Doesn't feel good, when the shoe is on the other foot, does it? Because, didn't you, just now, suggest that I criticised you ... in that post up there, where I gave examples ...?

Are you always a hypocrite? Or just on special occasions?


DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!


And yet, instead of saying just "Oh damn, that really was poor wording on my part. I meant ___; apologies for the miscommunication" ... you chose to make sarcastic remarks at my expense. And even whenyou made your edit, yuleft the original remarks up, in tact and not struck-trhough or in anyother way negated.

Yeah. Have fun somewhere else. Please.

No, it's only a disguise or costume if you aren't that kind of someone. Do you think a member of the Renraku board uses disguise to get dressed in the morning? Of course not. And why not? because that's who he really is.

And my character? He doesn't use disguise to put on a nice suit and escort some middle-management type to a nice casino, then hang about as "obviously a bodyguard" ... because that's who he really is. Flipside, he doesn't have to use disguise to put on middle/low lifestyle "casual" clothes, because that's who he really is, too.

...

Now, if he wanted to pass himself off as a member of middle management from X orY company? Even to (less obviously) accompany that same client to that same casino? Then he woudl need disguise, because "a nice suit" wouldn't be enough; he would have to pay attention to much more specific, and subtle, details - what color(s) are in-fashion, or out-of-fashion, in that corp right now? What accessories are de rigeur, and which ones are a horrible faux pas to wear? Is it acceptible, or requires, or verboten to wear X or Y or Zpolitical-party pin o your lapel? And, left or right lapel??

All of that - the things a knowledgeable observer could, should, and in all probability would pick up on: Disguise.

Simply wearing a nice suit: shopping. Looking like you belong in that suit: Etiquette.

...

Are you getting it, now? (Probably not)

Chill folks,

This is an issue due to different perspectives on gaming. We know this. I have both diseases, so let's explore this by isolating the thought from each side.

The "powergamer" thinks the "roleplayer" is insane because his character is ridiculously underpowered. He tends to be on the same power level as the standard NPCs in his role, or even a little lower. This is of course unthinkable, because he could fail tests more than occasionally, and this will lead to his quick demise, the loser. What a waste of good BPs. Even worse, he gets all uptight when someone brings in a real character who is actually good at his job, just because his special little snowflake is recognizably pathetic next to a character who actually succeeds. I play to be Awesome.

The "roleplayer" thinks the "powergamer" is insane because his character is ridiculously overpowered and shallow. He doesn't even belong in the game world because he's some kind of Olympian Ubermensch at whatever he's built to do, while lacking any sign of a life outside of his specialty. He's not a character, he's a machine designed to shoot things (or hack or whatever). When he's not shooting things do I put him back in his box?. And his huge dice pools remove all the challenge and drama from the game. It's like he's afraid to fail. He may as well just remove his skill ratings and replace them with "I win". Boooriiing. It wouldn't be so bad except for the way the GM either has to blow the opposition out of proportion to present a challenge, or let him walk through everything. Totally destroys the game setting.

My view of the true way it works.

We like our characters.
We like it when we look cool.
We hate it if they die undramatically.
We like succeeding.
We don't like failing.
Powergamers are more worried about success or failure than roleplayers.
The assumed powerlevel of the game (the NPCS) is easy to exceed.
This isn't a boolean - it's a continuum. Everyone has varying levels of the two labels.
Someone tilted more one way or the other than us can irritate us in practice.
People who don't agree with us are either morons or trying to get away with something.

I find the distinction between Powergamer and Munchkin to be a lot simpler than many folks seem to make out.

Powergamers optimize.

Munchkins are dicks about it.

Don't be a dick.




-k

And there was an end to the pages-long debate, and much rejoicing!

(in all more seriousness, I like this)

No, no no no no no. I don't think that, not ever. If I did, then I'd've been a hypocrite when I first started this thread.

