Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ The Rules Obscure
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Jan 7 2008, 03:34 PM
Some things in the rules are not laid out as well as they could be. And as such there are rules that are just not well known. So if there is some obscure rule that completely changed your view on how something worked post it. It might help clear up things for some of the others around here.
Example: Method posted this on the Illusions forum... Little to say my hacker is now underskilled dramatically..
BBB p.125 under the forgery skill
order to pull them off ; the quality of the forgery (hits scored) will
be limited by the complementary skill hits. Forging a painting,
for example, requires an ability to paint—the hits on the Forgery
Test cannot exceed the hits scored on the Artisan Test to create the
painting. As another example, doctoring an image would require a
Computer + Edit program Test in addition to the Forgery Test.
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Jan 7 2008, 03:42 PM
| QUOTE ("BBB p. 216") |
Note that standard electronic devices only have admin accounts, as there is no need for other accounts for their software. |
Target Commlink - Standard secure, but not hacker elite
Firewall (5) + Admin (6) = 11
Analyze (4) + Firewall (5) = 9 avg 3 hits
Hacker - Elite System
Hacking (6) + Exploit (6) + VR (2) = 14 avg 4-5 hits
Stealth (6)
The hacker will need from 2-4 passes to hack into the system, on a fast hack the system will run analyze each try for the extended threshold. It will only take 2 or 3 passes for the system to spot the hacker. Once this is done, the system can drop link to the Hacker (looses all his work), then will be on Alert status providing it +4 to its Firewall.
Posted by: Feshy Jan 7 2008, 04:21 PM
I doubt that would apply to commlinks, as they are full fledged computers that may very well have legitimate uses for other levels of access. Think corporate computers for traveling salesmen, for instance. You want your IT security to be able to lock the device down and make sure it stays secure even if your salesman is likely to download some garbage from the matrix, so you don't give him full access.
Drones would likely have other access levels as well. For instance, I could see corporations allowing every security grunt to have "read only" access to the drones to get tactical information, while only the security riggers get full command access (admin)
Admin-only I tend to think applies to "simple" devices -- like toasters, MP3-playing underwear, and other things that do not have a stat listing for either pilot or system.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 7 2008, 06:51 PM
| QUOTE (Feshy) |
| I doubt that would apply to commlinks ... |
I disagree. In my opinion, Commlinks typically only come with Admin Access.
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Jan 7 2008, 06:56 PM
The salesmen would log onto his companies network. Not have all the companies data on his commlink.. Unless he door-to-doors in a deadzone, in which case its really not a problem at all. As to drones they can give a readout without providing access, just as you can link your cybereyes input to teammates without them controlling your eyes.
So yes, I think when these were written it was very much intended for drones/commlinks/vehicles... Most drones/vehicles though don't have analyze or systems very high. I think the ruling is they use pilot for everything, so upping your pilot is useful to protect it, but it already comes with a +6 due to ADMIN only.
Anyways don't want to argue, I want more rules that have been overlooked in the books! (I'll get the exact page/quote out of the book when I get home, so I can update my prior post)
Posted by: Redjack Jan 7 2008, 07:46 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
I disagree. In my opinion, Commlinks typically only come with Admin Access. |
I would have to agree with Feshy. Even my pda phone has two levels of access. There is no reason to think that a comlink would have a poor security model as to have only one level of access.
Posted by: augurer Jan 7 2008, 08:35 PM
| QUOTE (Redjack @ Jan 7 2008, 02:46 PM) | ||||
I would have to agree with Feshy. Even my pda phone has two levels of access. There is no reason to think that a comlink would have a poor security model as to have only one level of access. |
In SR, a "poor security model" is actually superior to the known "best practice" of having multiple accounts. This is primarily because once a Hacker has attained any access at all, it's relatively trivial for them to acquire Admin status without raising an alarm.
If you don't mind that the Hackers are all a Complex Action or two away from having Admin with little to no consequence, that's fine. If you do feel this is a bit undesired, either insist that most devices only have one user account (Admin) or change the rules for ratcheting up access levels once hacked inside.
Posted by: knasser Jan 7 2008, 09:05 PM
How do you figure that raising your access level is easier once you're inside? All that hacking yourself access at Public level before you hack yourself Security or Admin access does, is throw in an extra hacking attempt during which you may be detected.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 7 2008, 09:37 PM
I don't see what is to be gained from a normal commlink having more than Admin level access.
Oh, and knasser ... I was under the impression (through your pdf stuff) that you were in agreement about commlinks and admin access. Hmm ...
Posted by: Jaid Jan 7 2008, 10:11 PM
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| How do you figure that raising your access level is easier once you're inside? All that hacking yourself access at Public level before you hack yourself Security or Admin access does, is throw in an extra hacking attempt during which you may be detected. |
you just edit the account list, of course... which is going to be a simple hacking + edit test, since it likely isn't something your hacked account is allowed to do.
