Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ N00bi3 questions thread

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 20 2007, 09:39 PM

I'm fairly new to all this, I confess. When my questions get irritating, please shut the thread and ban my butt. I'm hoping against hope that my questions will be easy to answer and fill someone with both a sense of being an SR guru and a feeling of benevolence for helping to ease me into the 6th World.

Starter question for 5: the pre-generated hacker has upgraded the commlink he purchased. How'd he do that? I can't find the rule anywhere.

Second question: I've got 5 runners, but none of them want to play a rigger. This may make hasty retreats an issue. What would a freelance rigger charge to essentially be a get-away driver? Would it be hourly? A percentage of the final cut?

Question 3: Has someone made a jolly great data base with good handles for random NPCs? I'm trying to be as varied as I can be, refusing, for example, to let myself have lots of vicious sounding ones. I've got a fixer called Catalyst, a gillette called Cinnamon, a few tribals with tribal sounding names (Nope, I don't have a Two Dogs), but I won't let myself have a Cherry or Sugar because they're too much like Cinnamon.

Posted by: Konsaki Jan 20 2007, 10:02 PM

A#1 - Pg240 and 321. No rules to create, just each stat has to be bought below the avail limit. IE for chargen no stat can be above R5.

A#2 - Up to the GM, but if it is just a getaway driver job, 10% probably wouldnt be a bad ammount.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 20 2007, 10:12 PM

Each game has multiple "sectors" of play based on the character types that specialize in them. This was much worse in SR3 and previous editions, but is pretty manageable in SR4. Anyway, here's my suggestion...

If the runners aren't specialized in a particular sector of play (i.e., riggers for pursuits), it would probably be best not focus on those areas of play. If they have stealth or combat types, for example, they're probably going to try to make sure there is no pursuit. Let them. Allowing the players to focus in their chosen areas is better than inserting random NPCs to pick up the slack.

That being said, one doesn't need a rigger to conduct a good car chase. I recently had a chase between a lone street-sam on his motorcycle against a couple of roto-drones that worked out pretty well and was kind of fun. Of course, he shot down the roto drones and used his edge to insure his survival.

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 20 2007, 10:13 PM

Wow, thanks for the speedy reply, Konsaki. Point of clarification: if my player wants to upgrade, does he pay for a new rating, or is his existing commlink upgraded by the amount on the table? In essence, the munchkin suggests buying the cheapest commlink and paying for the upgrade instead of buying a better commlink since in the end you'll pay the same for the upgrade regardless of what commlink you started with.

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 20 2007, 10:15 PM

Thanks, Cetiah

The escape thing comes up in another thread, but my 2 worth is this: since we don't have a dedicated rigger, doesn't it make sense for the team to be on individual wheels? Much harder to pursue 5 vehicles going in different directions than one.

Posted by: Konsaki Jan 20 2007, 10:19 PM

Just like you can buy computer cases without any guts, IMO you can do the same thing in 2070 for commlinks. If they are buying 8,000 in parts, I would just give them the case for free. People would notice that it isnt an off the shelf thing though.

If they want to upgrade from R4 signal to R5, i would let them sell back the R4 guts for 1/2 the price, so it would cost them 750 cred total. 500/2 = 250, 1000 for R5 - the 250 = 750 owed. Thats just me though, you could charge them the full 1000 if you wanted. or you could just charge them the difference, which is 500. Its up to the GM.

Posted by: Konsaki Jan 20 2007, 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Bashfull)

Thanks, Cetiah

The escape thing comes up in another thread, but my

2 worth is this: since we don't have a dedicated rigger, doesn't it make sense for the team to be on individual wheels? Much harder to pursue 5 vehicles going in different directions than one.

In this situation, you as the GM have no say. The players could just hoof it on foot if they wanted too. You just need to figure out what the NPCs do because of the player's decision.

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 20 2007, 10:23 PM

Thanks, Konsaki. It occurs to me that other team members might also want the old bits (if they'd conceivably fit) for their commlinks. So the trade-in idea is excellent, and as a further option they could sell it (or give it) to another team member.

P.S. Love the manga pic of Caittie. How can a drawing be sexah? I'm feeling a bit dirty.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 20 2007, 10:25 PM

QUOTE (Bashfull)

The escape thing comes up in another thread, but my

2 worth is this: since we don't have a dedicated rigger, doesn't it make sense for the team to be on individual wheels? Much harder to pursue 5 vehicles going in different directions than one.

Maybe sensible, but less fun in a roleplaying game...
(one PC get followed, the others can't do anyting about it)

I'm with Konsaki on the free commlink case.

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 20 2007, 10:30 PM

I agree about the commlink case, but having said that, the pregenned hacker has a commlink that is upgraded. That means he's paid for the original then paid for the upgrade. Roleplaying wise, a nice touch. Munchkin wise (and I do have a munchkin in my game) it'll get by-passed. I'll use the "it'll be obvious you're a hacker" argument, since the player used a lot of BP for start up cash. He could quite easily have afforded the Fairlight Caliban but I urged against it.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 20 2007, 10:35 PM

QUOTE (Bashfull)

In my games, I make them pay the full price of the upgrade in addition to whatever they paid previously for the old versions.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2007, 01:13 AM

QUOTE (Bashfull)

If you're going to penalize him for using a custom case (which would in no way be an uncommon occurrence in 2070), then he might as well just buy a Metalink and throw away the 'guts' after he upgrades.

In my opinion, the custom case thing is in no way munchkin. The pre-generated Hacker is just stupid.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 21 2007, 01:50 AM

I assume you always have to "throw away the guts" when you upgrade something. When a character upgrades to alphaware bone lacing, for example, do you let him keep the original bone lacing? Do you give him a discount? Generally, I just assume if its possible to salvage (which might take a little bit of work), the chopshop keeps the bone lacing and then sells it used to gangs. They don't reimburse the guy on the table. If he wants to keep his own bone lacing that will be a rather expensive service.

I assume more or less this same principle applies, say, if a player character is upgrading the bone lacing of another player character. The old bone lacing is trash. I mean, it can't even be used for ghoul food like regular bones.

Just like I wouldn't let a character keep his old hand when he upgraded to a cyberhand, and I wouldn't want to be concerned with the inevitable fate of this hand, I'm going to similiarly ignore the 'old guts' of a commlink when it is upgraded.

I believe it's important to be consistent.