The only people I slap with the pejorative "rolEplayer" are the snobs, the ones who clearly think their way of playing is superior, objectively, to "powergamer" playstyles. The ones who treat "powergamer" and/or the near synonym "min-maxer" as pejorative terms, to be used on inferior games who have yet to discover the One True Way of playing an RPG.

I someone enjoys playing someone who's at or below the "par" line set by the typical NPCs of a setting? Hey, that's great. The important thing is that they are enjoying the game.

Wha I think is important for both sides, is to understand where that "Par line" is for the game beign played - and to understand it before anyone even starts thinking about what they might want to make for a character. If everyone knows where the boundaries are - where the upper limit, lower limit, and "average" lines are ... and makes the effort to stay within them? Then, yes: anyone of either camp who exceeds those boundaries, needs to just shut up, swallow their pride, and rework their character so it is within those boundaries - no matter which line you crossed.

And in the meantime, anyone who complains that someone else's character, though within the boundaries, is too far to one side or the other of the entire range? Also needs to shut the hell up, and stop worrying about anyone's character but their own. Both RPers and PGers alike.

...

Put in more concrete terms: if the group decides that they want average die pools of 9, with an upper end of 12 and a lower end of 6 (for stuff that the character is supposed to be at least professionally competent) ... anyone who makes a "samurai" who has all her combat DPs at 4-5? Player needs a smack upside the head, and some time to rework things so at least one or two of them make that minimum-line of 6 (with help offered, if point-juggling isn't their forte, of course).

OTOH, if that same someone later complains that the "other samurai" has two pools in the 10-12 range, and is "too powerful" compared to his !6 DP character? Tough luck for them; they knew the expectations of the game from the beginning, and chose to play a less-capable character. As Neraph (I think) has said a couple times now: they should roleplay their character dealing with the discovery that they aren't "all that" after all - that they're not even average, they're still a wet-behind-the-ears n00b compared to their fellow shadowrunners. Play that up - the bitterness and disgruntlement of finding out you're the small fish in the big pond now, that YOU'RE the one everyone else sniggers about behind your back. Maybe just like you used to do in your podunk little hometown, while being all eager to get to the big city and "show them what REAL talent is like". Icewater to the face, your view of your own place in the world gets shaken to the foundations, etc. THAT WOULD BE GOOD ROLEPLAYING.

But whining "Bob has too many dice compared to me" ...?

That's just whining. Period, end of story.

As do I. I shall call it "KarmaInferno's corollary to Wheaton's Law".

Really, it's an observation I've had for a while now.

I know a lot of powergamers that, even while optimizing, make a concerted effort to "fit" with the people and the campaign they are participating in. It's really about having a level of thoughtfulness and respect towards their fellow gamers.

I've also known many a munchkin over the years. Heck, I'm pretty sure I used to be one when I started out. Their characters tend to stick out like sore thumbs because there's little if any effort made to match the character to the group. This is usually due, even if the player in question is unaware of it, to a certain level of self-centered "me" thinking. They have a certain image of what they want their character to be, and will try to have their way even if it clashes with the game and the group. It's thoughtless and disrespectful to the people they are playing with.

I will say that in my experience, it's usually not intentional, which is why I frame it in terms of self-centeredness rather than deliberate malicious disruptive behavior.

It's not a rules problem. It's a people problem. That so many gamers seem to have social interaction issues doesn't help.



-k

This. ^^

Especially the fact that no one is purely one or the other. It's possible to be equally hardcore powergamer and drama queen roleplayer. It's also possible to suck at both (though why you're playing this game, much less any RPG is beyond me).

Actually, what I wanted to weigh in on was the Disguise vs. Etiquette discussion, and for 95% of cases, I'm going to agree with Pax.

