basket Weaving, the Lambada) they benefit from the power of Concealment power which is negative Force to any Perception tests. The effects of the Concealment power are not strictly described. However, they do affect EVERY means of detection (even astral sight.) Some have attacked the loud noises of the original post, but the Concealment power should explicitly cover that or any other sense like wearing day glow clothes and not having washed in a month. All of that sensory data is obfuscated by the Concealment power.

From P. 136 SR4A "Gamemasters should limit their uses of Perception Tests, only calling for them when something is not immediately noticeable or when a situation is so hectic that certain things might be overlooked." This seems to be the crux of the argument here. Personally, I believe that the Concealment power in and of itself will allow such a test because it will explicitly distort any sensory test. There may be negative/positive dice pool modifiers for both sides that affect this situation, but a test could very well be required if the Infiltration side has dice to throw.

And I would disagree with you... Concealment works great, if you are trying to conceal yourself... in fact, that is exactly what it is for... but in the above example, even though the character wants to be stealthy, he immediately negates any such ability because he starts yelling and screaming... this, (at least in my opinion, and apparently others as well) automatically negates any stealth and concealment as the character is no longer actively trying to be Stealthy...

To make a better example, using real world situation... you are hiding in a bush, so you have full concealment (not mystical, but hey) and there are people actiively looking for you... at that point, you get to hide using your stealth skills, if any... Now, start yelling at people looking for you, how long do you think that will take for them to find you... having been in those situatiuons growing up (as I am sure most people have been) your "Concealment" has been broken by your active use of yelling... at that point, your stealth no longer matters...

Now, for those that absolutely MUST have a mechanc for it in game, and making an assumption that Concealment would apply regardless of the situation (which I and others obviously do not agree with), subtract your Concealment rating from their dice pools, if there is ANY dice left, then the Observer automatically notices you... This is a workable compromise...

However, at my table, I am pretty sure how that would play out... Once you have chosen to abrogate your stealth, nothing else really matters...

Keep the Faith

Again: The character isn't trying to conceal himself. The spirit is trying to conceal him as best it can, despite whatever the character is doing.

I also really don't get why you guys are having such a difficult time of this. It's not like Concealment, even by a Force 6 spirit, is going to do much to stop a casual observer from spotting the character. They won't get as many hits on their Perception Test, but with all the negative modifiers, even someone with Intuition 3 and Perception 3 is going to have a ton of dice to roll. If they have any allies in the area (up to a +5 dice pool modifier), for instance, nearly the entirety of the Concealment bonus can be negated with that single modifier.

Just because a Perception Test is required, that doesn't mean it's going to fail. Or even come close to failing.

No arguments Doc, on the fact that the character is not the one that is using the Concealment, he is, hopefully, benefiting from it...

The problem is when a character actively takes steps to abrogate that concealment... in my book, that means he no longer has the protection of that ability... he has gone above and beyond to make the effort to breach that protection with his actions...

And if you are going to make the argument that the Perception test is not very likely to fail (because of the ton of dice and allies, as you put it), why are you making a roll at all... if you have already determined that the observing character has sufficient dice to succeed, then in my mind, you have made the determination, however subconscious, that what the "Stealthing" character is doing is so detrimental to the stealth attempt that he has has become immediately noticeable... At least that is what it sounded like to me... So, at that point, I just skip the test... you have a character that has taken a simple action and turned it into a ludicrous action... and as such, he receives the expected result... he is seen and shot (or whatever)... That is pretty much common sense...

Or put better... Just because a Perception test may be made, does not mean that it necessarily must be made...

Keep the Faith

By RAW:

MAKING TESTS SR4A p 60
... The gamemaster should not require a player to make a test when the action is something the character should be expected to do without difficulty. For example, if a character is driving downtown to buy soymilk and NERPS ...

By this piece of RAW, the GM is given express permission to allow tests that are deemed to be expected to be made without difficulty to be made automatically. In our example, the guards seeing the man yelling PIGGY PIGGY PIGGY are expected to make the test easily. If the GM wants to, sure they can apply a 100 dice pool modifier to the situation or whatever the GM deems appropriate and make everyone go through the motions, but skipping the test is EXPRESSLY PERMITTED AND RECOMMENDED by RAW so you cannot say it is wrong to do so.


Same page:
DICE POOLS SR4A p 60
When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool. The dice pool is the sum of the relevant skilll plus its linked attribute, plus or minus any modifiers that may apply. When a gamemaster calls for a test, he will provide the player with a description of the task at hand and which skill (and linked attribute) is most appropriate for it. The gamemaster and player then decide on the applicable dice pool modifiers - both positive and negative - to determine the final dice pool. The player then rolls a number of dice equal to the dice pool.