Posted by: knasser Jan 7 2008, 10:19 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| I don't see what is to be gained from a normal commlink having more than Admin level access. Oh, and knasser ... I was under the impression (through your pdf stuff) that you were in agreement about commlinks and admin access. Hmm ... |
I didn't disagree with the idea of commlinks only having one security level in that post. I only commented that having hacked your way into a system at a lower level didn't do much to help you then hack it at a higher level. About the only advantage I can see is if it let you move to a different part of the network where no IC was currently residing, so you could hack in peace. However, that would be of limited value in my networks. Usually I set my networks up so that logical groups of nodes share access permissions, but when you come to a logically distinct area, you may have to make a new hack attempt. An example would be two separate offices owned by the same company that shared some matrix resources, but not all. I've never had much difficulty in pitching the difficulty of hacking a network about where I want. Usually, I only make it moderately difficult, knowing that I can complicate things further if I need to. Once a node has detected the presence of a hacker, there are so many things it can do to make things difficult that it gets silly. Amateurs care about breaking into a node. The pros care about do so without being noticed while they do it. And the masters care about not being noticed after they're gone.
It's a bit of a judgement call on commlinks and access levels. You could use an example of how many people today have phones that are tied to a particular network provider. The user does not have Admin access to their phone. But regardless of whether or not there is an Admin level to the commlink, if the user can get their data in and out, make calls, etc. with just the user level access, then so can the hacker. With simple devices, it's harder to determine the functional differences between Public, Security and Administration. You have to either round up or round down, really. The name "public" encourages you to round up for most things that aren't publically accessible, but that has the negative effect of making your auto-fridge conceptually harder to hack than an office computer network. I tend to solve this by making it a non-issue. E.g. the fridge is not really a node, it is a device that is subscribed to your house node and it is the house node which is an entity that you hack. Then it becomes simple - the Hacker hacks the house node and if they want to defrost your fridge while you're out, they need user / public access because that's what you would normally need as a user to do this. If I want to turn off the alarm system, you'll be wanting Security access. And if you want to add a new user account to the household so you can live there while the owner's on holiday... that's Admin.
Posted by: knasser Jan 7 2008, 10:31 PM
| QUOTE (Jaid) | ||
you just edit the account list, of course... which is going to be a simple hacking + edit test, since it likely isn't something your hacked account is allowed to do. |
Maybe in your game. But a public user doesn't have the access rights to that sort of data in my game. There's no boot strapping.
The rules in SR are abstract. They need to be as we're dealing with computer technology over sixty-years in the future. If someone is getting themself security level access to a system, then maybe one way they would do that is to hack an account list, but that attempt is a hack attempt at the node and we have rules for that. It's certainly not a generic Edit test (for which the book gives example such as changing text documents, graphics, video, transferring files, etc), unless the GM says "by the way, there's a file in this node that lists who's an Administrator. Do you want to add your name?"
You're falling into a trap of adjusting the rules to fit an overly-developed guess at how the Matrix would work. And it's also a way that I don't think the Matrix would work, anyway.
Posted by: Jaid Jan 7 2008, 10:38 PM
i agree with you conceptually (that is, i agree that the rules *should* work like that), but i'm not sure that they do. iirc, you can attempt any test while in a node. if you are acting within the privileges of your account, you use your computer skill. if you are going beyond them, you use hacking.
i certainly can understand *why* you wouldn't want to allow that kind of nonsense though.
Posted by: Dashifen Jan 7 2008, 10:44 PM
For what it's worth, I think it would be a Hacking + Edit test but, because a general user account wouldn't have access rights to that file, the system would get to try and detect either (a) the change or (b) the action that's causing the change or © both, depending on how strict the security is going to be.
I've even run some extremely secure hosts as systems which continue to add any new hits on analyze tests to the original hits to prevent hacking (whether on the fly or probing the target) which has almost always made things very tense on the team's hacker!
Posted by: knasser Jan 7 2008, 11:07 PM
@Jain: Okay, well I guess we're allowed to play differently. 
There are lots of easy fluff explanations for any particular Matrix rules, though. So I see no need to let someone with a few preconceptions about how computers work alter elements of the rules.
@Dashifen: By the time you've added in those counter-tests, it's starting to look a lot like the original hacking on the fly rules anyway.
One important difference between the Internet of today and the Matrix of tomorrow, is that today we deal with static files. A video is a video, an access list is an access list. In the Matrix, we're living in an always-on, distributed computing, post-DRM, post-P2P, post-Virutalisation re-designed from the bottom up infrastructure. Static files are a thing of the past. I envisage almost everything as a running process, handed from node to node (I also picture the Matrix 2.0 to have strong countermeasures built into it to prevent runaway replication). This is why agents can travel from node to node, editing a file is akin to interacting with a separate program. It's why IC can be embedded in a file to prevent it being copied.
I can zip up an entire virtual machine as a file and send it to you, complete with all the installed preferences, programs and conceivably processes. It's a small step from there to making the freezing and re-starting of that virtual machine invisible to the user. With SR2070's cannon technology, we can justify, and justify very well, any aspect of the Matrix rules we like.
Long-winded way of saying if any player thinks they're going to type their account name into a permissions file somewhere and become an Admin, they're out of luck.
-K.