Let's say Nitro is stuck with the unfortunate Day Job of Zippy the Birthday Party Clown. He's got a Disguise skill of 2 (and Artisan 1 (Balloon Animals) if it matters), and does a pretty decent job of it. On Saturday night, he indulges in one of his favorite passtimes and goes to the theatre. Now when Nitro thinks "Hey, I'm going to the opera, perhaps I should wear a suit (and not the baggy purple one with the green tie).", he's utilizing his Etiquette skill ( a 3) . Unless, of course, he's going to a cosplay version of Die Walkure, in which case I'd throw it back to Disguise. Since he also likes to go to the gym after his Wagner, he makes another Etiquette check to toss some sweats in his gym bag so he's not, you know, wearing a suit on the treadmill.

My opinion, anyway.

Burn the double-witch!

Edit: I am a power gamer and unashamed of it. As to min maxing I prefer to max-max.

Agreed, except no GM in their right mind should ask for Etiquette checks just to wear normal clothing. Most people with Cha 2-3 and Etiquette 0 should be able to wear suits or gym clothes without requiring a test. I could see someone being Uncouth or Incompetent might have to though.

If the same person want to impress the theater gentleman's club members, or easily gain friends at the gym, Etiquette tests might be in order.

Powergamers get the most out of what is in the book, Munchkins try to add to the book.

So if you have a powergamer, he can tell you why his character can do X. And if you look it up, the rules will state it so explicitly.

A munchkin is about claiming his character can do X. They will never offer you a rule explicitly telling so, instead they want a rules explicitly preventing them.

The character of a munchkin does not really need to be optimized. He is creating his own loophole.

(The areas of powergamers and munchkins overlap, if the rules are "bad". The free spirit Karma-exploit is a good example for that. )

So in short: The character of a powergamer will be viable in nearly any group, the character of a munchkin will probably illegal or very "useless" in an other group.

You've got a good view on it, but I still am of the belief that no amount of knowledge of proper social behavior is going to, say, convince that corporate middle-manager that the guy in body armor with obvious cyber is not out of place in a call center.

First off, you're right - if you're trying to blend in with a call center, Disguise is probably called for.

But the character I mentioned? And the suit I mentioned?



... same bloody stuff those middle managers are wearing, aside from the securetech stuff. All of which are the "discreet" versions, and so, not casually visible.

As for "obvious cyber", the only obvious bit is his right lower arm. Which, well, doesn't necessarily scream "shadowrunner / terrorist" to most normal people. Even the non-obvious stuff ... he's got four implants, total - two cyber, two bio. That lower arm ... eyes ... a reflex recorder ... and a synaptic accelerator. Nothing there that is both visible and noteworthy, even to middle-management corporate types.

So you know what? Yeah, even in the corporate call-center, if he's not trying to pass himself off as "not a bodyguard for that guy --->" ... Etiquette is enough. Yes, people will very quickly figure out the character is "some kind of security guy". There's no need to conceal that. But no, people aren't instantly going to think "OMG a shadowrunner! Someone call the cops!!" just because he's a PC, either.

...

Now, can we be DONE with you building improbable and inaccurate sand castles, and me having to knock them down? Please? *sigh*

@_Pax._
There is a lot you can do to blend in and even get checkpoints passed without ID, if you "look the right way". But this also works in the opposite direction.
If you are the Clown in the gothic club, people will turn around and notice. They won't take action, but they will think "strange" and they will tweet your photo.

Anyway. The point is, that everyone can play in the world he or she likes. No problem with that.

But arguments about it are pointless. What are sandcastles for one group are rock solid bases in the next...

It is the old pink mohawk Vs black trenchcoat discussion. But some people seem not to get that it has less to do with how you dress than with how you play it.
There are more than just some hints, that you can even go that far that one dead security guy means dead runners.
All comes down to how you play it.
In some games you might kill some high mobster because he beat his wife and get away with it (even in some books) and other GMs would just say "YOU WANT TO DO WHAT?!!".
Some would even think you can lay your hands on stuff Lofwyr has layed his hands on, other would say: You are freaking insane.
Some might even go so far and make sure all the stuff they used for the run, can't even turn up if their safehouse gets raided by lonestar...

