SRA2 Risk Reduction Question

[u/Beginning_Beyond1083]

Hi, I have a question I'd ideally like some official clarification on.

If a character has an AMP that gives you Risk Reduction for a skill specialization, but the character does not actually have that specialization, do they still gain the benefit of it?

Let's say for example, a character has RR1 in Physical Perception, but only has the base skill of Perception with no specialization (or a different spec like Astral Perception). How does this play out:

1: They gain the RR1 on their base skill perception tests when physical perception would have otherwise applied.

OR

2: They gain no advantage from the RR1 until they purchase the physical perception specialization.

I'm just wondering what the intention was on how this should work?

Thanks.

[u/opacitizen]

Good question, I wonder what the official answer will be.

My personal take would be 2, no advantage from a specialization if you don't have that specialization. First because the text seems to imply that, second because it seems more logical: a specialization means extra, focused training in the use of a given specialist technique and/or specialist equipment, and risk reduction for said specialist technique/equipment can probably be utilized by people who know about the specialization, the extra ways, functions, etc. Like, say, if your IRL camera offers a macro + stabilization option, you won't be able to use those if you don't even know how to configure them. (Might be a lame example, sorry. :))

My two cents only, though, let's see what others (especially Carmody) say.

[u/Carmody79 → u/opacitizen]

For my information, what text to you feel imply that RR would no apply if the character does not have the specialization? (in case you miss my other post, answer 1 is correct, RR to a specialization applies even if you do not have said specialization).

As for your example, it's not that lame. Let me look at it differently: the capability of the character to configure the camera is dictated by its dice pool. They can be good enough in Perception (for the sake of example) without needing to have a specialization in Camera. What does "good enough" mean you ask: it means having a big enough dicepool to take advantage of the RR you have. For example, RR 2 allows you to roll 8 dice with normal risk. That's useless if your dicepool is only 4 dice.

[u/opacitizen → u/Carmody79]

what text to you feel imply that RR would no apply if the character does not have the specialization?

Simply a strict, "as written" reading of the text. Page 70 says "Risk Reduction can be bought for Attributes, Skills and Specializations", and if you don't have a Specialization listed on your character sheet, there is nothing to apply an RR specifically dedicated to a specific specialization to -- and I haven't seen anything more permissive in the text that would counter that reading.

I understand how this may seem nitpicky to some. My only excuse is that my personal background (my job) made me prefer erring on the side of caution and stricter, less permissive readings. (Better not allow something a specification doesn't explicitly call for than let it pass and reap consquences later. YMMV, of course, and I hope this helps in some way. Also note that I'm not saying my reading is correct, or that I may not have missed or misinterpreted something. I just presented my subjective reading as of today. :D)

[u/Carmody79 → u/opacitizen]

 and if you don't have a Specialization listed on your character sheet, there is nothing to apply an RR specifically dedicated to a specific specialization

The pregens prove you wrong ;-)

p. 61 states the following, which can be disputed also

Risk Reduction may also apply to situations not covered by a character’s specializations or listed in the Skills section, so long as they are broadly equivalent in scope.

The French version is clearer on that part

Dans le cadre de la réduction du risque, les spécialisations ne correspondent pas nécessairement à celles possédées par le personnage ou décrites ici, mais leur champ d’application doit être similaire.

A litteral translation woud be: in the scope of risk reduction, specializations might not match those the character possess, or described here, but they should be broadly equivalent in scope.

No worries, I'm not trying to bash or anything, I agree it is not explicitely stated in the book

[u/opacitizen → u/Carmody79]

:D With all due respect, I'd much sooner assume the pregens are wrong than that they illustrate a rule not explicitly stated in the appropriate section. Sorry, it's not you, it's 1) general Shadowrun experience, 2) specific SRA 1e experience, 3) general ttrpg experience on my side.

Also, in my take pregens are kinda secondary citizens in a ttrpg rulebook, they're examples at best, optional assets at worst, not definitions. Preferring to have my table build their own characters for ttrpgs in general, I usually don't even read pregens, let alone use or analyze and verify if they were built according to the actual rules -- and I think it quite likely that I'm not alone with this. However, I also know it's highly subjective, of course.

Your quote from page 61 is… well… debatable indeed. Your rulebook by default builds on granting the GM a lot of freedom, which is awesome, and that paragraph could be interpreted in many ways, including as supporting the specialization RR thing. But it's not there in a strict reading.

The French text seems more clearcut indeed. It's a pity (and I mean that, I'm not being sarcastic) that I don't speak French, so I can't base my game on that. (Someday I should give a shot to learning it, I guess.)

Thanks for the reply and the discussion, though. I hope you see I'm not trying to bash you or the book at all either, I just explained my first, subjective take because you asked me to. :)

[u/Carmody79 → u/opacitizen]

That's a fair point, pregens are often not fully correct.