Posted by: Jhaiisiin Jan 7 2008, 11:33 PM
So I'm fairly knowledgeable on computers, but only basic info on networking security, so decided to ask a buddy of mine who knows more than is probably healthy on networking and security. I specifically asked why it'd be easier to upgrade access once inside as opposed to attacking the higher level from the outside directly. This is basically what he told me:
When attacking from the outside, you're basically fighting a login prompt. One way or the other, you have to pass that. Generally speaking, user access will be easier to get to due to social engineering and such, and because general users frankly don't pick good passwords as a rule. Admin access is typically harder to break through simply because the passwords are generally much better. (Obviously only talking general, not specific people right now) Once inside however, even at the user level, now you have access to the OS, the programs, whatever. There are more points of exploitation, more things you can use against the system to help give you more access.
So basically, yes, when you're inside, apparently it would be easier to get more access. The exact hows and whys are subject to interpretation and fluff, but the mechanics should show that it's slightly easier from inside than out. Interior walls of a house are never as sturdy as the exterior walls is a good analogy I guess...
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Jan 7 2008, 11:43 PM
| QUOTE (BBB p. 219) |
| You can also alter a device's output--video taken by a security camera, for example, or telemetry data taken by a vehicle sensor. A single Edit action only alters output for a short period (one Combat Turn). In order to alter output for a longer period, you must first take control of the device (see p.220) prior to the Edit action. Edit can also be used for creative output, such as crafting a life-like 3-D holo to use as a distraction, or forging a convincing set of fake credential printouts. |
I assume this is how people are bumping themselves up a level. Since this is the closest it comes to saying its possible. But this is an output only, not a file. Basically if they are printing out information on you, you can intercept and edit the "No Record" to read your information. But it doesn't put you in the system, you only exist for that one time it is being referenced.
Basic users wouldn't have access to the admin user list, so it makes no sense for someone to edit them in. The only way to do that is to be Admin level, then you'd be able to do that. That's how you make a back door. You can only edit what you have access to, Security has access to video feeds, but they aren't allowed to change them, thats a hacking edit. Edit doesn't give you access, only exploit, so you can't Edit your way into a system.
Also I added the page reference for the access above, its short, and just one of those "Oh yeah, and this" type lines.
Posted by: Aaron Jan 8 2008, 05:16 AM
Okay, let's take a crack at it. Some of these are just things I discovered after running the game for a while, and kinda surprised me.
- If someone ducks behind cover, it becomes more likely that your EX ammo will explode in your weapon. I think we all knew about this one, though.
- Treating a magically active person's injuries with First Aid or Medicine imposes a -2 dice pool penalty.
- Fake SINs tend to be disposable, since they only roll their ratings, which increases the chances for a glitch.
- Tests made with SkillSofts can't have Edge added to them.
- The threshold for determining whether a hologram is real or fake is 2.
- Characters using a shield take a -1 dice pool penalty to all physical actions.
- A dice pool of 2 glitches more often than a dice pool of 1.
- A Body + Willpower (2) Test is required to successfully stand up.
Posted by: Tarantula Jan 8 2008, 05:44 AM
Wheres that stand up rule?
Posted by: Method Jan 8 2008, 07:59 AM
| QUOTE (Aaron) |
| Fake SINs tend to be disposable, since they only roll their ratings, which increases the chances for a glitch. |
This is interesting. I think in my game I would allow the PC to add dice equal to the net hits on a Con+Charisma test...
Posted by: Ryu Jan 8 2008, 09:14 AM
The basic (and really obscure to me) problem is that everyone is checking the integrity of your SIN. The part where they check if YOU match up with YOUR SIN is actually left alone.
How can the whole economic system be based on a number that does nothing for business except linking data (can be done without SIN today), and that basically noone has trust in? Plus, I calculated that a rating 6 SIN will fail against a rating 1 scanner about 3% of the time.
Posted by: kzt Jan 8 2008, 04:48 PM
No SR designer would have passed a basic statistics class.
Posted by: Aaron Jan 8 2008, 05:39 PM
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Wheres that stand up rule? |
In the section on actions in the chapter on combat. Let's see, page ... hang on, my PDF is still loading ... page 137 in your hymnal.
Posted by: Aaron Jan 8 2008, 05:40 PM
| QUOTE (Method) | ||
This is interesting. I think in my game I would allow the PC to add dice equal to the net hits on a Con+Charisma test... |
Actually, I like the system, and wouldn't be surprised if this was intentional. Fake identities should be more like commodities and less like real estate, at least in my opinion.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 8 2008, 06:00 PM
| QUOTE (Aaron) |
| Actually, I like the system, and wouldn't be surprised if this was intentional. Fake identities should be more like commodities and less like real estate, at least in my opinion. |
Cheap ones should, but reliable ones should be vaguely reliable.
If a rating 6 fake SIN fails against a rating 1 scanner 3% of the time, then buying a frozen burrito once per day from the stuffer shack with no other activity whatsoever means the best of the best fake ID will fail 60% of the time within a month under the lightest scrutiny. Boo.
Posted by: Sponge Jan 8 2008, 06:02 PM
| QUOTE (Aaron) |
| [*]A dice pool of 2 glitches more often than a dice pool of 1. |
This is a specific case of all Even-sized dice pools glitching more often than dice pools which are one less in size - but the effect is largest at the bottom end, I think.