I'm sorry, but in a game of Rules we do not have a Subjective basis for compliance but an Objective one.

@Neraph
Bullshit. Sorry, but this is just silly. This would be true, if you go only after stuff which is EXPLICITLY in the rules. And most groups go far beyond that scope. (Most of the stuff you claim goes far beyond this scope)

So please do not claim objectivity, where there ain't any.

Objectivity you get if you REALLY go after what is WRITTEN IN THE RULES. NOBODY does that. (And no, thats not what you understand under RAW)
Simply because every bad wording would simply fuck up everything.
Everytime it missed to mention that this is not a general rule, it would apply for EVERYTHING.

Objejectivity means: You want to do X, where in the rules is said you can do it and how you do it?
And than you would need to say: On page X, in book Y it says, that if I am an X with Y I can do Z.
The rules in SR are not even clear enough to actually make this even possible.

Actually I think the difference is in the intent of the action. Yeah, with etiquette you wont stand out as a party clown at the opera, but on the other hand if you are trying not to be noticed when people might be looking for you that is a stealth skill. So if people are looking for the bodyguard, it takes more than etiquette to blend into the crowd. You are hiding that you are always keeping an eye on your client and threats to them, you are hiding that you are ready for action at a moments notice etc. Etiquette helps you blend in on a social level, but it does not help you hide or blend in when people are looking for you or someone like you. Now personally I think 4A screwed up the skills by separating them way too much and infiltration, shadowing, and a least the blend in potion of disguise should be one skill. I guess they way I'd look at it is ettiquite makes it so you wont stand out, disguise helps you actually hide. The difference being etiquette stops casual observation, disguise would stop that and a more detailed look.

I'm not saying that I am being objective - I am saying that the RULES are OBJECTIVE. Your illustration of sandcastles and rock solid bases assumes that either: 1) one group or the other does not understand the Rules, or 2) the Rules of the game are Subjective, which is logically impossible (not including accepted House-Rules, as those are Rules and are Objective themselves, although House-Rules can differ from house to house).


What game are you playing? Shadowrun is a game of Objectivity. Here's a few examples: shooting a gun, buying a gun, the method of selecting a target to shoot, the damage dealt, how to evade detection, trying to seduce someone, casting a spell, driving a car. I could go on and on, but you own the rulebooks, so I assume you've read them before. RAW is a study in Objectivity, and playing Shadowrun is the execution of it.

@Neraph
Yes, there are a lot of situations where I can say: It goes like X after the rules.

But they are hardly most of the game. There are not even rules for simple body functions, like taking a dump/piss. (How often do I have to, what is influencing that)
So if you are declaring you are drinking some strange new soda all the time, the GM might just jump on that and force you to take a piss or not. However you run your game.
(Not saying you should run it like that, you just can)

And we are here not talking only of simulating specific situation within the rules. We are talking creating situations based on the rules, the fluff and common sense.
Even if the rules would not need interpretation (which they do) there were two sources of subjectivity still present.


Only if you play (I do not know if they exist for shadowrun) those old one person adventures. Do x (if sucess or failure) and continue to read on page Y. Thats just the execution of the rules.
You are presented with X options within the rules and you may choose one. Here you would be correct. Here is NO subjectivity present.

But a GM thinking about a run has a lot of subjectivity (of the GM) before the players even arrive at the table.

You make a very common mistake. You think it would be a basis for the rules to be objective. This only works, if the rules do work as they are written. If they don't you need interpretation. And here you have already subjectivity influencing your outcome...Rules tend to claim A, while they actually want to claim B. (It often happens if people who are writing one part of the rules have a poor understanding on an other part of the rules)
Which puts you at a dilemma: You can go with A and stay within the objectivity (but mostly this way does not even work) or you go with B and leave it. But this lets you also wonder, if the guy would have wanted B, if he had known the rules he was refering to...

