[RAW] Compendium of Sense Rolls clarifications (looking for one . . .)

[sir_pudding]

Again see Dungeon Fantasy 16: Wilderness Adventures pp. 37-38.

All of this is explained. You use Camouflage vs. Vision if you are static. Stealth vs. the higher of Vision or Hearing if moving. If you used Camouflage you can only ambush people that come to you and your approach is randomized.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Gollum

But to cover the specific case where Camouflage could be complementary of Stealth, buy and read Dungeon Fantasy 16: Wilderness Adventures...

Camouflage isn't complimentary for Stealth!

Originally Posted by DF16 p.37

Moving ambushers stalk using their group’s worst Stealth skill after adjusting for encumbrance. Static ones waiting for prey to come to them use Camouflage instead

It's pretty clear that you use one or the other!

Don't you think that it makes GURPS harder and harder to get for newcomers?

Kromm did mention both the Complimentary skills rule and the Ambush rule in Ten for Ten.

And yes, I do think the Surprise rules in the Basic Set are misleadingly worded, since they seem to focus on an unusual situation (mutual surprise).

However, that's 10 years ago, there's little we can do about it now. I suppose you can refuse to play with the better rules, but why?

[D10]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Camouflage isn't complimentary for Stealth!

It's pretty clear that you use one or the other!

Kromm did mention both the Complimentary skills rule and the Ambush rule in Ten for Ten.

And yes, I do think the Surprise rules in the Basic Set are misleadingly worded, since they seem to focus on an unusual situation (mutual surprise).

However, that's 10 years ago, there's little we can do about it now. I suppose you can refuse to play with the better rules, but why?

The vast majority of GURPS players I know play bastardized versions that are preached as cannon but dont even come close due to misinterpretation.
For these players forums, Kromm posts, PDF supplements are all a source of evil unbalanced powerplay, why cant I just accept they are right ?

For us, the game is steadily evolving right before our eyes, but some people dont even know gurps has the pyramid series, or such a cool forum.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by D10

For us, the game is steadily evolving right before our eyes, but some people dont even know gurps has the pyramid series, or such a cool forum.

Time for some namedropping, maybe? Or flashing printouts of the latest pdf releases?

Bill Stoddard

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Camouflage isn't complimentary for Stealth!

It's pretty clear that you use one or the other!

In GURPS rules as written, yes. I don't contest it... But in reality, it is obvious that someone who is good for camouflage and who takes time to camouflage himself before trying to be stealthy improves his odds to sneak past a sentry.

Then the question is: is what GURPS says about Camouflage written in marble or can we suppose that a more generic rule (Complementary Skills) could still be used with Camouflage and Stealth...

Note that in Complementary Skills nothing says that some skills are especially complementary for others and that some skills cannot be complementary for others. The only thing which is said about that is:

"Whenever it makes sense, the GM may allow one skill to aid another." (Action 2, Exploits, page 5)

And here, at least to my humble opinion, it makes a lot of sense!

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Kromm did mention both the Complimentary skills rule and the Ambush rule in Ten for Ten.

I don't have Ten for Ten, so I can't comment it.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

However, that's 10 years ago, there's little we can do about it now. I suppose you can refuse to play with the better rules, but why?

I have no problem with new rules - especially when they are better. Complementary Skills is for instance an example of new rule (compared to Basic Set) which I like and use.

The rules which make things harder to memorize and to play are rules (new or older) which are not generic, which are exceptions, and which contradicts other more generic rules. This is exactly the case with Camouflage cannot improve Stealth. It is an exception, not consistent with common sense, and which contradicts the Complementary Skills rule.

Why? Nobody can explain it... But it is written.

And to solve this problem, we are beginning to discuss about the possibility to get round that ban with a new rule (because Camouflage cannot improve Stealth, let's build a new rule where it would reduce the Observation roll...).

This is how games become "patched and modified, ad infinitum". Rather than thinking on a generic basis, once begin to think on a case-to-case basis... But that is a waste of time: the number of specific case is just infinite.

