I was reviewing the rules and I began to notice how much it bugged me that fake sins can be seen through with almost no problem. The rules state that the scanner rolls its rating vs. the sins rating to see if it passed. This means even a fake sin of rating 6 has about a 2% chance of being seen by a Rating 1 scanner. I was thinking instead of using a the sin's rating as a threhold vs. the dice pool of the scanner. If you have someone actively investigating the sin than I would allow a forgery+attribute+scanner to catch it, but it would take much longer than the scanner alone.

What are your views on fake sins and being noticed?

I have been running my game with a house rule that the roll is the SIN checker's System + Verification Software Rating (Fake SIN threshold). Usually works out to Rating * 2 for the checker, and cheap Rating 1 SINs will work most of the time for everyday stuff, but rating 6 Fake SINs are practically unbeatable even against Rating 6 checks, since 12 dice don't usually get hits. A major side benefit is that the player will have no idea whether his SIN worked or not, so metagaming is reduced!

That is actually a pretty common house rule in some form or another. Dreadlord's way is how it has been run in our games, though we just say "Rating * 2".

Yeah, that's how I run it at my table too. I've always thought it was a bit ridiculous that it took an enormous amount of effort/Nuyen to create a rating 6 fake SIN that would be busted by the first scanner that bothered to check it.

I'm fully behind the Scanner Rating x2 (SIN rating) check.





~R~

Part of the SR used to be that large parts of the population were SINless. Now in 4th ed you can't do anything without a SIN. There's your problem.

Huh, problem? Ok, so you cant walk into any gov. building - like a place where you could apply for a SIN? - or buy an ice-coan in downtown, or even take the bus to downtown. but what selfrespecting sinless would want that - you can still kife and get knifed by your buddies in the barrens, exactly like the sin-folk like it. So everybody is happy - well except the sinless, but they cant vote, and theyhave little disposable income, so who cares.

Seriously though. Runners need fake-sins and professionals have the money to get them. Other sinless would want them too (almost as much as they would want the real deal) but most cant afford it of course.

In my games, I just restrict the availability/speed of sin checks. The higher the rating, the longer the check. That´s why the everyday checks will be very low rating, so thy dont take to much time - usually rating 1 or even 0 (meaning if it `looks´ like a sin, it wont be really checked). Police patroles will usually not make more then lvl 2 checks, either. If you want a loan from a bank or apply for some license, the checks will be quiet through, same for tight border crossing. lvl 5 or 6 checks will usually only be done when you are already held in custody by the cops.

Maybe use these times as a rule of thumb..

lvl 1, complex action / instant
lvl 2, 1 combat turn / 3 sec
lvl 3, 10 combat turns / 30 sec
lvl 4, 5-10 min
lvl 5, 30-60 min
lvl 6, 3-6 hours
lvl 7+, 12-24 hours or more

Time not the issue with the current SIN system.
Its opposed tests between your fake sin and the rating of the verification system.


Buying a candybar? Test.
Moving from one extraterritoral zone's network to another? Test
Gridguide? The highway? Tollbooths? Tests.
Walking down the street in a High lifestyle's neighborhood (which, according to the RC, has drone patrols), and you happen to walk past a Dalmation flying around? Test.

Any time you have to prove your identity (such as, say, transfering money) you need to roll an opposed test.

This means your rating 1 fake sin has 50/50 odds to get detected by a vending machine.
Even lucky/botched rolls pitting 4(the max you can start with) against rating 3 verification systems is completely unreliable.

I like making it an extended test with the SIN rating as a threshold. That way a suspicious guard or what-have-you will run multiple checks and have more chance to spot it as a fake, but with a cursory pass, a R4 SIN will never get blown by civilian checkers at the mall.

So, it's like:
r4 Scan 1) Pulls up picture -(1 hit)- Picture checks out.
r4 Scan 2) Checks retinal print -(2 hits)- Retinas match
r4 Scan 3) Checks DNA against registry -(1 hit)- Multiple matches in database. R4 SIN - Busted.

Gives the Face time to bullshit past at each check step.

I know, that´s why I said 'In my game'

Another possibility would be, to only burn the ID, when there is a critical glitch (a regular glitch might still reduce the rating by one, making for a nice mechanism to degrade sins), otherwise, if the system winds, it does not accept the ID and gives some Error (experianced cops may get suspicious at that point), but have the chance to try again. You know, sometimes real IDs are not recognized at the first try. On the other hand, an exceptional success could improve the ID rating.

I also kind of like Saint Sithney´s idea, because it represents the same concept that more thorough searches take longer.

thats a common Houserule here in germany

with a Housedance
Medicineman

In my game I use a houserule where it's SIN Rating + Edge Attribute. Some characters are just luckier then others.

Hah! My 8 edge human face "Hookline" would have freaking loved that. He went through SINs like candy. Maybe under your rules, he could have kept one for more than one slotting session.


~R~

Yeah, the basic problem with SIN checks as they're written is that the break the basic roll rules of the game. I.E. a success is always 5 or 6 on a D6, and this is the one rule I can think of where you're checking against a different number. Ergo, it should definitely be Scanner Rating vs a threshold of the sin rating, or some variation therein.