DS
Posted by: DTFarstar Jan 8 2008, 07:47 PM
Where is the shield penalty? I keep missing it.
Chris
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 8 2008, 07:51 PM
| QUOTE (DTFarstar @ Jan 8 2008, 02:47 PM) |
| Where is the shield penalty? I keep missing it. Chris |
I'm gonna go look it up, and if it's under the description for the shield...
edit: Page 317, under Helmets and Shields.
Posted by: pbangarth Jan 8 2008, 09:26 PM
| QUOTE (Sponge) | ||
This is a specific case of all Even-sized dice pools glitching more often than dice pools which are one less in size - but the effect is largest at the bottom end, I think. DS |
This reminds me of the Terry Pratchett "Discworld" scene in which the protagonists have to do something incredibly difficult, but choose to make it even more difficult (one eye shut, over the shoulder sort of thing) so that the magic of "the odds are a million to one, but it just might work" would take effect.
Sooo... if you have a dice pool of 2, do it from cover or wear a shield before you try!
Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 8 2008, 09:42 PM
Ah yes, the famed Discworld Law of Narrative Causality.
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 8 2008, 10:08 PM
or how SR4 calls it:"long shot rules"
Posted by: Feshy Jan 8 2008, 10:09 PM
| QUOTE (Ryu) |
| The basic (and really obscure to me) problem is that everyone is checking the integrity of your SIN. The part where they check if YOU match up with YOUR SIN is actually left alone. How can the whole economic system be based on a number that does nothing for business except linking data (can be done without SIN today), and that basically noone has trust in? Plus, I calculated that a rating 6 SIN will fail against a rating 1 scanner about 3% of the time. |
Purely in the interest of plugging my die roller that calculates statistics for SR4 (http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20110) I can say that it's actually higher.
The odds of a critical glitch on a rating 6 SIN are 2% even. This will still beat (or at least tie) 16.7% of the time with the critical glitch of the rating 1 scanner, leaving 1.7% chance that you'll loose to a critical glitch. The odds of rolling zero successes (a requirement for being beaten by one die) are 8.8%. Figure that 1/3 of that 8.8% are a hit for the single die rating 1 system, and you get 2.9% of the time that the rating 1 will beat the rating 6 (this is probably where your 3% came from; it just didn't factor in the chance of loosing to a critical glitch!)
That's a total failure rate of ~4.6%.
And that doesn't take into account how the 4.2% normal glitch chance might affect results.
So overall, you're looking at ~9% chance something funny will happen, and a one-in-twenty chance you'll be totally hosed, every time you use your best that money can buy SIN number at a worst available ID checker.
For more normal values, say, best that a starting character can acquire vs. cheap, run-down car dealer in a bad neighborhood (Rating 4 vs. Rating 2), which should be a fairly safe activity, gives you outright failure odds of about 1 in 5, with a normal glitch chance around 7% causing you additional hassle.
That's pretty poor for a :nuyen: 4,000 bit of kit that becomes useless immediately afterwards.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 8 2008, 10:31 PM
| QUOTE (Feshy) |
| That's a total failure rate of ~4.6%. And that doesn't take into account how the 4.2% normal glitch chance might affect results. So overall, you're looking at ~9% chance something funny will happen, and a one-in-twenty chance you'll be totally hosed, every time you use your best that money can buy SIN number at a worst available ID checker. |
I am not even going to check your math. I believe you. I was doing cheap calculations based on other people's number in the first place.
There are a number of issues at work here. 1- game designers are often bad at stats. No news here, it's a tricky subject, moving on.
2 - A more interesting issue is that if you work out a failure rate based on how often you realistically, within the context of the game-world, expect them to fail, you'll have a HUGE disconnect from how often they'll fail at the game table.
In other words, if you figure out a system assuming SINs will be checked hundreds of times per day and you make them last for several months, then at the game table they will effectively never fail.
If you make a system mean enough that they'll fail with some reasonable frequency during play, and then start assuming they should be checked a bazillion times a day then they'll fail instantly.
Again, this is probably nothing new but it's worth saying.
That said, I think the rules are STILL probably too mean. A rating 6 SIN shouldn't fail against a rating 1 scanner with any conceivable probability, IMO. I've heard some intriguing suggestions about making the scanner roll a test with a threshold equal to the rating of the SIN, dice could explode, opposing tests could be made, I have no idea where the odds would land, but if someone else wants to work that out that'd be great.
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 8 2008, 10:36 PM
do scanners get edge? else why would they get exploding dice?
with that system scanners would probably never manage to get a sin when doing sin 6 against scanner 1 . . if you don't have them corrode by substracting successes from the sins level or something like that O.o
heck even a scanner of 6 would still need to get a hit on every single dice he has to his availability to get a sin level 6 to show up as bad O.o
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 8 2008, 10:49 PM
| QUOTE (Stahlseele) |
| do scanners get edge? else why would they get exploding dice? with that system scanners would probably never manage to get a sin when doing sin 6 against scanner 1 . . if you don't have them corrode by substracting successes from the sins level or something like that O.o heck even a scanner of 6 would still need to get a hit on every single dice he has to his availability to get a sin level 6 to show up as bad O.o |
I agree with everything you're saying.