And by the way, isn't it more expensive to buy a cheap commlink and upgrade it? I thought I noticed that some of those commlinks and operating systems, especially the upper ones, seem to give you a discount as a package deal... but if you plan to eventually upgrade it, yeah, buy a cheap one and put up with its lower stats for awhile until you upgrade. If its worth it to you to save a few nuyen.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2007, 01:58 AM

I disagree with most of what you just posted. I would indeed reimburse my PCs for most cyber they trade in in the course of upgrades, as long as it is salvageable.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 21 2007, 02:21 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

I disagree with most of what you just posted. I would indeed reimburse my PCs for most cyber they trade in in the course of upgrades, as long as it is salvageable.

It's up to you. As long as you're consistent, I don't think it matters which style you go with.

But I'm of the opinion that the basic assumption should be that the rules will be used more often than they will be and that exceptions should be, well, exceptional. For example, does an upgrade price reflect keeping the original parts? Well, if you're going to keep the original parts and sell them afterward, or recieve a discount for trading in the upgraded parts, and that stuff isn't covered in the rules, we should just assume that this kind of stuff is covered rather than applying an exception each and every time that rule is used. Or change the rules.

But like I said, so long as you're consistent, I don't think one option is better than another. I made a choice for my games and now PCs know what to expect.

(If they really wanted a discount for trading their old cyberwear, I'd start using the Negotiation rules... really roleplay the event and make it fun. Not just a player overriding the standard rules "because I said so".)

Posted by: Jaid Jan 21 2007, 03:23 AM

QUOTE (cetiah)

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jan 20 2007, 08:58 PM)

I disagree with most of what you just posted. I would indeed reimburse my PCs for most cyber they trade in in the course of upgrades, as long as it is salvageable.

imo, it makes sense that if the 'ware is salvageable, it has a trade-in value. they wouldn't make it a standard rule that that's factored into the cost, because what if someone starts off with no cyberware, and the upgrade is from nothing to actually having 'ware?

Posted by: ornot Jan 21 2007, 03:30 AM

I have to say it's fairly moot in my opinion. Why go to the extra hassle of accounting all this junk? It would not be at all hard to get a case for a comlink, and it can look like whatever you want it too.

Again for 'ware. If they're upgrading in the game, working out how much money they owed back for their old 'ware is a lot more effort than I can be bothered to put in. They don't exactly have surgery costs, or recovery times and costs. What portion of the cost of the 'ware in the RAW goes towards that? Or do you charge the PC extra to cover those costs?

Posted by: Konsaki Jan 21 2007, 03:39 AM

The way I rule it:

Cyberware - You lose the old cyberware as part of the surgery costs
Bioware - You pay 150% of the difference between the ranks if you are upgrading. (Example - Synaptic boosters from rank 2 to 3 would cost 120,000 [80,000*1.5]instead of 240,000 because you already had the prior ranks performed already and they are just building ontop of them.)

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2007, 05:02 AM

QUOTE (ornot @ Jan 21 2007, 02:30 PM)

Or do you charge the PC extra to cover those costs?

Don't you?

Depending on the specific 'wares traded in, the 'return value' will cover, and even often exceed the costs of the surgery. If the latter happens, then the PC gets a cut on the base cost of the upgrade. Rarely does actual nuyen change into the PC's hands for their trade-ins, but their old stuff is still worth something, and it does have a market (even in canon), so some kind of arrangement is made.

Seriously though, as a GM, I don't find this kind of thing to be too taxing on either my time or my brainpower. I fail to understand those that proclaim all this to be 'too much effort'.

Posted by: Jaid Jan 21 2007, 05:13 AM

indeed. just offering them an arbitrary amount as seems appropriate to the situation should be enough, i would think.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 21 2007, 08:03 AM

Remember, though, that not all cyberware is something you can remove from one person and install on another person. Things like wired reflexes are done by nanites secreting compounds and suchlike - you can't pull them out with a pair of pliers and staple them into someone else. I could see it for things like cybereyes, cyberlimbs, and other outright replacements.

Also keep in mind that for some 'ware, the raw materials reclaimed could be offset by the extra time and trouble of having to remove the old stuff first, as opposed to simply putting the new stuff in.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2007, 08:15 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

I would indeed reimburse my PCs for most cyber they trade in in the course of upgrades, as long as it is salvageable.

Posted by: jervinator Jan 21 2007, 08:20 AM

Time to loot the corpses....

Posted by: sunnyside Jan 21 2007, 04:49 PM

Back on the subject of the rigger I'd say it depends a lot on the skill of the rigger NPC, exactly how risky it is for them, and more importantly what vehicle is involved. In shadowrun there is a fairly developed community of T-bird cross boarder smugglers. That wouldn't be cheap. A guy in van on the other hand.

I'd say if you made up the rigger as a PC character with a vehicle purchased with BP they'd want a share of the profits equal to whatever slice a PC gets, and then discount the price by however much the rigger shouldn't have to get into combat.

Of course the rigger will try to get the runners to agree to pay for damages and expensive weapons fired (missles arne't cheap!).

Also remeber the rigger is an NPC with a brain he isn't going to kamikazi he's vehicle trying to save the runners like as not.

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 21 2007, 10:49 PM

Right, next n00bi3 question.

My hacker is in a firefight. He's not the best gunfighter, but decides his best course of action is to switch off someone else's cyberware, or readjust their smartlink, or ejct the clip from his pistol. In game mechanic terms, how would he do this? Is it hacking or electronic warfare?

Posted by: Ravor Jan 21 2007, 11:10 PM

I'd say Hacking, but only if he is stupid enough to leave sensitive equipment such as his gun/cyberware connected to his Commlink PAN. (And even then you first have to find his Commlink Node, get past whatever ICE he has, and then connect to the gun's Node on his PAN, all of which will take time.)

If like 99% of everyone with half a brain he doesn't have a huge Hack Me written on his forehead then you have to get very close to him, within 3 meters if I remember correctly. And that is if he is even using Wireless Mode instead of a Skinlink PAN, which in my opinion for 50 Y extra each device on the PAN is the way to go for most non-grunts who has to live or die based off their equipment.

*Edit*

And in my games, the basic package that every corp sec grunt is issued is a smartlinked gun/glasses and a cheap Signal 0 Commlink all programmed to only talk with itself and other matching corp issued equipment sets and to also only run in Hidden Mode. True, it is possible for a Decker to hack into this setup, but the corps figure that if a Decker has the time to do so while within 3 meters then they have bigger issues to deal with anyways...