By RAW the GM decides the skill to be used in a given test, NOT the player. A player cannot FORCE the use of a skill, only attempt it's use. 99% of the time it will be the skill the player intends to use, but the GM is the one that ultimately decides what type of test, if any. In the example of the guards and the yelling man, most GMs I know would rule that action more of an Intimidation test then anything, and they are the ones who decide the test type. Your argument that the intention is enough to force a roll is by RAW not correct.

*Edit: In retrospect the last paragraph was unnecessary and could possibly offend, so I'm removing it.

By RAW, the GM is given expressed permission to allow a player to do so as you so kindly provided.


By RAW as you have quoted, the player can force a test and the GM can call for one.

NPC's follow the same rules for characters unless specifically noted as otherwise, do they not? Maybe I'm wrong on this one and if you can show me the page I'll concede this point to you.


The other one though:
"When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool." is the action of rolling the dice. The line does not say the player chooses the type of test or determines what pool to use. The line says simply that the player will roll a number of dice equal to their pool. That is ALL that line you highlighted says. You are making assumptions about this line that fall outside the RAW.

The line I highlighted did say when a test is called for. Also how a pool is picked. I've been searching for specific passages where it says that a player can pick the pool for a test and I've not found it. The player decides the action their character takes and the GM decides the appropriate test. Again, I may be wrong and if I am I'd love to see the page that says I am since I've shown you the page that says I'm right.

*inserts 2 nuyen and delivers opinion*

I am in the obvious runner is obvious. If you dont need a perception roll, concealment is a moot point. I bring examples.

My group stole a semi truck. After quick checking we decided the trailer and the cab would be 2 targets. F5 spirit, conceal on. So, trucks rolling down the freeway and a ZDF chopper is over head. It has to make a perception test to notice the truck among the traffic. The guy on the bike next to the truck does not. Truck gets parked in a parking lot. A passing cruiser has to roll perception to notice it. Truck gets parked on the cruiser, they see it pretty well.

Bob from accounting walking down the stark white hallway with concealment? No roll. "Hi Bob, what are you doing down here in Sales?" Bob in a stark white chameleon suit with stark white body paint? Infiltration + Agi vs Intutition + Perception + augmentation + 3 (active watch) +2 (object stands out ((empty hallway, everything stands out)))- Force. Unless... the end of the hallway Bob is coming from has a door that must be open. Because then, unless the door was white and the room behind it is also white Bob would stand out something aweful just coming in. But thats just more nit picking. For the record, I personally would have that door black and the room beyond black, just for such an occasion. Not to mention the walls and floor of my secure white hallway would have pressure plate. Conceal THAT! Mwaa ha ha ha. But i digress...

Finally, sound and Infiltration are not mutually exclusive. Ninja's making cat noises are so common that I have had runners decimate poor kitties with cover fire. But in the example of the guy running out in the middle of the street yelling "Here piggy piggy"... unless he did have a ventrilloquist (s/p) skill, I'd say thats a bust. Infiltration covers the movements and positioning requirements of stealth, not taunting. No more than the same person could slip out into the street and unleash a flame thrower and expect to remain unnoticed. Even if he unleashed the blast in a disorienting manner. But if he did have the skill to throw his voice, then by all means, taunt the gaurd to look elsewhere. Hell, I'd give you a -2 (distracted) bonus!

Yet the statement in question specifies player. When the NPC makes a test, the GM rolls it and not a player.

"When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool." All I am assuming is that the player can make a test, which is clearly the case here. Furthermore, the second line says when the GM calls for a test, he decides the test. Taken together, this means that the player can make a test and the GM can call for one. It does not say that the player can only make a test when the GM calls for one.

I concede however that your interpretation is equally valid as my own since the wording of the text leaves room for ambiguity.

Off note, this is pretty fun. I hope you're enjoying this exercise as much as me.

Note: Yes, it says player but does not exclude non-players.

Well, your argument on the first point (the NPC one) is that the rules do NOT allow it because it's not included in the wording, but on the second point (the test making) your argument IS that it is (player calling for tests) allowed because it's also not included in the wording. This is contradictory.

First point: Text not specified: not allowed
First point: text not specified: allowed.

Not good arguing grounds again.

So a player wants to cook a turkey, what happens? Normally the GM would call for an appropriate skill test, Artisan (Cooking) let's say. Except by your logic the player, as the instigator of the test, gets to decide how he does it. The player doesn't have Artisan, so he decides that he'll use his Pilot Aerospace skill to put the turkey in a rocket engine and cook it that way. Nevermind that the Pilot Aerospace skill has nothing to do with determining how something will cook and that a rocket engine can't be put at a setting low enough to avoid charring the turkey on contact, maybe he's so good at flying rockets that he can cook a turkey in the engine of one.