I'm not suggesting a better system, I'm saying I don't know what one would be.
And WTF does "O.o" mean?
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 8 2008, 10:56 PM
| QUOTE |
| And WTF does "O.o" mean? |
now imagine the " " to be pointy ears and the smiley to have green blood and to be very arrogant and you'll get it *g*
Posted by: Feshy Jan 8 2008, 11:13 PM
| QUOTE |
| I am not even going to check your math. I believe you. |
Actually, you should have. I was wrong, it is around 3%. I forgot that critical glitches would overlap with the 0 hit rate (actually, I forgot that my statistics printout didn't subtract them from the 0 hit odds, which it probably should. 0 hits is different from a critical glitch! It handles this properly for extended die rolls, but leaves it in for normal rolls.) Oh well.
I need to add opposing rolls to the statistics calculations in my die roller, that would make this quicker.
I guess what it comes down to is, try to use your fake SIN as seldom as possible -- or SIN costs will rapidly outpace your lifestyle costs!
Posted by: Ryu Jan 9 2008, 12:05 AM
Pah, heretic, see were it leads you !
Thanks for the die roller, or as I would call it, probability calculator. Much better (and faster) than my usual calculations!
Posted by: Aaron Jan 9 2008, 12:16 AM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jan 8 2008, 05:31 PM) |
| 1- game designers are often bad at stats. No news here, it's a tricky subject, moving on. |
Stop that. I occasionally teach Statistics; I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. =i)
Posted by: FriendoftheDork Jan 9 2008, 07:08 AM
| QUOTE (Aaron) |
Okay, let's take a crack at it. Some of these are just things I discovered after running the game for a while, and kinda surprised me.
|
Most of these were known to me. I have a few comments though:
1. The GM determines the effect of a glitch. A tougher shot is more likely to glitch, but in this case a bullet richohetting to damage something would be more appropriate than the gun exploding.. unless the glitch was very bad.
2. Every party with an awakened should know this one.
3. Silly system, as it makes Shadowrunning impossible. If you need to roll this every time you take the subway, buy things in a store, or pass some sort of checkpoint then only rating 6 works and then only for awhile.
My houserule is that you just compare SIN rating vs verification rating, the highest wins. If there is a tie, the owner needs to answer questions etc. and we roll opposed rolls. If the SIN fails or crit. glitches the owner is busted.
4. Yup. Good rule. You can't even use edge to prevent a glitch on this one.
5. Already used
Our hacker tries to fool people with holograms alot. Still haven't been very useful though. 6. Nice to know. Shields haven't been much used though.
7. True, but a pool of 1 critically glitches more often than a pool on 2. I would go for 2 dice.
8. I use this all the time. Remember it's only when INJURED though, and would penalties apply.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 9 2008, 09:26 AM
| QUOTE (FriendoftheDork) |
| The GM determines the effect of a glitch. |
..except for explosive ammo, which, additionally to any other GM fiat effects, goes boom on a glitch.
Posted by: Buster Jan 9 2008, 09:51 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
I disagree. In my opinion, Commlinks typically only come with Admin Access. |
Not in any company I've worked for in the last 10 years! No network admin with any experience would give their users local admin rights to their workstations. Only tech savvy users like engineers/programmers/network-admins get local admin rights to their boxes and I'm sure the same security principle applies as much in 2070 as 2007.
Posted by: Critias Jan 9 2008, 10:14 AM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| 1- game designers are often bad at stats. No news here, it's a tricky subject, moving on. |
Laziness is no excuse for incompetence. I'm not just picking on the SR4 guys here, or even just the SR guys in general -- but as a head's up to game designers everywhere, you are designing a game. Do a little math, and make sure shit works the way you think it does, knuckleheads.
Posted by: cx2 Jan 9 2008, 11:11 AM
| QUOTE (Buster) | ||||
Not in any company I've worked for in the last 10 years! No network admin with any experience would give their users local admin rights to their workstations. Only tech savvy users like engineers/programmers/network-admins get local admin rights to their boxes and I'm sure the same security principle applies as much in 2070 as 2007. |
I'm sort of divided on the subject, but comparison to workstations isn't accurate. Think PDA/phone/laptop. Then again I know operating systems are even now leaning towards making people use a user level account and run things as higher if needed, so this might eventually move over to commlinks.
Posted by: DTFarstar Jan 9 2008, 11:30 AM
A prime example of the move away from users having admin access is Windows. I remember when I could log into DOS easily and whenever I wanted and that if I wanted to reformat my HD I just had to type in the command. Now I have to jump through 15 fricking hoops and reassure them that YES I know what a reformat is, YES I want to do it, YES really, YES seriously, PLEASE dear god just let me.... to get in a simple reformat.
Stupid windows.
Chris
Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 9 2008, 12:04 PM
aaand that is why you either use two partitions/2 OS'es(with WinXP you can actually pretty easyly format any partition that is not in use by windows itself at the moment) or simply use a boot-cd with something like Barts Windows PE or something . . or the MTCD *g*
Windows is kinda good practice for how to get around system limitations ^^
Posted by: Ryu Jan 9 2008, 01:44 PM
Quite on the opposite, Windows is the premier OS where everyone (at home) is using an admin account. The safeguards against user error only dumb down the user accounts. As they assume you are working from Admin...