Posted by: Jaid Jan 21 2007, 11:15 PM

hacking in combat will take too long. your best bet is to just throw grenades or something, or maybe get yourself a few drones that you can be commander of.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 21 2007, 11:33 PM

QUOTE (Ravor)

True, it is possible for a Decker to hack into this setup, but the corps figure that if a Decker has the time to do so while within 3 meters then they have bigger issues to deal with anyways...

That is a huge misunderstanding, the hacker don't need to be less than 3m away to hack something with signal 0, there must only be another wireless device inside those 3m. Important is, that there are wireless 'relais' alle the way to the hacker.

Posted by: Ravor Jan 22 2007, 12:00 AM

Aye, but wouldn't that require the Decker to have access to every link on that Wireless Chain? On corp turf then wouldn't the Decker have to have first hacked the building's Matrix before even being able to start trying to hack the grunt's Signal 0 PAN?

Of course, the other more secure package using Skinlinks costs an extra 150 Y for each unit, so I guess it depends on whether the Security Chief for the corp is able to win the battle against the Accounting Chief.

Still, personally I say that as long as you are using Hidden Mode and are limiting your Signal then 'combat hacking' takes far too long to be useful in actual combat itself.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 22 2007, 12:11 AM

QUOTE (Ravor)

I imagine this as working todays internet, as long as you know where you are going (IP adress), the routing to the destination is fully automatic. If there is a way through the matrix to your target, you'll get there. (there might not be, someone standing with signal strength zero on an empty parking lot can't be hacked this way

Posted by: ornot Jan 22 2007, 12:18 AM

I feel it would be in the interests of a corp to have a certain degree of communication between its guards comlinks and even smartlinks; That way whoever is commanding a unit of guards has an idea how much ammo they have left, and can use information gathered through a guncam to provide some kind of AR overlay showing where any intruders are.

To a certain extent I would do this simply to allow a hacker or TM to use their funky skills, but making the enemy hackproof, while doable, is kinda dull and limits cunning plans available to the PCs. I could certainly see a corp changing its procedures if this type of hacking became overly prevelant (ie. seriously fragged up the GM's game balance).

Posted by: Ravor Jan 22 2007, 12:53 AM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

*Shrugs* I guess I see it differently, although virtually everywhere 'public' does have the public access automatic routers, the same isn't likely to be true while in 'privately secure' areas. (And I imagine that many of the corp owned public access routers are turned off/switched to Hidden Mode after hours in the few remaining places that aren't open 24 hours a day.) Remember that any Node running in Hidden Mode has to be actively searched for before a Decker can even try to access it.

QUOTE (ornot)

True, like everything wireless it seems that it is a constaint battle between security and usefulness, you always have to weigh the risk of having all your guns eject their clips at the same time vs being able to cordinate your battle tactics on the fly. Still at the very least I see easily reached manual switches to turn Wireless Mode off built into every Sec Guard and Runner's commlink as well as loading up on the ICE. (After all, I'm going to assume that like any good Decker, the corps don't bother to worry about a little thing like Copy Protection and therefor the only limits to the ICE on their PANs will be the cheap commlinks they are likely stuck with.)

Posted by: Mistwalker Jan 22 2007, 03:18 AM

Remember, when you switch off your wireless connection to your commlink, you have no outside connection at all, even to your teammates (you know, the little warnings that they give -nade, napalm, etc..)

Posted by: cetiah Jan 22 2007, 04:14 AM

Bashfull, your question won't get you a solid answer. We've been going back and forth on this issue for a while now on a variety of different threads. My advice to you is to consider a way that would be most fun for your group and stay consistent with that. Otherwise wait for Unwired to be released or take a look at Serbiter's stuff.

For my campaigns...

An action like this is simply two Hacking checks, one against the enemy comlink's firewall (default 2 for unlisted grunts), and then a second check to actually eject the clip or whatever. The hack-in check doesn't have to repeated later in that scene unless the hacker switches targets; he can continue taking hacking actions to shut off the guy's gun if he wants, so long as he keeps succeeding against the firewall.

Basically, the hacker exchanges 1 of his complex actions to force an opponent to lose one of his complex actions. The biggest risk is that it won't work, like most other actions targeting an opponent.

Most people on this list do not run it this way. I do it to make it easy for hackers, to allow them to get the most ability from the capabilities they've purchased, and to make sure that the most common actions for hackers can be resolved quickly without slowing down the play. (So hacking a comlink takes about as much time and dice rolls as shooting someone, for example.)

We really won't agree on this issue, and you're better off either looking at the other threads where we discuss these issues or deciding on you're own how you're group wants to handle it. The rules are pretty open to interpretation, and those interpretations are modified by people's concepts here of "common sense" (such as assuming a runner wouldn't have his gun linked, even though the definition of the PAN describes someone with all of his little devices linked...)

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 23 2007, 11:43 AM

Do we think this is a question that will be addressed in future by Fanpro? I actually thought there was specific mention of weapons and cyberware being part of your PAN. That's why I asked the question initially. I did find it odd: why would cyberware take such a regressive step? Why not just use the old cyberware/scope/smartlink that wasn't linked so you couldn't have it hacked? In the end I decided it was a game mechanic introduced to make hackers more useful in general play so I ran with the idea. Is it the case that most people disagree?

Posted by: cetiah Jan 23 2007, 01:28 PM

I went with the same conclusion, plus I'm trying to embrace "The Wireless World" as a theme in my game whenever possible. But I think most people believe that shadowrunners should be more secure and more-or-less resistant to hacking attempts, without having to be hackers themselves. I'm also trying to keep hacking attempts to 3 opposed rolls or less whenever possible, unless retrieving a file or something is the overall goal of the mission.

There have been all sorts of topics about it, from using wires to connect all of your devices, to how exactly one finds or receives signals in "hidden mode", to linking a group's commlinks together to give hacker's more stuff to have to get through, etc. etc.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 23 2007, 02:45 PM

Cetiah, do you let hackers make only the 2 hacking checks before messing about with cyberware too? Bypass the firewall and now you're allowed to turn off his eyes? That seems fairly unbalancing to me...

Posted by: cetiah Jan 23 2007, 07:36 PM

I'm not quite sure what you mean by bypassing the firewall.

Let's try an example.

Combat Turn #1: Hacker hacks into comlink with the Firewall as his threshold. Next, he commands the smartlink to eject the clip, using the Firewall as a threshold. Then the target, annoyed as hell, fumbles for another clip and sticks it in.