Not even a little true. Playing Shadowrun is the execution of targets.

But seriously: 'hey guys, wanna come over tonight and execute some objectivity?' Ugh. No one actually plays Shadowrun by the RAW, anyway. They don't even play Monopoly by the RAW. Maybe chess.

You're absolutely right. But that's not the point binarywraith has been trying to score off of me. He stated: "At minimum I'd expect to see Shadowing, likely a little bit of Disguise too, for dressing to blend in."

So he's saying, to be able to blend in at all ... you need Disguise and Shadowing. I am insisting that no, if yu'renot trying to deceive anyone as to who or what you are, you only need Etiquette and the money to afford an appropriate outfit.



No, really, this subthread of discussion is not that, at all.

@_Pax._
Alright, now I get the whole picture.
Well, yes and maybe.
I would say you need disguise if you somehow have a "not real costume". You try to be someone you are not.

(Ha, nvm. Misread those clauses.)

Exactly what I've been saying.

Passing yourself off as a groundskeeper for that high-security gated community means knowing what color the uniforms are, how they're labelled, whether hats are allowed (or required), and so on ... all definitely the Disguise skill.

Attending a party in said community, as the security for someone with an invite? Etiquette, a nice suit, and remembering you're there as an employee, not a guest.

Yeah, that's the general point I'm swinging at here, as _Pax._ screams about how his character is an edge case who'll blend in anyway. The skills are badly split and described, but as written that's how they are described and intended to be used.

Agreed. Perhaps if you called Disguise 'Impersonation', but either way: you're not just blending in socially.

I looked up the bodyguard contact in my Runner's Toolkit to see if it could shed any light on the discussion, but he doesn't have disguise or etiquette.

I think your problem is, you're focussing on "blend in" in the sense of "not be at all noticeable".

My character wouldn't give a toss about doing that. He's not there to BE un-noticed; he's not there to deceive or trick anyone into believing he's anything other than what he is: a security guy, in a suit, doing what he's been paid to do.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Wait. Is he *actually* a guard, or not? If that's what he is, it's not a disguise… so why is there any question at all? (Besides all the yelling, of course.)

Then he's a -bad- bodyguard, who's simply going to be taken out just before his client because he's the obvious target. He's simply an armed thug. Obvious muscle, around for intimidation.

I guess my view of a bodyguard's job is different than yours.

He is indeed actually a bodyguard (when he's doing that work, which is his Day Job).



Because of this:



... sigh.



You know what I call a bodyguard who doesn't get shot at instead of his client? A complete failure. Being a bodyguardisn't about "suriving to take revenge on the client's murderer", it's abut preventing that murder in the first place. It's being willing to TAKE a bullet in the client's place, if that's what's required.

It's also about providing a visible detrrent - preventing injury to the cient by convincing would-be attackers not to attack in the first place.

He's a bodyguard ... not an NSA operative, not Secret Service, not CIA. And he's a relatively low-level bodyguard - he escorts middle management types, or their older kids, when they go "slumming" to bars in the rougher parts of a city. Or provides "neutral" third-party security for meets, often involving gangers, organised crime, and/or other shadowrunners. So yeah, being visibly "a security type" ...? Asset, not liability.

...

Why don't you do everyone a favor: you play YOUR kind of "secret agent style" bodyguard, I'll play my "meat and potatoes" bodyguard, and you'll STOP COMPLAINING THAT I'M NOT PLAYING YOR TYPE OF CHARACTER (the very thing I wanted to get across to people. with this entire thread - before snobs like you decided to start picking fights, and nits, for no damned reason except to feel superior).

YEESH.

Agreed in re the intent should be key. If it's a matter of "What is appropriate for a bodyguard to wear for a given client at a given location", I'd stick with Etiquette. (Which is the situation Pax has been positing.) If it's "What should said bodyguard wear in a situation where he is trying not to be identified as a bodyguard", then, yes, I would say Disguise is key. As for the situation where you've wandered into the call center in obvious body armor... you're going to be noticed, and you'd better have a plausible cover story and some Con to pass that off... you'll still be noticed, but you might not be as alarming.

