Using camouflage isn't just wearing the camo. In fact you can camouflage yourself without wearing any "camo" at all. What actually matters is using cover appropriately, picking the exact section of terrain you're going to blend into, minding your sightlines, being aware of your silhouette, and even more importantly limiting your movement.

Camouflage that works well against one background might be drastically less effective against a slightly different background in the same environment. Camouflage that blends in exactly when you're motionless can be instantly ruined by moving even slightly. And while you might be practically invisible while sitting, crouching, or lying prone near an appropriate background, all you need to do is stand up against the sky to be completely obvious.

The original question was about a sniper on a crane. To reach the top of the crane, they Infiltrate, because they're in motion. Once there, they settle down into a hidden shooting position, which is their Disguise roll. They aren't moving, so they have to pick a spot that conceals them, taking into consideration their background. It's almost 100% required that the sniper go prone in this position, because otherwise they're gonna contrast with the sky quite plainly. If there's some sort of lip on top of the crane that they can lie behind for cover, they need to use that to conceal themselves from view. If there isn't a direct barrier to block line of sight, they need to lay down on a section of the crane that has an uneven silhouette, such that their own silhouette doesn't stand out like a bump on a log. They should also try to pick a spot that doesn't contrast too highly with whatever they are wearing - almost any other color is probably better than a section painted bright construction yellow, for example. Oh, and if they can camouflage their shots as well by timing them to coincide with other ambient sounds? Even better.

You have to make a lot of quick judgements about the terrain (read surroundings, meaning everything around you, pedants) and your own appearance in or against it. That's why Disguise is an Intuition skill - you need to have an intuitive grasp of what will make you stand out and what will help conceal you.

In contrast, Infiltration is an Agility skill. It deals with how well you can control your body, how well you can move quickly without making noise, how well you can duck and weave and stalk and shimmy through terrain when no one is directly looking. Infiltration means ducking behind crates or into shadows, peering around corners and scurrying like hell when the guard's back is turned. Infiltration means moving at the right time, to the right place, with the right about of care to remain unseen, unheard, and undetected - not because you are blending in, but because you are actively hiding. If the box you were crouched behind suddenly vanished, anyone looking your way would suddenly see you.

And all of that is in line with the one thing that ultimately matters anyway. The RAW.

"Infiltration is the skill used when a character wants to sneak around undetected by either other characters or security sensors."
"When a character... wants to look like someone else or blend into the background... she uses the Disguise skill."

Sneaking up the crane? Infiltration.
Taking shots from a static position once on the crane? Disguise.

I'm sorry guys, you can't just rely on your high Agility and a single Stealth Skill. You can't Infiltrate to pick a pocket, you can't Infiltrate to Shadow someone, and you can't Infiltrate to hide in plain sight. This isn't WoW and you aren't playing Rogues.

~Umi

Wow. That's nauseatingly disingenuous. I posted the rules on this self same page, yet you felt the need to edit them? Well, let's see what you left out, and let's add in your ellipsis for the added emphasis to make it plainly obvious that you were being intentionally deceptive.



If you were trolling me, well done, you succeeded. If not... Your edits are just embarrassing.

Ditto... Yerameyahu and Umidori have the right of it.

I throw my glove in with them. Almost Normal, you seem to be completely ignoring the last part of the rules you keep quoting; this is where the confusion is coming in and why the argument seems circular.

When a character wants to take on a false appearance of some kind,
she uses the Disguise skill. This is true whether she wants to look like
someone else or blend into the background.

It's possible. It's also likely the folks arguing against the logical reading of the rules choose to ignore the first part of the rule, which is more egregious since the second part can't exist without the first.



There's really only one way to read that. Hiding behind a rock is infiltration. Hiding behind a rock using a camouflage uniform issued by a faceless AAA doesn't suddenly make your infiltration skill useless. That's both preposterous and laughable, but it's what some folks seem to be insisting.



The soldiers are blending in nearly perfectly with the rock. They're using infiltration. They are taking on no false appearance whatsoever.

The soldiers are blending in nearly perfectly with the rock. They're using infiltration. They are taking on no false appearance whatsoever.

Are you fucking kidding me ...? They're wearing WOODLAND GREEN BDUs, in a DESERT SAND environment. Those uniforms they're in (aside from the armor vests, which ARE the right color for that terrain) ... they're wearing a camoflage pattern meant for western Europe, while ostensibly parking their butts on a hilltop in the middle east.

That's still a Disguise roll, alright. Just ... it's a CRITICAL GLITCH, too!

Whoever's responsible for supplying their unit should have some serious charges drawn up against them and be hauled in front of a Court Martial. >_<;;

Are you fucking kidding me ...? They're wearing WOODLAND GREEN BDUs, in a DESERT SAND environment. Those uniforms they're in (aside from the armor vests, which ARE the right color for that terrain) ... they're wearing a camoflage pattern meant for western Europe, while ostensibly parking their butts on a hilltop in the middle east.

That's still a Disguise roll, alright. Just ... it's a CRITICAL GLITCH, too!

Whoever's responsible for supplying their unit should have some serious charges drawn up against them and be hauled in front of a Court Martial. >_<;;

Yeah, did not really want to touch on that aspect, as it is completely ludicrous.

No, completely ludicrous is selling all your brand new desert digicam to the USA and then finding yourself sending troops to Afghanistan.

REMFs.

I had looked for pictures of US snipers.

Woodland Green Outfits in the Desert?

Must be the Canadian Armed Forces.

That 2nd image is just awesome... Must be a Marine.