Combat Turn #2: Having already hacked his way into the comlink, so long as he doesn't do anything else or change to hacking someone else, the hacker doesn't have to hack in again. This time he goes for the cybereyes, shutting them off. The guy's comlink's Firewall is, once again, the threshold for this task. If the hacker is successful, the target is now blind and annoyed as hell and must spend a simple action to turn on his cybereyes.

Posted by: sunnyside Jan 23 2007, 09:32 PM

The rolls for hacking people in hidden mode are a hair slow for combat. But it still only takes a handfull of seconds of game time to do it.

This is important because there are some crazy groups out there who like to do things other than charge into a corp with a pair of gyro mounts so they can dual weild HMGs. It's true. And clever hacking can play heavily into that.

In my games I tend to run a range of network security from lax to paranoid, but I'm sure to play out the disadvantages of playing it too secure. For example if they aren't using coms at all then the guards don't know where each other are or neccesarily know what's going on and they aren't frequently checking in.

Actually a general point to the OP. You sort of have to decide what sort of campaign you want to play. A LOT of GMs out there don't think they've made a good adventure unless there is a firefight, and preferably one in most scenes. Typically these GMs end up with their players turning into combat munchkins, because that's what they reward. If you want your characters to be skillfull and multifaceted you have to make sure your world makes their skills worthwhile. Don't fall prey to the idea that just becuase they got to make some rolls with their infiltrate, hack or con that makes them worthwhile. Your players will figure out if they would have been better off just charging in and will start alloting Karma/Nuyen appropriatly.

Posted by: Bashfull Jan 23 2007, 09:45 PM

Cetiah, does he need to trace the commlink first before he hacks the firewall? What sort of action is that? I'm assuming that, all this time, the hacker is potentially under fire, or at least desperately trying to hide.

I don't think this is a game imbalance. I'm all for anything that brings deckers back into the team - sure, it's hackers now, but a rose is a rose, innit? I reckon I'm joining Cetiah's club unless someone else has anything to add.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 23 2007, 09:59 PM

QUOTE (Bashfull @ Jan 23 2007, 04:45 PM)

No, a hacker who can't trace a wireless node isn't worth the name. I just assume that's part of the hacking check, so long as the hacker himself is capable of identifying his target somehow. The only time I'd require a hacker to search his node is if he's using that as a way to track his target, like searching for someone's comlink who is somwhere in the same building, for example. But for a straightup "I disable that camera!", that's just one or two rolls.

Disabling all the cameras in the building may be more complicated, starting with finding the security node. If you were in the same room as the security terminals or the data archive though, no search necessary. Just hack away.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 24 2007, 06:24 AM

How does it work when their commlink is running in a hidden mode? How do programs on the hackers commlink affect his performance? Why is it a simple action to reactivate your cybereyes if its merely a mental command, shouldn't it be a free action?

Posted by: cetiah Jan 24 2007, 07:56 AM

Geez, tough questions. Okay, bare with me here...

QUOTE

How does it work when their commlink is running in a hidden mode?

I honestly believe that hidden mode was put into the game just to explain why security can't just track runners by reading sources of wireless signals. The problem with this, is that wireless signals can't actually be stopped that way. Without specialized equipment (or at least line of sight) you can't really send a tightbeam transmission to your subscribed nodes and not have them intercepted. However, for the purposes of the game, I think you have to bend that particular law of physics and assume there is a way to "hide" wireless transmissions, but allow two-way communication with desired nodes, whether they are "hiding" or not. Since we have to make that assumption anyway, I don't see the point in a hidden mode. Essentially, the runners are always "hidden" from anything they want to be, and their firewalls are customized enough to understand the difference between authorized and unauthorized communication. Consequently, there's no additional action needed by anyone to turn hidden mode on or off; it's just assumed that others who want to find the node have to use hacking skills to do it.

A runner who has identified his target in some way, usually by line of sight, doesn't need a separate roll to find a hidden node, just like a street sam doesn't need a perception test to shoot someone behind cover. Assuming he knows its there, he can instantly hack into that node with his "hack in" action. However, if he doesn't know where the node is, or even if the node exists, then he's got to find the node by scanning various wireless signals using his comlink's scan programs.

This is the same, even if the node is not technically "hidden" (although no such concept really exists in my game). Say, you're tracing John Doe who is not a shadowrunner and is a perfectly legitimate and uninspiring wageslave with an unfortunate name. So long as you keep him in sight, you can "hack in" to his comlink whenever you want (by taking an action to attempt to do so), but if you decide to go get a coffee or something at Starbux Co., and then try to remotely hack-in from there, you have to use your scan program to find the node.

While this is theoretically how it works, it's never come up in my game, except when the players are trying to access the overall security Master Node. But usually their target is within line of sight.

QUOTE

How do programs on the hackers commlink affect his performance?

Okay, Hacking tests are made to access other people's comlinks and devices and mess with their stuff. Computer tests are made to use your own comlinks and devices in cool ways, especially where Augmented Reality bonuses are involved.

For each Hacking action you attempt, you must use a program, so you always have a program rating involved (even if its 0). For each hit you score on your test that exceeds the program rating, divide the hits in half. For example, if you score 6 hits on a "hack in" attempt and have Exploit Rating 4, then the first 4 hits you score count for 1 hit each, but the last 2 are halved, so only count as 1 additional hit, for a total of 5. This sounds a little complicated to write down, but works pretty smoothly in game. The technique was borrowed from Serbitar, who based it on the magic rules as far as I know.

QUOTE

Why is it a simple action to reactivate your cybereyes if its merely a mental command, shouldn't it be a free action?

Yeah, you're right. I wrote that without a rulebook handy; but having it be a free action kind of defeats the whole point of hacking cybereyes in the first place, doesn't it? In a game, I probably would have made sure the effect DID something like taking one of the grunt's simple actions, or requiring a Computer (probably defaulted) test, or just imposing a -2 "distraction penalty" on the grunt. Just SOMETHING so no one feels like he just wasted two rolls and an opportunity to shoot the guy.

So far these rules have only been used to get information, protected files, and defeat security measures. No one's tried to hack someone's eyes yet. Maybe that's why.

Good call.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 24 2007, 08:18 AM

Alright, some more questions for you...

You said that to hack they merely need a program, and thats all. You didn't really say which program is required. You use exploit as an example, but when do sniffer, spoof, stealth, or track come into play?

What happens if a hacker is playing overwatch on commlinks (say, editing AR info together for the team, and the like, while watching for enemy intruders onto a team members commlink). How can he use his analyze program to find an intruding hacker if the hacker is in and out in a simple action? How can there be any cybercombat at all? What if there is an agent loaded into a runners commlink with analyze, and attack programs? Programmed to constantly analyze and then attack any intruders detected. Does such an agent get any chance to negate a hackers attempts?