Both skills cite the ability to "blend in ". I generally interpret the Etiquette as, well, you don't stick out like a sore thumb. Whereas Disguise I see more as trying to not be recognized as yourself, for instance when you mingle with a crowd to avoid pursuit.

I usually resist this urge, but let me indulge.

U MAD, BRO?


Seriously, everyone discussing this with you has been reasonably civil and level-headed, despite various disagreements. Take a deep breath, calm down, and realize that disagreeing over a roleplaying game rule is not a personal attack.

I think you and I are having a problem with communication. What you are saying is not exactly what I am saying. I'm not sure exactly where the miscommunication is, but I can definitely tell that there is one. Hell, we may even be agreeing and simply confused since you and I are apparently using "Objective" and "Subjective" to refer to different things. As such, I'm done with this conversation - just too confusing.

For more you need a security team, not one single body guard. If a military trained sniper wants to put a bullet in the head of your target, the bullet goes in the head of your target. Nothing to be done about.

Ya know, my very first SR character ever was actually a perfect example of Disguise and Etiquette (or lack thereof).

Bill was an older, wrinkled, grumpy, human, hunter - grew up in the backwoods of what used to be Alberta, kinda went insane in a violent sort of way, started hunting people rather than just animals, real nutter. He favored sniping with sports rifles and using hatchets for close up work. He habitually dressed in woodland camoflague and suffered the Uncouth negative quality.

So Bill had all the survival type stuff, and among his higher skills was Disguise. He knew how to camoflague himself. He knew how to use ghillie suits and how to use gun shrouds to break up silhouettes. He understood the methods and means of making one thing appear to be another, or to reduce contrast through rough mimickry if not full simulacrum. He wasn't as good with the urban, civilized aspects of it, but he was perceptive enough and intuitive enough to be able to understand how to dress like other people, even if he might not ever deal with those sorts of people.

At the same time, he was also an uncouth, unstable, blood-thirsty psychopath with both an obsessive and a mean streak a mile wide. He pretty much couldn't possibly talk to someone without them thinking he was a shocking, unpleasant, possibly dangerous sonofabitch. He had a perpetual scowl, and he spoke his mind bluntly and viciously. Basically he had no real Etiquette skill.

So case in point - our team is hired to supply low level protection to a political figure, basically supplementing the real security by being visible distractions. Bill has to be convinced that it's "a bad idea" to wear his hunting camo and openly carry his rifle slung over his shoulder. It's not that he's stupid, it's more than he's inordinately stubborn and kinda likes pissing people off. Fortunately, the team face is great at beating Bill's negotiation rolls. So Bill agrees to put on a suit and (very reluctantly) agrees to having his massive, bright white, scraggly, dirty, untamed mountain-man beard and mane of hair be trimmed into something tidy and not immediately offensive.

Bill cleans up surprisingly well. He gets some assistance from the face and one of the politico's gophers to help him pick out an outfit, and between this and the effort he grudgingly puts into the task (as embodied by his Disguise rolls), the effect is actually to transform his appearance from a deep woods ranger to a believable well groomed older gentleman, someone who didn't stand out at all.

Fortunately, the team had the foresight to not press their luck and realized that while he might have the right outfit, his behavior would give him away rather quickly during the actual mission - important people would wonder why the nice looking older gentleman was scowling like a pissed off Pit Bull and casting paranoid stares at anyone who he didn't like the look of (i.e. almost everyone). Having the Etiquette rolls of the sort of man who didn't bat an eye at the prospect of hunting down interlopers into the untold acres of forest he considered his home, crippling them with well aimed shots to the legs, and then skinning them alive with hatchets, Bill simply couldn't perform in any sort of social setting in which people cared about niceties and propriety.