So, in my humble opinion, when a specific rule contradicts a more generic one without any good reason, the best thing to do is not creating another specific rule to get round the first one... It is to correct or even erase the first one. That makes the game more easy to play.

Now, there may be a good reason which explains why Camouflage cannot improve Stealth odds (and vice versa)... The movement argument is not at al good one: Camouflage doesn't prevent anyone to move and Stealth is used as well for sneaking someone as to hide without moving in shadows or behind furnitures... Furthermore, in reality, soldiers, ninjas, etc., always used Camouflage and Stealth at the same time.

[Refplace]

I think Camouflage not being complimentary to Stealth is ok.
Stealth is a combination of Vision and hearing and if they hear you then camouflage can come into play to avoid being spotted.
If it was complimentary then it would add to hearing penalties as well.
Also equipment modifiers such as clothing, soft shoes, high heals, etc can modify the Stealth roll.

[Gollum]

Hey! Wait a minute! I talked nonsense!

After a little manual work (nothing better than manual work when you want to cogitate), I read the definitions of Camouflage and Sealth in Basic Set again and... wham! The response to our questions are there.

"Camouflage will not improve your Stealth roll, but if you fail a Stealth roll while camouflaged, those who heard you must still see through your camouflage to see you." (Basic Set, Camouflage, page 183)

So, does Camouflage give bonus to Stealth? No. But can both skilled be used at the same time? Yes! And since if the Stealth roll is a failure, the foe must still make a vision roll to see you, Camouflage improves the odds of not being seen when using Stealth...

And that's not all!

Stealth "is the ability to hide and to move silently. A successful roll lets you conceal yourself anywhere except in a totally bare room, or move so quietly that nobody will hear you, or follow someone without being noticed. (To follow someone through a crowd, use Shadowing, p. 219.)
If someone is specifically on the alert for intruders, the GM will roll a Quick Contest between your Stealth and the sentinel’s Perception." (Basic Set, Stealth, page 222)

So, to Vicky's question: "Does this mean that a Sense Roll is allowed only if the character is actively on the lookout, and otherwise an unresisted successful Stealth roll negates sense opportunities?", the answer sounds to be:

• if the victim of the stealth is specifically looking for intruders, use a quick contest.
• but if the victim is not on alert for intruders, don't; that is, use an ordinary success roll (which gives the guy who uses Stealth higher chance to succeed - especially if the victim has a Perception score above 10).

So... I apologize for what I wrote, which was absolutely wrong and make you waste time... Sorry guys!

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Again see Dungeon Fantasy 16: Wilderness Adventures pp. 37-38.

All of this is explained. You use Camouflage vs. Vision if you are static. Stealth vs. the higher of Vision or Hearing if moving. If you used Camouflage you can only ambush people that come to you and your approach is randomized.

I looked through those rules, and I must say that I get the feeling that this is one of those cases where rules are custom-tailored to the DF genre (IIRC Kromm said something like that once - that DF rules should not be hastily extrapolated to the rest of the system, as there's a lot assumed optionals involved).
Notably, the whole idea of the encounter being at 15+MoS/MoF yards depending on who wins the Quick Contest of Sense vs. Stealth/Camo seems very weird and non-generic, as it makes some ambush distances impossible while others non-ambushes at all.

[fifiste]

It still seems to me that someone with sky-high perception should be able to detect wannabe sneakers even if not specifically trying to be alert and on the look for them. Also helps to avoid the quarrel of " but my rogue is always on the look out for trouble in these kind of situations!"

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by fifiste

It still seems to me that someone with sky-high perception should be able to detect wannabe sneakers even if not specifically trying to be alert and on the look for them. Also helps to avoid the quarrel of " but my rogue is always on the look out for trouble in these kind of situations!"

Originally Posted by B393

Those with Combat
Reflexes never freeze, and treat total
surprise as partial surprise.

Originally Posted by Kromm

• When Stealth could actually achieve total surprise, roll a straight success roll. Success grants total surprise.
• When Stealth could at most grant the sneaky party partial surprise, roll a Quick Contest. Victory grants partial surprise.

I think your rogue owes you [15].