You like to compare your method of hacking to shooting someone. Theres a key difference. If you shoot at someone, you have your threshold to hit them, as well as them getting a defence roll to avoid being shot. With your method of hacking, there is only the hacking roll with a threshold to successfully affect them, there is no defensive roll to avoid being hacked. Isn't that a bit of an imbalance issue? Especially if I'm a hacker with wired 3, going 4 passes a combat turn. Even with magic there is a token willpower/body roll to resist the effects.

Another point, you say that there is no true "hidden" mode for wireless signals. I agree that if it is communicating in some way, there isn't really any "hidden" method to do it, besides disguising it as white noise somehow. However, I disagree with your assertion that merely seeing someone should allow you to hack into them. You and I can be sitting at a starbucks, both on wireless enabled laptops, both connected to the starbucks wireless access point. Merely because I know the specific location of your laptop tells me nothing about how it is wirelessly accessing the point, nor how I can directly interact with it via wireless signals. If I was really working for it, I could watch packets you send, and find out what your IP address was, provided you weren't using any kind of encryption. But, again, thats more than a simple matter that could be done upwards of 8 times in 3 seconds (4 IPs max a combat turn, 2 simple actions an IP).

Posted by: cetiah Jan 24 2007, 09:17 AM

QUOTE

Alright, some more questions for you...

Okay, I'm very tired now and must go to bed. But I'll try to answer these real quick and if I'm unclear, let me know. Of course, everything in this post refers to my house rules.

QUOTE

You said that to hack they merely need a program, and thats all. You didn't really say which program is required. You use exploit as an example, but when do sniffer, spoof, stealth, or track come into play?

Exploit is used for the initial "hack in" roll. Once hacked in, you can do other stuff. Sniffer is used to find remote nodes/comlinks and intercept traffic such as comcalls. Spoof is used to send commands to drones and doors and stuff. If you are hacked, generally you know about it right away (or at least when weird stuff starts happening)... track can be used to figure out who is hacking you. Stealth is largely unused in my game, but I can see using it if you needed to really hide or disguise certain files and such... but encryption might work better. Edit, Exploit, and Spoof are the most common programs used in my game.

QUOTE

What happens if a hacker is playing overwatch on commlinks (say, editing AR info together for the team, and the like, while watching for enemy intruders onto a team members commlink).

I wanted to come up with some new programs for specialized applications for some of this stuff, like maybe an Overwatch program, but no one was interested and I got distracted on another house rules project. Like I said, I don't have a hacker in my group, just dabblers.

As it stands now, this is a Computer+Logic test. Since no program applies (I just haven't written it up yet - although I could see someone using "Stealth" or "Sniffer" for this), you halve the number of hits. However many hits you scored, add this many dice to the action you are trying to coordinate. Alternatively, roll dice for those hits and add any hits to firewall. But that assumes the hacker is doing nothing but watching for other hackers and protecting the network.

For a list of other cool stuff to do with AR, check out Serbiter's matrix house rules. Ask him for it. He's probably around somewhere...

QUOTE

How can he use his analyze program to find an intruding hacker if the hacker is in and out in a simple action?

He can't really. That's what the firewall is for.
Analyze, in my game, is mostly used to "interrogate" nodes for information. Finding files or looking up general information generally uses Browse, but trying to get information from a node that isn't designed (or instructed) to give it up is an Analyze.

QUOTE

How can there be any cybercombat at all?

It hasn't really come up in my game yet. We haven't missed it. Usually there's actual combat going on.

QUOTE

What if there is an agent loaded into a runners commlink with analyze, and attack programs?

I don't know. None of my runners have agents. I don't see a need to bother with this. It's a cumbersome aspect of the game that's largely unnecessary.

QUOTE

Programmed to constantly analyze and then attack any intruders detected. Does such an agent get any chance to negate a hackers attempts?

No. That's already assumed in the firewall rating. And your defeat of these little digital demons is already assumed in the "hack in" attempt.

QUOTE

You like to compare your method of hacking to shooting someone. Theres a key difference. If you shoot at someone, you have your threshold to hit them, as well as them getting a defence roll to avoid being shot. With your method of hacking, there is only the hacking roll with a threshold to successfully affect them, there is no defensive roll to avoid being hacked. Isn't that a bit of an imbalance issue? Especially if I'm a hacker with wired 3, going 4 passes a combat turn. Even with magic there is a token willpower/body roll to resist the effects.

This is an excellent point, and I'll definitely put some thought into this.
But as it stands now it sounds like the guy defending against hacking attempt gets an extraordinary advantage over someone getting shot at or hit by a spell. Sure, they don't get to roll, but they get threshold protection which they don't get in physical combat. This is because I assume that, thanks to their firewall, they always have some measure of active full protection.
If you could just use your Body stat for example as a threshold, instead of rolling Body and having your hits reduce the enemy hits, wouldn't you say that's an extraordinary advantage?

Furthermore, and I wasn't going to mention this but since you brought it up, there's two more important restrictions: 1) a hacker can only attempt 1 AR action per turn, regardless of how many passes he normally gets in a round. The remaining passes could be used for other actions. 2) If a hacker fails to hack in, that's it. He's failed. he can't try again in the same scene. So if he fails to shut off a camera, they'll need to find another way to take out the camera. If he fails a "hack in" attempt against an NPC's comlink, that NPC is now ammune to that hacker's attempt to "hack in" for the rest of the scene. I think most hackers will use edge, though.

QUOTE

Another point, you say that there is no true "hidden" mode for wireless signals. I agree that if it is communicating in some way, there isn't really any "hidden" method to do it, besides disguising it as white noise somehow. However, I disagree with your assertion that merely seeing someone should allow you to hack into them.

QUOTE

You and I can be sitting at a starbucks, both on wireless enabled laptops, both connected to the starbucks wireless access point. Merely because I know the specific location of your laptop tells me nothing about how it is wirelessly accessing the point, nor how I can directly interact with it via wireless signals. If I was really working for it, I could watch packets you send, and find out what your IP address was, provided you weren't using any kind of encryption. But, again, thats more than a simple matter that could be done upwards of 8 times in 3 seconds (4 IPs max a combat turn, 2 simple actions an IP).

It depends on how much you're willing to abstract, really.