Normally the team just left him in the van outside of their mission objective, wired into their tacnet, sniper rifle on his lap, waiting as if in a hunter's blind for the right moment to leap out and start spilling blood. This time they simply put him in a side room with a few of the politico's actual security guys, where he wouldn't have to talk to anyone or play nice. Turned out to be a lucky break, as his exposure to the security team allowed him to learn about an impending double cross...

~Umidori

Awesome story, Umidori. Also a nice illustration of the difference between Disguise and Etiquette (my character would have needed the Duisguise roll to dress like a "mountain man").

But mostly a great story.

You play Chess by RAW? Heresy.

I think you are confusing Etiquette and Con.

Etiquette has one use. It is used to convince someone that they were wrong to think you're a jerk and they should like you more.


So, in one use, a person forms a judgement about the PC based on their race, style of dress, or other identifier.
Lets say a ganger sees the character and pegs the guy as a threat. This puts the ganger in "hostile" territory and character is at -3 dice to any social roll because of this. The character then uses their Etiquette skill to convince the ganger that they're cool. 2 net hits are made, which downgrades the ganger from "hostile" to "suspicious" and changes the -3 dp penalty to a -1 dp penalty.
That's Etiquette.


In the other use, a person has an opinion about a character due to that character saying or doing something immensely stupid. In this case, Etiquette is rolled to pull foot from mouth and convince the NPC that you're not really like that.



Those are the two uses of Etiquette.

If you want to know what a middle manager at Mitsuhama wears, roll a knowledge skill check or data mine it.
If you want to convince someone of something that isn't true, you use Con.
If you want to dress up in a fashion that will help you blend in, that's Disguise.



As to the primary topic, powergamers make games better. Being good enough at your primary role that you can work as a secondary in another role means that there can be a variety of strategies that would otherwise be unavailable. Being good enough in your primary role that you can afford to add quirks and personality means that, unlike a pure-quirk build, you can actually roleplay without having to worry about your quirkiness making the game less fun for people who don't like fucking up. Power is freedom and freedom is trust. Munchkins abuse trust. On the other hand, I don't know how many times I've run a game with a "roleplayer" who tries to play as though his character and his character sheet have nothing in common. If you want to do something, then make a character who is capable of that. The rules are the common language by which we game, and the game isn't called "I should be able to do whatever I like because..."

Nope. RTFM, it also is used to "not seem out of place" in a social situation.

Con is for telling lies. If you're not telling people false things, you don't need Con.



Only if you're blending in somewhereyou don't already belong.

Does an upper lvel executive have to use Disguise to "blend in" at a board meeting, when she's showing up as herself wearing an appropriate suit? Of course not - she is an upper level executive.

Does a bodyguard have to use disguise to "blend in" at a board meeting, when he's showing up as a bodyguard wearing an appropriate suit? Of course not = he is a bodyguard.

I just don't understand how this question even came up. If you're already 'yourself' and you're somewhere you belong… you're not even blending in. You're just 'in'. Make a test for Breathing.

Well, hang on now. You're claiming that the skill is not needed because the type of situation and characters being suggested wouldn't call for it. But remember that skills are the makeup of who your character is and how they behave. You can't play a crack-shot gunslinger without points in pistols. And you can't play a corporate execute without points in etiquette.

Etiquette is subtle stuff. Knowing a whole ton of unspoken rules, some about very insignificant things. Then again, some it is very signficant, and almost all of it is taken for granted. For example, if you aren't married, you don't wear a wedding ring just because you think it looks nice. Why? Etiquette. You have been taught this rule by society. You also (depending on how you were raised) don't eat with your hands, belch at the table, cough without covering your mouth, or correct the chairman of the board in a way that even suggests he actually made a mistake, but rather that reality was the faulty party as it regretably failed to match his expectations.

