Question:
Can you specialize the Software Skill in Threading, even though it is not a listed specialization? (In SRM specifically)


Supporting Facts:
The Shadowrun 4th edition FAQ (which is listed in the SRM4 FAQ as being something to be familiar with), says:

Can I have _______ specialization, even if it's not listed for the skill?Yes. The listed specializations with each skill are not all-inclusive, and players are free to come up with other specializations that fit their characters. No specialization should be applicable for all tests undertaken with that skill. Gamemasters have final approval on all characters.

Technomancers use the software skill for at least 2 other tests besides threading. One is the Source Code Submersion Task. The other is creating backdoors onto systems (unwired).


Specific Questions:

Because software skill is not used only for threading, threading seems to be a legal specialization. Is this the case?

If it was approved, does it…

Work in all games due to grandfathering?
Work in games which the Gamemaster permits Threading as a specialization?

If the second one is true, what proportion SRM GMs view Threading as a legal specialization for TMs?

As it requires GM approval, I'd likely say that you cannot specialize. Not in a missions environment at least. House games I'd probably allow it.

The argument is that Technomancers only use Threading for 99% of their Software uses?

Bull, whats the intent of this line in the SR4 FAQ? Is it that GM's can veto or that GM's must permit exceptions? It reads like exceptions are perfectly ok but in SRM-play RAW rules the day not the usua"GM's can veto anything" so for SRM play it may not be clear enough if "Yes" really means "Yes".

If not permitted in general I'd ask TM's get a pass on the Threading specialization. They suffer 2P for each 1 rating point they use above their resonance and have a sustaining penalty for tasks not using the Threaded CF to everything including Matrix Perception so its super situational.

The reason I ask about this is that it seems legitimately confusing. The way I read it, it says “Yes.” which is a strong declaration that it is acceptable, and the last sentence is a reminder of rule 0, which always applies in Shadow Run.

When a player takes specialization “Heavy Pistols” for their Pistols skill, I expect they will use pistols for 99% of their pistol usage. Weapon specializations seem to accept that players will specialize in a specific weapon and then only use that weapon. Software has two other uses (creating backdoors and Source Code), which are probably more common than a specialized weapon user using a non-specialized weapon. So I think the 99% limit is arbitrary and not supported in the FAQ. The FAQ requires the test of “Not applicable to all tests undertaken with that skill”.

And the test of GM approval. I wasn't proposing a 'percentage rule', I was proposing that Threading specialization is vast twinkery; that fails the GM approval test. It's more like a street samurai specializing in 'combat', except for all firearms, dodge, etc. at once.

Rule 0 doesnt apply in games run by the Catalyst Demo Team.
CDT-run modules are strictly RAW with some modifications in the SRM FAQ Document.

The general thing being that home games can be however the gm wants to do it so asking Bull for a ruling is really asking how CGL-sponsored games will handle it.

The FAQ seems to clearly indicate that it IS allowed, pending GM approval. Only Bull can really settle this though.

Anything is allowed by the FAQ's stance, even Pistols (Bullets); that's why the GM approval is the fundamental rule of specializations.

The current take is that the individual table GM is supposed to follow RAW as much as is reasonable, but ultimately the GM controls the table. In grey areas like that the GM makes his ruling and runs with it.

If you only play with the one same GM all the time, and he allows it, hooray for you.

If you play like at game days or conventions where you might never have the same GM twice, well, you're GOING to run into some that won't allow it.

In practice, it's best to just assume that any character option that requires GM input to work isn't allowed.

Most of these situations are fairly easy to spot. If the rules outright tell you to get your GM's permission, then the answer is probably, "No, you can't have it."



-k

KarmaInferno has it right. Generally speaking if it says it requires GM approval or input, that makes it something of an optional rule by default (Optional because the GM has the option of saying "no").

That said, this is a bit of a gray area, but... Looking at the example Software specializations, they're all specific classes of programs. As such, I'd say that for technomancers, this should still hold true. Specializations are supposed to be a narrow field of interest or expertise. Choosing "threading" is just too wide open.

Good question though.

So I guess choose a specialization that covers the category of Complex Forms you want to Thread.

That would be my suggestion. It seems more in line with the intent of the specialization rules.

If you play primarily under one GM, they can always choose to allow threading a specialization, but just be aware that if you take the character to a convention game or something, another GM may not.

Bull

Thanks everyone who responded! I am glad the question got answered.

On the bright side it adds both to program tests AND threading within the category specialized in but meh, six of one half-dozen of another.

This I understand and agree that the threading specializiaion should not be allowed in the standardized environment like the Missions.

On this I don't agree. There are several RAW specializations that are at least as wide open as threading. Examples: Diving(SCUBA) or even worse Unarmed Combat(Martial Arts) - By RAW you do not need to specify a certain Martial Arts Style and there are several Martial Arts that have techniques for any and all actions you can take in Unarmed Combat (Attack, Defend, Subdue).
Also Pilot Groundcraft(Wheeled) by RAW includes Pilot Groundcraft(Bikes) since Bikes also have wheels and thus are wheeled.

Those, while RAW, are equally 'too wide open'. Why would you argue that errors must be repeated wherever possible?

The question is whether those are indeed errors or the intention of the developers. I cannot guess which it is. If they are the former, they should have been rectified long ago and such contradicting statements should not be published in the FAQ. If they are the latter, I don't see why a specialization that does not encompass the entirety of the skill's uses should not be allowed, even if the excluded portion is small.

*shrug*. The only appropriate solution is to grin and bear those obvious errors, and *when explicitly given the choice*, not repeat them in other categories. Especially when, as noted above, Software already has its own suggested theme for specializations. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW, bleh.

Oh, trust me. I loath and detest "Unarmed Combat (Martial Arts)". Been a long standing house rule that I get to slap anyone who shows up with a character like that upside the head with a hardback book. Been that way since before there were even rules for Specific Martial arts back in the day.

But yeah. Those are specific examples that, sadly, we can't really do much about. And if Threading had been given as a specific example, I'd say the same thing. Since it wasn't, we can try not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

But, like I said, if your regular GM allows it, go for it, just don't be upset if a convention or open play GM down the line doesn't (It shouldn't invalidate the character for that game, you would just lose the two extra dice from the specialization).

Bull