See, the way I'm picturing the situation, there's two things 3 things that could be happening here:

1) You look at my laptop, and your AR instantly pulls up information as to its dimensions, weight, model, heat signature, ambient light level, the frequencies of any signals is transmitting on, a MAD reading of any bizzare equipment installed, etc. etc. (all assuming you have the equipment to detect this stuff in the first place). As you slide your glance across the room, you see a table, and get similiar information about the table alone with manufacturing information cross-referenced with 83%+ accuracy wtih Matrix catalogs. Suddenly a cute waitress walks into your field of vision and your AR gets to work...

2) Someone with basic COMPUTER skill could probably do what you're suggesting, finding my IP address or com-frequency, but someone with HACKING skill could do much more. and because he has AR, his understanding of his matrix environment is augmented by his understanding of his physical environment in a way that an ordinary 2060 decker could never dream of.

3) Part of it just has to be accepted as a game balance issue. I really hate the fact that magic, for example, relies on line of sight. But I chalk this out into the same category. Also, I justify it based on my interpretation of AR and such (in the same way that magic bases it on interpretation of mana stuff).

4) I really don't see a hacker as "i scan for a wireless signal matching the specific traffic frequency I'm expecting, hoping I'm right, and then I hack into that and disable it hoping it's the right one." I see it more as "I hack HIM!!!" and bam, a gazillion signals heading your way looking for an exploit through your firewall.

4 options. Take your pick.

The idea that a hotshot hacker can break into a secure firewall in less than 3 seconds, but can't find a wireless signal is just... sad. How much work goes into a normal "by the book" attempt to, say, turn off a security camera? First of all, we have to have a discussion (probably prior to the run) who is hidden and what is hidden and who is subscribed to what. Later, we have to roll to find the node. We have to roll an Edit or Spoof (depending on your interpretation) to shut off the camera. We have to browse for the log files. Edit those. Every action we're taking her is an opposed test. And all of this isn't counting the fact that we probably have to deal with IC along the way. Oh yeah, and don't forget, we're going up all the system's hits while we do all this. Completely unnecessary.

What are we trying to do here? Ultimately what we want to know is "Do you disable the camera?" Do we have a skill that covers that? Yes. I'm not a big fan of setting players up to fail, purposefully having them roll dozens of times in hopes that they'll eventually fail a roll. For simple stuff, let's just find fun simple ways to resolve it and move on. Like I said, if its the mission objective to retrieve a file, or its otherwise a climactic scene than yeah, let's have a more complicated ruleset for that, but we really need a hacking equivalent of "grunt rules" especially since comlinks and wireless signals are so prevalent and important to shadowrun themes now.

Essentially, by having two rolls, we do a couple things: 1) encourage hacking attempts against the same target (later, I want to think of rules for area-effect hacks), 2) we have two measures of the hacker's profiency: how easily they can "hack in" to any given node, and how well they are at certain specific operations. This way you can have hackers that specialize in certain areas, rather easily.

I think one roll would be too simple and wouldn't take enough stuff into account. I like the dynamics of two rolls. For example, if you fail the second roll, you can't do what you were trying to do, but you're still connected to the system, so you could still do something else. On the other hand, if you try to do what you were originally intending against a different target, then you'll have to roll both rolls over again.

Wow, that was a lot. And now I have to wake up in 3 hours.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 24 2007, 09:37 AM

My point with the agent is this: IC is merely an agent loaded with detection and combat programs utilized to deter intruders on a system. If a runner who is unskilled in computers purchases such a program (an expensive investment) solely for the purpose of hacking protection, why should it not be able to do this? Shouldn't an agent be able to provide commlink overwatch for a team, as well as hacking prevention?

Once a hacker establishes a connection, how do you sever it? You say that if a hacker fails his hack, he can't hack me again for the scene. What if I just reboot my commlink? Or even quicker, just toggle the wireless connection causing him to lose his link and force an attempt to rehack... and to make things easier, since you said detecting an intruder was a trivial task to do, have a program setup that once an intruder is detected on my commlink, to toggle off and on the wireless link. So, hacker hacks in, success, my program toggles the wireless off and on, and hacker now can hack in again if he feels like. Fantastic. Simple, easy hack protection in your game.

Firewalls are not active protection. They are passive protection. Similar to armor being a passive protection from damage. You are correct that there is no constant threshold for damage resistance, however, there is a threshold to successfully hit in the first place (during the attack test). That is the comparison to your hacking in which the person being hacked is unable to do anything to actively try to avoid it. Heres an example to illustrate my point...

Ex1: Gun1 shoots at Fodder1. He rolls his Agi + Pistols against a threshold of 1 (Fodder 1 is in short range, and not moving), Fodder1 goes on full defense to try to avoid the shot and rolls Reaction + Dodge + Dodge.

Ex2: Hacker1 attempts to hack Fodder1. He rolls his hacking test (Computer + Exploit?). Fodder1 has a Firewall of 2. If Hacker1 exceeds the firewall in hits, Fodder1 has been hacked, if not, he hasn't. There is no action Fodder1 can take to actively try to prevent being hacked. The best he can do is plan better in the future and buy a better firewall. Thats where the imbalance comes in.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 24 2007, 10:15 PM

QUOTE

Sure, but all of this is just abstractly assumed in the Firewall Rating. If it helps you picture it, you can call it "Hacking Defense" instead of "Firewall" but I think that would lack flavor. An unskilled runner wanting additional protection should pick up a higher rating firewall, maybe 5, or 6, or even 10. Why not? But even corps rarely have that level of protection. The GM would have to write up prices for that and I don't imagine it would be cheap, but eventually you could have a pretty secure system. Not just one that attacks hackers who are in your system, but one that never lets them in to begin with.

(I'm not saying we shouldn't have rules for IC and such, just that we don't really need them. I would find nothing but firewall defense boring, much like I find nothing but Mana Wards to be boring for astral defense. I do have rules for IC, but they are mostly for cosmetic variation rather than effectiveness and you don't need them to use this "simplified" hacking system.)

QUOTE

Once a hacker establishes a connection, how do you sever it?

Why would you want to? Firewall is resistance against everything he tries to do so it doesn't matter if he's there or not if he can't do anything. What you should really be concerned with is what can a hacker do with that connection.

A runner has to take an AR action to stay connected - i.e., Electronic Warefare, Data search, Computer, or Hacking actions. He is limited to one AR action per turn on his first pass, and the connection lasts until he chooses to stop taking AR connections to maintain the connection or until gets out of range. Alternatively, the hacker himself can sever the connection at any time without needing to logoff, jack out, or erase logs. A glitch will also sever the connection.