And in that case, an admin account is not harder to break into than a normal user account. All accounts are protected by the same methods.
Admin functions are supposed to be rarely used (rarely as in, "you have to administrate rather then use), so your password can´t be spied out as often, and if someone breaks into your running system, many security-critical functions are simply inactive and need ANOTHER password to be activated.
I liked my linux admin-greetings. "I do not care about my data, continue anyway".
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Jan 9 2008, 02:32 PM
My plan for changing Fake SIN Identification is use the SIN as a threshold, with the scanner making an extended test to tell if its fake. Most scanners will only scan a SIN once in order to save time and keep running efficiently, but in times of high security the scanner could scan multiple times, or if the SIN has already been flagged by something as being "questionable".
Here's another obscure.. or at least took me a while to find
- To make a spell Permanent it takes a number of Combat Turns equal to half the Drain Value.
I knew there was a time, but took forever to figure out exactly how long it was.
Posted by: Tarantula Jan 9 2008, 02:38 PM
| QUOTE (Aaron) | ||
In the section on actions in the chapter on combat. Let's see, page ... hang on, my PDF is still loading ... page 137 in your hymnal. |
Just a side note, there is only a test if you're wounded. I consider that pretty important.
Posted by: Feshy Jan 9 2008, 05:16 PM
| QUOTE |
7. True, but a pool of 1 critically glitches more often than a pool on 2. I would go for 2 dice. |
The odds for one die being a critical glitch are 1 in 6, or ~16.7%.
For two dice, it's a bit more complicated.
The odds of both die being 1's is 1 in 36.
The odds of one die being a 1 is 10 in 36.
The odds of the remaining die being a failure is 2 in 3.
Taking those three factors into account gives you a critical glitch chance of ~21.3%
You also have a glitch chance of 9.3%.
However, your odds of getting at least one hit jump from 33.3% to 55.6%.
Posted by: Riley37 Jan 9 2008, 10:22 PM
Houserule: Hardened SINs. Any SIN scanner with equal or lesser rating always fails. However, the modified rating of the SIN scanner can be raised with net hits by the person running the check.
(A bored, none-too-smart tollbooth operator will raise the gate whenever the scanner light flashes green. The receptionist at the Tir consulate, however, will actually look at the ID, look at the person, and if the person's dress and accent are unusual for the nationality/corp issuing the ID, she may ask questions.)
Posted by: Tarantula Jan 9 2008, 11:26 PM
If their clothing is unusual? Honestly? So, just because his ID pegs him from japan means he should be wearing a kimono?
Accent I could believe, but clothing? Come on.
Posted by: Nasrudith Jan 9 2008, 11:42 PM
Clothing still could have an effect if somewhat extreme however. If their SIN says that they are just a low level office worker who barely makes enough for medium lifestyle why are they wearing the newest novahot designer clothes made from high quality real silk?
Posted by: Tarantula Jan 10 2008, 12:21 AM
Cause they moved out of their medium home and lived low for a while cause they like to have nice clothes more than they like a nice building?
Also, I don't think SINs have your job title nor your salary on them.
Now, if their ID says they're a high manager of a well to do company and they show up in hobo rags, then I could see someone questioning them. But just style differences? Not so much.
Posted by: Riley37 Jan 10 2008, 03:23 AM
I dunno about your experience of travelling through high-security checkpoints, but I have done so (legitimately), and the security staff were carefully checking for any inconsistencies. Expecting everyone from Japan to wear a kimono is silly; more people in Tokyo wear suits or jeans than kimonos. But if someone's SIN says they're Japanese, and they're dressed in clothing from Eastern Europe, and their passport visa stamps don't show that they've been in Europe, then it's time to ask a few questions, if you're staffing a high-security checkpoint.
If the subject stammers and seems like they're making up their story as they go along, it's time to call for backup, and to politely apologize for the delay. It's also time to call the JIS and ask "So, did you issue this SIN? Did you issue it to a person who looks like (show photo)? Would you be surprised to learn that they're trying to enter a Tir consulate in Seattle?"
If you would say "oh, there's probably a good reason why they're wearing these clothes, and the ID checks out, go on through sir", then I don't recommend that you staff checkpoints, or at least not in Bagdad.
Posted by: Siege Jan 10 2008, 03:33 AM
Being handcuffed to the steering wheel - another bad sign.
-Siege
Posted by: Tarantula Jan 10 2008, 05:23 AM
So just because they bought some clothes on the 'net from eastern europe that means they should have stamps from there on their passport?
I agree on inconsistencies, but clothing is so easily mutable, that I think its a terrible thing to try to nab someone because they're in some clothing thats a different style. (Now, if their clothing is out of class, like your rich clothes example, or some hobo rags, I agree with you, but whether someone likes gucci or prada I don't think really matters.)
Posted by: Ryu Jan 10 2008, 11:15 AM
No, that means someone should take a closer look. Everything that appears odd gets analysed. Don´t underestimate the power of small-time profiling in police work. I think clothing is one of the hardest things to emulate perfectly.