Since the Assault Rifle looks like a FAMAS, I think they are french army.

So a character with maxed out Infiltration and no Disguise is invisible when running through the shadows but soon as he stops moving he's easily spotted?

I don't buy it. A sniper using a concealed position without wearing any specially-crafted camouflage is hiding. And there's nothing illogical about using Agility for this - the muscle-control that got you to the position is also what's going to keep you motionless in what is in all likelihood a compact and uncomfortable pose.

The process of infiltrating is clearly intended to be abstract, or at the very least abstractable. Sneaking past a guard will often mean stopping several times rather than being in constant motion. Is it sensible that a Disguise roll be made each time followed by a fresh Infiltration roll? Are the GM and player to work out exactly how many times they have to stop and make these rolls?

So a character with maxed out Infiltration and no Disguise is invisible when running through the shadows but soon as he stops moving he's easily spotted?

The process of infiltrating is clearly intended to be abstract, or at the very least abstractable. Sneaking past a guard will often mean stopping several times rather than being in constant motion.

Yes.

Look at Chameleons, octupie, and other "masters of camoflage" in the real world: their abilities generally DO require that they stay absolutely still.

Looking at the chameleon suit in SR, it imposes a negative penalty to perception, and requires no disguise roll. This is both telling, and supportive of the consensus position.

Yes, it is. It's also the only position supported by the rules. Handy, that.

If the chammy suit was doing the disguise work for the character, then it'd give a bonus to the disguise skill, much like a smartlink gives a bonus to the firing of a weapon. Instead, it imposes a negative perception modifier to a target, which again, reinforces the consensus position.

Yes, it is.

It's also the only position supported by the rules. Handy, that.

If the chammy suit was doing the disguise work for the character, then it'd give a bonus to the disguise skill, much like a smartlink gives a bonus to the firing of a weapon. Instead, it imposes a negative perception modifier to a target, which again, reinforces the consensus position.

I'd actually say it bonuses the Disguise roll, because crouching in one particular spot might superior to another spot. For example, standing in front of a seam between two highly contrasting walls, the chameleon suit would display that seam as best it could, but from various angles that seam would look uneven, making you much more noticeable.

If you have no intuitive grasp for things like that (represented by having a poor Disguise skill), you might plop down in front of that wall seam and think nothing of it, assuming your chameleon suit will keep you hidden, despite the physical limitations of forced perspective.

~Umi

[...] the consensus position [...]

Yes.

Look at Chameleons, octupie, and other "masters of camoflage" in the real world: their abilities generally DO require that they stay absolutely still.

It'll generally mean stopping somewhere completely out of the guard's LOS - so that NONE of your own body is visible.

Disguise would let you stop somewhere in the guard's LOS, where they CAN see your body ... but won't recognise it for what it is.

Your interpretation is not "the consensus position". More people in this thread disagree with you, than agree. That's pretty much th opposite of "being the consensus position".

That's not pertinent to my post at all. I didn't mention camouflage, nor did the text I quoted and nor did the OP.

IMO the camouflage issue has been a major tangent to the original question at hand and doesn't interest me personally so I'm staying right out of it.

I usually argue like a dick. It's way more fun.

Oh, no doubt. It's the way the human mind works. I've mentally labeled several people on these boards as complete dunces long ago, and most of their posts I inherently assume are wrong. If you want to mentally label me a dunce because I don't take internet arguments on roleplaying games to be matters of life and death? Go for it. I'd probably be better off without the interaction.

You asked a question. I answered it.

With very good camoflage - i.e., a very good roll of Disguise (or a mechanical substitute, like a chameleon suit or properly-chosen camoflage pattern clothing) - yes, you CAN in fact be completely invisible while motionless, and then be completely, sore-thumb obvious when moving.

Camoflage-or-not is the core of the discussion at hand. It's the question of "how do you remain hidden while not moving around" ... the answer to which is "camoflage".

Never thought that completely through about disguise and infiltration. ALmost reminds me of the hide and move silently from D&D 3.5 and earlier.


My thought on this:

For a sniper to be spotted a person must equal or exceed in a perception+intuition test versus infiltration+agility.
The disguise only comes into play for normal and lowlight vision, and adds (or subtracts from the perciever) a number of dice equal to the number of successes generated in the disguise test. However, the disguise check would have no bearing on tests related to thermographic, ultrasound, detect guns/metas etc etc. It is really of limitied utility in the age of Cyber eyes, and non visual based sensors.

I do have one question, and that is that if you have mentally labeled several people, and thus inherently assume they are wrong, are you not being a complete dunce yourself? One should always read something with an open mind and consider the facts and theories presented before making a desicion, so as not to play the fool. There have been times when I have agreed with some peoples posts, and others when i did not. I dont hold anything against them personally, because most of them understand that. I just get bent out of shape a little when someone is being purposefully inflamitory for the sole purpose of starting a devovling argument on what is essentialy a board to share and discuss ideas for a game. Your right, this isnt life and death serious, however, the point of a game is to play and have fun, not to start arguments because you can.

Oh, no doubt. It's the way the human mind works. I've mentally labeled several people on these boards as complete dunces long ago, and most of their posts I inherently assume are wrong. If you want to mentally label me a dunce because I don't take internet arguments on roleplaying games to be matters of life and death? Go for it. I'd probably be better off without the interaction.

Except that even in the age of cybereyes, there are ways around these as well...thermal dampening for thermographics, ultrasound is only so good as the image it gives you back, and camo can be used to break up your outlite, hard and soft. MAD detectors are easy to get around (not cheap, but easy) with ceramics, etc