Assuming he successfully hacks in, but fails what he is trying to do, the value of his connecton is less because he can't retry that action. He can try other stuff but if he just hacked in to do that one thing, he's screwed.

At the GM's call though, I'd say that failing 2 or 3 firewall actions in a row automatically severs the connection and it can't be retried.

Despite what I said about not being able to retry a failure, spending an edge point always gives you an opportunity to retry.

QUOTE

You say that if a hacker fails his hack, he can't hack me again for the scene. What if I just reboot my commlink? Or even quicker, just toggle the wireless connection causing him to lose his link and force an attempt to rehack...

I also said you can use a Computer skill check to actively bolster your Firewall defense. This is supposed to represent these kind of "me vs you" stuggles.

If you want to say some magic statement that automatically gets rid of a hacker, everytime, with no need of a check, that's up to you if that sort of thing makes your games better. I don't think it would improve mine. Even then, though, I doubt you could do it before he's gone in and attempted what he was trying to do.

QUOTE

and to make things easier, since you said detecting an intruder was a trivial task to do, have a program setup that once an intruder is detected on my commlink, to toggle off and on the wireless link. So, hacker hacks in, success, my program toggles the wireless off and on, and hacker now can hack in again if he feels like. Fantastic. Simple, easy hack protection in your game.

Do you play with those rules? Seriously, you are making your rules with the assumption that hacking is impossible, then, and I'm making my rules with the assumption that hacking is a threat in the world. There is no perfect defense against hacking, ever. Firewall 10 and an expert sysop actively monitoring it is about the best you can do if you've got nuyen to spare.

(Like I said, I have IC rules [still in development] but they're not meant to really make security more secure, just more fun and dangerous. Trace IC would probably be very common, but these are usually put on security nodes not devices and comlinks.)

QUOTE

Firewalls are not active protection. They are passive protection. Similar to armor being a passive protection from damage. You are correct that there is no constant threshold for damage resistance, however, there is a threshold to successfully hit in the first place (during the attack test). That is the comparison to your hacking in which the person being hacked is unable to do anything to actively try to avoid it. Heres an example to illustrate my point...

Ex1: Gun1 shoots at Fodder1. He rolls his Agi + Pistols against a threshold of 1 (Fodder 1 is in short range, and not moving), Fodder1 goes on full defense to try to avoid the shot and rolls Reaction + Dodge + Dodge.

Ex2: Hacker1 attempts to hack Fodder1. He rolls his hacking test (Computer + Exploit?). Fodder1 has a Firewall of 2. If Hacker1 exceeds the firewall in hits, Fodder1 has been hacked, if not, he hasn't. There is no action Fodder1 can take to actively try to prevent being hacked. The best he can do is plan better in the future and buy a better firewall. Thats where the imbalance comes in.

Good examples. I see your point. I'm really going back and forth as I consider this issue. Even then, though, I see "Active defense" (in your use of the term) as something Security Nodes and maybe Comlinks would have, but not devices like security cameras and such.

Okay, let's play with the numbers here, comparing a street sam to shooting a thug to a hacker who tries to shutdown a camera. The street sam has 10 total dice to shoot with, plus an additional 2 for smartlink, for 12 dice. The hacker has 10 total dice to hack with, the sum of his logic plus hacking scores. We'll also assume, for statistics sake, that we always score 1 hit for every 3 dice rolled, rounded up. The Body of the Fodder and the Firewall rating of the camera is the same, 5. The body also has ballistic armor of 8 and the street sam is using an Ak-97 assault rifle in SA mode. The hacker is using his program is at rating 6. There is no one "actively monitoring" the security camera to provide bonuses to the firewall. We'll assume the Fodder has 5 Reaction.

Ex1. StreetSam shoots Fodder. 12 dice = 4 hits. Fodder rolls Reaction 5 and scores 2 hits, reducing StreetSam to 2 hits.
Ex2. Hacker exploits Camera. Hacker rolls 10 dice = 4 hits. The camera has rating 5 firewall so the hacker has failed.

Despite the fact that we can already see how the Camera is better protected than a decent grunt, so that we can continue with the analogy, let's assume that both the hacker and streetsam roll Edge to re-roll their failures.

Ex1. The streetsam rolls an additional 8 dice for an additional +3 hits, for a total of 5 hits.
Ex2. The hacker rolls an additional 6 dice for an additional +2 hits, for a total of 6 hits. Since he has exploit at rating 6, none of these hits are halved.

Ex1. The Fodder rolls his Body(5) + Armor(8), 13 dice total, and scores 5 hits.
Ex2. The Camera still has a Firewall 5. No roll necessary.

Ex1. The Streetsam adds his hits from Step 1B (5) to damage (6) for a total of 11. This damage is reduced by the Fodder's resistance hits (5) and so he suffers 6 points of damage.
Ex2. First of all, consider the hacker's attempts done. Until his next full turn, he can't perform another AR action. Once he gets his next turn, though, the Hacker rolls his Hacking+Logic dice, 10 dice total, and scores 3 hits. Once again, this fails against the Firewall 5, and so the hacker can't shutdown the camera. Because its another turn, we can assume he spends another Edge, adding another +2 hits.

Ex1. The Fodder has a number of boxes on his condition monitor equal to 8 + Half Body, which is 11 total. The streetsam inflicts 6 damage, reducing the condition monitor to 5 boxes left and incuring -2 worth of wound penalties on the Fodder. Not bad. This is a partial success.
Ex2. The Camera defended itself pretty well, but the hacker got in and shut it down, which is a complete success, ONLY BECAUSE HE SPENT 2 EDGE to do it. In addition, it took 2 combat turns (though not every initiative pass in those turns were exclusively used for hacking) while the streetsam's action only took 1 initiative pass.

I don't know if either of these are particular "better", they both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. But my basic conclusion is that a hacker is challenged by Firewall 4, finds Firewalls 3 and less relatively easy, and it's really hard to do anything against a Firewall 5 or Firewall 6.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 24 2007, 10:19 PM

I'd like to point out a critical comparison here.

If the magic rules worked like hacking works in RAW, then summoning a spirit would be a really intense process. First, you would have to roll to see if you can gaze into the astral plane. Then, you would have to search the astral plane for the spirit you want to find. Then you'd have to roll some ability to send a message to that spirit and contact it. Then you would roll negotiation to buy services. Then you would cast a spell or something to bridge that spirit into your native plane. To do all of this, you would need like 5 spells. And then of course you would need to erase all that astral signiture stuff. Each of these actions would take a Complex or Extended Actions, with the gazing into the astral plane being a simple action.

