 Hacking: Talent over Warez?, or: Which trumps, brains or toys? (Tweak not House Rule) |
  |
 Apr 1 2011, 04:40 AM
Post
#101
|
|
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,894 Joined: 11-May 09 Member No.: 17,166  |
QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 31 2011, 11:07 PM)  That's not necessarily true. Some security protocols are much more secure than others. And even then, you're missing the point. Someone with no skill and the right programs can legally hack a wifi network, while someone with high skills and no programs cannot. OK, but even by RAW that translates to [0 Skill + 6 Max RTG] -1 Defaulting = 5 dice. Against anything of Level 2 or higher on average you're going to come up short. Based on the Fluff and the pricing structure, RTG 3 programs are widely available and about the top of the "normal" market. Higher end stuff will tend towards the "business" and "professional" levels. None of the options including just going with RAW gets around the problem of 0 skill. We tend sometimes to forget that being able to use a specialized tool at all requires some modicum of skill... otherwise it's a completely canned routine and the rules call THAT an Agent Program... whose skill = it's Program RTG. So the best possible canned routine is [Skill 4 + RTG 4] by RAW or [Skill 4 + Stat 4] (Cap 4) by #1. There is not much point for a "low-end" hacker when you have that kind of access (and those higher rated programs aren't free; neither is the hardware to run them, and they aren't creative at all or very adaptive once launched by an unskilled user) but a very skilled hacker will put them completely to shame. That reminds me of a point raised above regarding "computer literacy" in 2070: the typical Computer Skill is 0. Not unaware, but just good enough to perform ordinary tasks. Computer (or any skill) of level 1 represents a significant investment of time, energy, effort and resources. After all, the first level of a skill costs as many Karma as the second level! -Kerenshara |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 1 2011, 04:58 AM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 75 Joined: 8-March 11 From: Everywhere Member No.: 23,690 |
QUOTE (Seth @ Mar 3 2011, 03:15 AM) I think both options suck.
If you want to change the system (which I think works ok) why not move to skill + stat, with an equipment modifier. Give their set of programs a rating (and to be honest almost every hacker has the same ratings in all their programs), and if the program rating > skill add +1 to the roll as an equipment modifier, if it is less subtract one. That works almost as well and doesn;t spoil the fun of people getting lucky. First off I'd go with option 1. Skill and experience always trumps equipment all things being equal. And I don't belive in luck. Skilled people also don't, they are good becasue the practice and train to near perfection. Unskilled and unprofessionals rely on luck. Leave luck for the script kiddie. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 1 2011, 12:49 PM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
You don't get to have an opinion on luck, though, within the context of SR4 dice mechanics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 1 2011, 01:40 PM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 1 2011, 06:49 AM) You don't get to have an opinion on luck, though, within the context of SR4 dice mechanics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Heheh... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th June 2025 - 08:32 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.