I´m all for doing SIN checks that way. Request SIN, read data, check consistency with person in front of you. Assess and note threat level of the person (a stuffer shack might value a history theft and robbery higher than one of homicide here).
Posted by: cx2 Jan 10 2008, 03:13 PM
I'll point out that Baghdad would be classed as a "high risk" zone in all probability, anywhere in Iraq would probably be higher risk than border checkpoints in SR4 NA unless there was some serious political tension going on.
Posted by: DireRadiant Jan 10 2008, 04:26 PM
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| If their clothing is unusual? Honestly? So, just because his ID pegs him from japan means he should be wearing a kimono? Accent I could believe, but clothing? Come on. |
The locals can never tell who the tourists are... or can they? How do they do it? Is it the Nikon Cameras, the Hawaiian shirts or the Bermuda shorts and untanned legs? Never mind, move along.
Posted by: Riley37 Jan 10 2008, 05:54 PM
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) |
| The locals can never tell who the tourists are... or can they? |
I live in San Francisco, which gets lots of tourists, some of them dressed for Los Angeles weather (and San Francisco is *not* Los Angeles, by culture or climate). For a while I commuted on a bus that stopped at the airport on its way into SF. I got fairly good at picking out the Europeans in their 20s on wanderjahr, and often, between the airport and downtown, I'd offer them a decent (free) map of the city if they didn't already have one (or if they had a bad one).
One time in Guadalahara, Mexicao, at a bus terminal, someone tried to give me a flyer for a class on learning to speak English. I was quite happy that it wasn't obvious that I was Anglo-American... well, at least that it wasn't *painfully* obvious. (If locals see me and think "hey, that's a quiet, polite guy from the USA, who has clearly taken the time to learn some of our language", then so much the better.)
I have talked my way through a post-9/11 airport security checkpoint with a ticket in a name different from the name on my ID. With good reason: the person who bought the ticket for me used my nickname, not my parentally-issued name. I was pleasantly surprised that the guard believed me. It probably helps that I look white and was wearing a light blue dress shirt. If my skin had turned out more towards the Iroquis side of my ancestry, or I wore a spiked leather jacket, they would not have "nabbed" me, but not let me through either.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 10 2008, 07:36 PM
| QUOTE (Aaron) | ||
Stop that. I occasionally teach Statistics; I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. =i) |
I said "often", and I stand by that (completely subjective) statement.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Laziness is no excuse for incompetence. I'm not just picking on the SR4 guys here, or even just the SR guys in general -- but as a head's up to game designers everywhere, you are designing a game. Do a little math, and make sure shit works the way you think it does, knuckleheads. |
Posted by: Zak Jan 10 2008, 08:47 PM
| QUOTE (Riley37) | ||
I have talked my way through a post-9/11 airport security checkpoint with a ticket in a name different from the name on my ID. With good reason: the person who bought the ticket for me used my nickname, not my parentally-issued name. I was pleasantly surprised that the guard believed me. It probably helps that I look white and was wearing a light blue dress shirt. If my skin had turned out more towards the Iroquis side of my ancestry, or I wore a spiked leather jacket, they would not have "nabbed" me, but not let me through either. |
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/fiveyearold_boy.html
| QUOTE |
| A five-year-old boy was taken into custody and thoroughly searched at Sea-Tac because his name is similar to a possible terrorist alias |
Posted by: Cheops Jan 10 2008, 08:59 PM
Here's one I stumbled on last session. In the vehicles and combat section it says that you can take an additional type of called shot against vehicles in order to target and destroy components of the vehicle. The component is outright destroyed if you succeed.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 10 2008, 09:00 PM
| QUOTE (Zak) | ||
|
Let me get this right:
Similar to a possible terrorist alias.
Translation:
TSA guy#1: Check out the little brown kid.
TSA guy#2: What's his name?
TSA guy#1: It's, ah, Habi....habaj....haa....habajabawabidon'tfrickinknow, man, I can't pronounce this shit.
TSA guy#2: Sounds like a terrorist name or somethin'.
TSA guy#1: Nab 'im.
Keeping the world safe from terror.
Posted by: Spike Jan 10 2008, 09:09 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) | ||||
Let me get this right: Similar to a possible terrorist alias. Translation: TSA guy#1: Check out the little brown kid. TSA guy#2: What's his name? TSA guy#1: It's, ah, Habi....habaj....haa....habajabawabidon'tfrickinknow, man, I can't pronounce this shit. TSA guy#2: Sounds like a terrorist name or somethin'. TSA guy#1: Nab 'im. Keeping the world safe from terror. |
You laugh now, but you forget two things, one silly, one tragically not.
One: Midgets can be terrorists too...
Two: terrorists have proven quite willing to strap explosives to children and infants in the name of Allah. Point in fact: The attempt to kill Bhutto prior to the successful on involved just such an explosive baby.
So next time you fly, rest easy knowing that kung fu muslim midgets will NOT be getting past security and onto your plane by posing as children....