Now imagine if some guy came and said, "Hey, in my game we just roll Magic+Summoning skill check aganst a single threshold and the net hits are how many services he gets. Streamlines stuff for our game because we have a conjurer, and all the other runners have a little Summoning skill."

You would think he was a complete loon.

You'd probably be right.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 25 2007, 01:53 AM

First, a point you seem to have missed... "Once a hacker establishes a connection, how do you sever it?" This was meant as say, if a hacker is hacking me, and I know he has succesfully connected to me, how could I sever his connection? Say on the first pass, he hacks me successfully, could I then hit the reset button on my commlink to kick him out since it reboots? Could my teams hacker who is connected to my commlink do anything to boot him out of the device?

I do like the simplicity of it for things such as shutting down cameras, opening doors, and the like... which is why you'll find them not used in my examples. My concern is that when a hacker is using it to hamper an enemy, it seems a bit too potent with the typical device rating of 3, and virtually worthless for anyone who puts up the small amount of cash required to pick up firewall 6 on their commlink.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 25 2007, 02:51 AM

QUOTE

We seem to be missing (or avoiding) eachother's points. My question here is "Why would you want to?" What does it add to the game? The hacker will be expelled from your system if he tries to do something and fails against your firewall, and he can't do anything to your system without challenging your firewall. He can't even analyze it. So what does it matter?

Even in the main rules as written, you can't do this. Well, you CAN, but it's a Firewall + System test against hacker's Exploit program + Hacking skill. Only if the Firewall + System achieves net hits will the connection be terminated in RAW.

Since we've already compared Exploit and Hacking against the Firewall, I really don't see any reason to do so again. Let's just assume all disconnection attempts were attempted when the hacker initially logged in. We've already challenged Hacking vs Firewall, so I don't see any reason to add more rolls after a hacker has succeeded, just in hopes that he'll eventually fail. The firewall will try to boot him off when he tries to conduct operations on your node.

Either way, under my rules, or rules in the mainbook, you can't eject a hacker before he's at least attempted to do his damage anyway, so you don't really a benefit in trying to expel him, since under my rules, you already get this benefit when he attempts to conduct operations on your machine.

Hacking is an access attempt against your node. If the hacker succeeds, he's rewarded, and he enjoys the fruits of that labor... for a few seconds. Sorry if that's not fast enough. But it's just not worth adding more conditions, more die rolls, more rules for.

QUOTE

I do like the simplicity of it for things such as shutting down cameras, opening doors, and the like... which is why you'll find them not used in my examples. My concern is that when a hacker is using it to hamper an enemy, it seems a bit too potent with the typical device rating of 3, and virtually worthless for anyone who puts up the small amount of cash required to pick up firewall 6 on their commlink.

Well, okay, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. I think you'll find that if you use this as your guideline, all hacking rules you ever see will prove inadequate.

I really don't know what benefits there would be to hacking individual enemies, either in my rules or RAW, as it doesn't seem worth doing to me. In both rulesets, this is a vague gray area open to interpretation, so its not fair to use examples in rating my system that fail equally, despite what rules you use.

What would you use in RAW? I find the concept of putting IC in your cyberware to be kind of dumb, personally, although I could see cyberware having its own Firewall, or at least Firewall modifiers. And if someone doesn't want a huge firewall, it's unlikely they're going to have a horde of IC.

My system was meant to be used against security and file servers. In my games, the only time hacking a comlink has been used has been to try to get information from it.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 25 2007, 05:51 AM

In raw? I wouldn't subscribe my cyberware to my commlink. Anything important is connected with a wire. Wireless communication is done on a secondary commlink not connected to the first. The primary commlink is skinlinked, making its signal rating less than zero, as it can only transmit along the biofield of a human body. The first commlink is the primary commlink used for control of all my important things. Secondary commlink would at most be connected to glasses for AR display and earbuds/microtransciever for communication with the team. Drop an agent with analyze and attack programs, along with encrypt for your communications. If the agent detects a hacker coming in, he can initiate a terminate connection (223) while engaging the hacker in cybercombat. If the agent is defeated, the system resets. (223) Both of those can kick the hacker out before he is able to do -any- damage. And that is the utility of them.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 25 2007, 06:00 AM

QUOTE

In other words your campaign has no hackers and you don't need hacking rules. Fair enough.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 25 2007, 06:01 AM

I need to backup and put this all together in a more cohesive format. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them in http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=16379

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 25 2007, 06:18 AM

No, I don't run a campaign, I played in one. In the campaign I did run, I had a technomancer... so without him getting some scene time of tense die rolls, and well executed timing of utlizing previously probed targets to hack away some problems, he would've felt very useless. Pretty much, as long as the hacker is able to stay undetected (easy with probing out a target, difficult to impossible with hacking on the fly) they're very useful.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 25 2007, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (Tarantula @ Jan 25 2007, 01:18 AM)

My rules are made with the presumption (and requirement) that hacking on the fly is rather viable and desired. I'm trying to move away from the SR3 model where the decker stayed home while the runners went out to play. Different tastes I guess.

Besides, I thought you said you were only concerned about hacking NPCs. Since when are you going to take the time probe an NPC for weaknesses? Did you do this? I would've never thought someone would try.

I'm perfectly happy with a "cyberwear can't be hacked" rule (although its not a rule in my system), and it still gives plenty of options to hackers. Also, combined with some of the AR stuff from Serbiter's system, hackers have some awesome little 'battle options' available exclusively to them.

Posted by: Tarantula Jan 25 2007, 07:49 AM

Umm, yeah. He probed virtually any mainframe he had the time to that was associated with the target. During legwork, he'd do data searches on the company, then probe out as much as he could while everyone else was gathing intel of their own. Then, when its time for the run, he was with everyone else, but with his probed access availible to him when he needed it. Worked out great. He got to do his legwork (in the 'trix and in probing) and the more social characters did their own (talking to contacts) while the physicals did their own scouting about intel. Overall, they came up with fairly solid plans that covered most angles their small group could handle. With plans for how to pull out if something they couldn't handle came up.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 25 2007, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Sounds awesome. Cool game. It sounds like what was great about your game though, that made it work, was the good roleplaying and all the players on the same page, not the rule system you were using. Whether you use my system, Serbiter's system, or the rules as written, you could have a game like this. This sounds like the product of good GMing, good players, and a great setting. I love hearing stories like this.