Etiquette isn't just for the rich and the elite, either. When the regional manager makes a surprise inspection of a local industrial plant, even the stupidest ork and troll workers know to appear hard at work and not speak unless spoken to. When a BTL junkie needs a fix and the local pimp and pusher is busy with a few callgirls, the chiphead knows not to interrupt no matter how bad the cravings get. Or when a couple of squatters get cornered by a few patrolling Lone Star or Knight Errant officers looking to have some fun with the locals, they shut the fuck up and take the abuse and like it, because if the donut shop down the way wasn't about to put out a fresh batch, you can bet your sorry ass they'd be in the back of a squadcar with half their teeth gone, counting toward the weekly quota.

Etiquette is more than just posessing the relevant knowledge. It's a skill, just like any other. You can have all the knowledge about guns you like, but it won't make you a sharpshooter, and you can have all the knowledge you like about the unspoken rules of society, but it won't make you a social butterfly.

~Umidori

Yes, Etiquette (= breathing; you do it all the time without thinking about it). Not at all Disguise or Con, though (intentional action skills). So how did the question arise, 'do you need disguise to pretend to be yourself in a place where yourself is appropriate?' Like I said in post #80.

I was confused, because I assumed this was all about impersonation, but apparently that's not the case. I feel like other people were also confused… and then doubled down?

Except that it's not always something you do without thinking. In many circumstances, it requires a lot of mental attention and very calculated, purposeful actions.

When you go before the Emperor, you're pretty self conscious. You have to tell yourself "avert your eyes, remeber to bow when entering AND leaving, don't say anything until he does, and why the hell did I have mexican for lunch, whatever you do, DON'T BREAK WIND!". Course, it might not be so black and white. It might be something like someone with greater authority than you is highly upset and you just so happen to be bringing them bad news which you need to find a way to deliver such that they won't want to kill the messenger. Or it could be that you're dealing in a non-native language, or in a non-native setting, and you're using what you know of etiquette in general to intuit how you should act. Or perhaps you simply want to make the best impression possible, so you want to make sure you do everything you possibly can to impress the other party, while neither lying nor disguising.

Etiquette has valid rolls it is used for. It is therefor a valid skill. You can find plenty of situations in which ANY skill could be said to be useless, because one or the other potential usage of it is so simple as to not require a roll. For example, shooting the wall of a building in a non-combat scenario doesn't take a roll - you just do it. Sure as hell doesn't mean Pistols is a "no thought involved, akin to breathing" type skill. And stashing a bunch of guns into a crate labeled "medical supplies" doesn't take a Disguise roll either - but you'd better damn well have the dice if you want to properly conceal a tank with nothing but some rope and a few tarps.

If you honestly can't think of situations in which you as a player would need Etiquette dice, then you probably play more toward the pink mohawk side of things. Which is fine, really. I go for the middle ground personally. But don't act like the skill is useless just because you personally have no use for it.

~Umidori

I dunno what you're going on about. I didn't say Etiquette wasn't a valid skill. I didn't say it was useless. I didn't say you never use it (… on the contrary, I implied that you *always* use it). I barely said *anything* about Etiquette, really: I said I don't understand how *Disguise* ever got involved in this question at all. It's a total slam dunk, so obviously a use of Etiquette.

Ah, my apologies.

As for why disguise came into the equation - people are sometimes confused, that's why

~Umidori

At least we got two longish posts defending Etiquette out of it. Can copy those for later.

I'm only claiming that that particular sort of situation does not callfor either Disguise or Con, but rather, does call for Etiquette. Yeremeyahu was agreeing with me.



OTOH, Binarywraith would have us believe the opposite is true - it seems like, he'd have someone use Disguise anytime they wanted it to not be super-obvious they were a Shadowrunner. As if that could even be told just by looking at someone, and the clothes they're wearing ...

Just to toss a little alchohol on the dying embers.... Why didn't the Bodyguard posted earlier have Professional Knowledge skill: Bodyguard? _That_ is the skill that tells you how to act like a bodyguard.