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 10 2008, 09:17 PM
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| You laugh now, but you forget two things, one silly, one tragically not. One: Midgets can be terrorists too... Two: terrorists have proven quite willing to strap explosives to children and infants in the name of Allah. Point in fact: The attempt to kill Bhutto prior to the successful on involved just such an explosive baby. So next time you fly, rest easy knowing that kung fu muslim midgets will NOT be getting past security and onto your plane by posing as children.... |
One: Anyone not capable of distinguishing a midget from a 5-year old child in a well-lit controlled situation after a physical search should not be working security.
Two: Agreed. And if the adult traveling with the child had been suspected of terrorism I sure hope the security officers wouldn't be so naive that they wouldn't check the child for bombs, etc. But this isn't a case of a child being searched for being with a security-flagged individual. The child was the one flagged as the terrorist, and that's very different.
Honestly, I'd be more worried about zombies than kung-fu muslim midgets, but that's probably just me.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 10 2008, 10:00 PM
Knowledge of the 'alias' in question could have been received by the authorities through a tip, or nabbed in a decoded email (or other message), and could easily be seen as a 'code word' for a planned terrorist strike. Stranger things have happened.
Honestly, unless we know the whole story (and we never will), it's hard to judge the situation in a totally fair manner.
Posted by: X-Kalibur Jan 10 2008, 10:18 PM
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| So next time you fly, rest easy knowing that kung fu muslim midgets will NOT be getting past security and onto your plane by posing as children.... |
I sleep easier at night knowing this.
Posted by: Spike Jan 10 2008, 11:20 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| Honestly, I'd be more worried about zombies than kung-fu muslim midgets, but that's probably just me. |
That's why I own and keep a cricket bat handy. I WILL survive the immenant Zompocalypse!
Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 10 2008, 11:21 PM
I still prefer apocabombie.
Posted by: Spike Jan 11 2008, 12:34 AM
| QUOTE (Whipstitch) |
| I still prefer apocabombie. |
Alas, for my poor tired brain only works in one direction. I've been saying Zombie Apocalypse for two years, I just can't change that to Apocalypse Zombie without seriously rewiring the entire thing.
Thus Zompocalypse is the only answer for me...
The question becomes then: Which is better? An apocalypse caused by hordes of the shambling dead? or a single shambling dead capable of bringing the apocalypse by itself?
Oh: and to be on topic: What obscure rule really applies in either case?
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 11 2008, 04:13 PM
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| ... or a single shambling dead capable of bringing the apocalypse by itself? Oh: and to be on topic: What obscure rule really applies in either case? |
Bloodzilla?
There is certainly "dead" involved. Bloodzilla may, or may not, shamble, at the GM's discretion.
Posted by: Method Jan 12 2008, 06:59 PM
So in a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic...
[EDIT] never mind.... I re-read and answered my own dumb question...
We can now get back to discussing bloodzillazombiedropbear invasions....
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 14 2008, 04:58 PM
Bloodzilla is an obscure rule! I was actually on topic for once.
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Feb 1 2008, 03:09 PM
Horribly Derailed Topic... But I found another obscure rule...
| QUOTE (BBB pg 257) |
| Each character starts off with a Notoriety of 0—people have a neutral opinion of her. Modify this according to the following qualities possessed by the character (plus one point per negative quality, minus one point per positive quality): Positive Qualities: Blandness, First Impression, Lucky Negative Qualities: Addiction, Bad Luck, Combat Paralysis, Elf Poser, Gremlins, Incompetent, Infirm, Ork Poser, Scorched, SINner (criminal SIN only), Spirit Bane, Uncouth, Uneducated |
I wasn't aware that characters actually had a notoriety on creation. More modifiers on the qualities.
Posted by: Cheops Feb 1 2008, 03:23 PM
Here's a great one that we came across:
Armor and Encumbrance: evey 2 points over body x 2 gives a -1 to Agility and Reaction tests.
This means that Running and Climbing (both strength) are unaffected by lots of armor. Also, swimming, another strength skill, only has modifiers for #kilos carried/worn for treading water. Equipment doesn't list kilos and there is no modifier for trying to swim in armor (just stay there and float does).
Posted by: cryptoknight Feb 1 2008, 03:33 PM
| QUOTE (Feshy) | ||
Actually, you should have. I was wrong, it is around 3%. I forgot that critical glitches would overlap with the 0 hit rate (actually, I forgot that my statistics printout didn't subtract them from the 0 hit odds, which it probably should. 0 hits is different from a critical glitch! It handles this properly for extended die rolls, but leaves it in for normal rolls.) Oh well. I need to add opposing rolls to the statistics calculations in my die roller, that would make this quicker. I guess what it comes down to is, try to use your fake SIN as seldom as possible -- or SIN costs will rapidly outpace your lifestyle costs! |
I wonder if the rule was changed to having the SIN roll first. And take it's successes and subtract them from the die pool of the scanner. In that case the odds of no successes for the scanner are fairly low, and even if the ID gets not hits the scanner still only can roll 1 die.
Posted by: Aaron Feb 1 2008, 08:17 PM
| QUOTE (Cheops) |
| Here's a great one that we came across: Armor and Encumbrance: evey 2 points over body x 2 gives a -1 to Agility and Reaction tests. |
Actually, it's a bit weirder than that. If the armor rating exceeds BODx2, then then it's -1 for every 2 points above straight Body.
Gah.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)