My argument on the first point is that the rules allow the player to roll, nothing is said about player character or non-player character. The second part is that not that the player can call for a test but that he can make the test presumably on his own accord and that the GM can call for one.

However if you wish, then carrying over your argument on players/non-players over to the second part, it could also follows that while it states GM calls for a roll, a non-GM could also call for a test. Then the whole section would entirely consistent.

There you need to look for a skill that matches the description of the player's intent. If the player wishes to cook a turkey, then you need to look for a skill that says "cook a turkey" or has text that could mean cooking a turkey.

For example survival or artisan cooking. On a side note who dosent drop at least one point in to artisan it covers so much its beautiful.

Bongo Slade has 9 in it!

Except that's not what you've said. You said the player gets to force a test. No one here has argued that the player shouldn't be free to try and do whatever he likes, the problem I've had with your arguments is that you seem to think that the intentions of a player has something to do with the type of mechanics that are used, and that is the sole property of the GM. A player trying to shout to disorient someone does not make an infiltration test, no matter what the player seems to think. If a player is shouting in a street at a person he is trying to sneak past who has clear line of sight to him then he either cannot make that test or is given modifiers so as to make success of the test a statistical impossibility, because he is not performing an action in line with the type of test he is performing, just as a rocket pilot trying to cook a turkey is not performing an action in line with the type of test he is performing. Players can not force tests, they can perform actions, it is the realm of the GM to decide what mechanical ramifications those actions have upon the game. Anything else is chaos.

Yes, that is what I have said. In the very first line is "There you need to look for a skill that matches the description of the player's intent."

The player intents to cook the turkey, thus you look for a skill that says that. The player intents to stay unnoticed by the cop. The specifics is that the cook wants to use an engine, the specifics is that he is also shouting in an attempt to disorient the cop.

Then why don't we go deeper into your description. You've said that the player has the intention to disorient with his shout. By my interpretation the player should be called upon by the GM to make a test to that effect, a test that is not infiltration. If he cannot or the test fails then his subsequent intention to sneak past the Lone Star officer should either automatically fail or receive heavy penalties based on the spectacularness by which he failed his first test. Obviously a player who has no skill pertaining to disorienting people with a shout is going to fail at it rather spectacularly so the net effect is to penalize his infiltration roll to within the edges of a statitical probability of success.

Admittedly, the part of my post pertaining to what kind of modifiers the player should get for his test are highly subject to GM interpretation but will you at least admit that the player's actions as intended do not fall under the sole scope of an infiltration test and that this is perhaps an attempt by the player to use 2 skills at once and that that may be the reason why there has been so much arguing on this topic?

Also on that note, can someone please direct me to where in SR4a it details the rules on using two skills at once? I know they exist but I can't seem to remember where they are.

Only the GM can decide that a test is called for, and the GM picks the skill use... the Player actually rolls the Dice...
What that means is that the player makes the test that the GM designated... that is all that it says... nothing else...

And as for NPC's... they are still characters (That whole Non Player Character thing), in most cases the antagonist, but that is irrelevant... they are still characters and benefit from the GM's judgemnent calls just a s a Player Character does...

No one is arguing that the player cannot roll dice to make a test... however, the character may only do so when the GM allows the character to do so, and he (the GM) is the one that determines the dice pool, not the character...

Keep the Faith

That the point I am making, that the GM does so when he calls for a test, not when a player makes it. I am saying that the statement says both that the player can make a test (the first part) and that he also rolls the dice (the second).

The two statements together does not mean that the player can only make a test that the GM designates. It says the player can make a test (does not limit that the player cannot make a test on his own accord). It says when the GM calls for one, he decides what constitutes the dice pool. That is all it says. Nothing else.

I can see several interpretations to this effect.

1) The shouting itself is immediately noticeable and the GM decides the shouting should backfire, hence the "stands out in some way" modifier is automatically given to the perciever.

2i) The GM makes the perciever notice the yelling. He makes a perception test against a threshold of 1 of which yelling is explicitly listed.

2ii) On a success, the shouting backfires and "stands out in some way" applies.

2iii) On a failure, the shouting actually succeeds because the cop's fucked up and the modifier does not apply.

3i) The GM asks the player to make a check to see if he succeeds in his disorienting yelling (closest skill offhand that I can see is perhaps Disguise + Intuition). Based on this roll, he makes the NPC roll against the successes of the player character.

3ii and iii) similar to 2ii) and iii)