That's... almost the first semi-reasonable explanation I could see, but it needs quite a bit of work before I buy it.

Yes, it is almost as believable as "please wear a glowing pink suit to receivee +3 to initiative and -3 to infiltration and dodge".

SYL

Your standard counterexample is stupid and isn't close to what's in the game, stop using it. Try to stick to the confines of the game, otherwise you just come off as a bombastic nut.

I'm almost sure, that "crossover" and "emergent cloud computing" is a better explanation than what we will find in the book. At least not worse than mine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Hyperbole doesn't help a good, reasonable discussion.

You know, if the hacking cyberware had been made a technomancer exclusive ability it would make way more sense. Because then you could wave your hand and say, "matrix magic". And then the fear of technomancers would be way more justified (I've never gotten a clear explanation for them being hated and feared, when it seems like anyone can hack anything in the setting with a few tries).
"They can hack anything, even stuff that's connected through skin links. No ones safe!"

It´s not?
Why?
It´s risk vs reward without amaking any sense.
Which the entire discussion is about.

So, yes, to be honest, it´s very close to the official opinion and to the desperate tries to explain the it fluff-wise. You, of course, may have another opinion and you are free to love the online reaction enhancers (the ones who replace a part of your spinal column and make you a cripple if hacked). Sleep well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

SYL

I was wrong to say that your examples made you sound like a bombastic nut. Stop actually being a bombastic nut.

It was more 'they can hack anything, even stuff that has no reason to be online and no actual hardware for a network connection!'.

Less justified now, given that apparently this is the new status quo for SR5.

I'm not saying his explanation is good, but the template could be used. The idea that using wired DNI creates border issues of their own that somehow are a bigger threat for heavily cybered people than having to defend against cyberware hacking *does* justify that shadowrunners and redsams would switch to a wireless, semi-vulnerable system.

The problem, though, is that you have to explain what that "greater threat" is. But then again, this is a world with brain magic and fairy dust emergence, so I'm sure someone can find something out that's not more 'stupid' than the concept of technomancer*

*I don't actually think technomancers are stupid, although they're better left unexplained because any explanation would surely be silly.

Bingo. I just gave that as another off the cuff example of how you can reconcile the new paradigm with the existing world. It just takes a few words, not a drastic life change...

Sorry, but it takes more than a few words. This is the sort of stuff you ease the player into via a section in a couple sourcebook.

For instance, one could use Storm Front's last chapter.

Shadowrun is also a universe where people can actually explode or freeze solid in the vacuum of space (Note: that's incorrect) and mercenary groups can have thousands of employees and still make payroll despite not having any jobs ... Maybe they could expand the role of those pesky e-ghosts to explain why you need up-to-the second security patches and offload some cyberware computing tasks to the cloud to deny local resources to the polter-e-geists?

Can you quote the RAW that hacked reaction enhancers cripple you if hacked. In most game rule situations it simply shuts down the benefit. Are you using your own opinion to self nerf here and then passing it off as RAW?

They say when a daddy metahuman and a mommy AI really, REALLY love each other.......

As we near 500 posts, I'd like to remind everyone to play nicely. Flaming, Baiting, Name Calling, etc are grounds for Warnings. Everyone started out their tenure with a damage track of 10 boxes. Along the way there are time outs, and the eventual long nap from DSF. Let's not have to go there this week.

Does a reaction enhancer replace a part of your spinal column? If yes, what happens do you if a part of your spinal column does not work anymore and does not transmit data anymore? How do you call it when the spinal column is into two pieces? It´s the same as "what happens, if my cyberyes get destroyed - am I blind then?".


SYL

So then it is a personal opinion comment. I would rule as a GM unless specifically stated otherwise that the "part" it replaces is the "part" that enhances reaction, not the "part" that allows normal function. I'm not a neuro-surgeon in 2075 so I don't know if that is possible or not, but it allows the players to continue playing without too much grief. Lighten up on yourself and allow this game to be fun, When you go self nerfing beyond the rules you cause yourself untold grief.

No, I wasn't.

For the sake of my own entertainment, let me try and sum up a couple of my impressions from this thread so far:

1) Most of us should probably get better at recognizing that a whole host of questions concerning a game that has yet to be officially released, can not be adequately answered at this point.

2) There have been a number of design decisions made, which seem to have been based more on how to achieve a particular goal for the game on the mechanical side of things, rather than to try and make sure that said game mechanics would also be able to stand up to player level scruteny of the accompanying fluff. Somehow I fail to see how this should really be able to surprise anyone. That being said, however, I do agree that some of the changes there appear to be coming up, do not really stand up to what some people on these boards consider to be reasonable logic and deduction (myself included to some extend). Using a term such as "Bricking", which apparently has a real-world common meaning, implying that a bricked device is most commonly wrecked beyond repair, and then having it "only" temporarely damage the hardware in question, might not have been the best decision. Especially if the repair involves a Hardware repair of a mechanical/electrical system hidden (deep) within the owner's body. Something that a bit of logic would seem to suggest really should require some level of surgery, in order to even get at the afflicted system. Similarly, if a fluff description of "Bricking" something suggests that the action is accompanied with sparks and smoke exiting the targeted device, and then not having this have any mechanical effect when related to hardware located inside someone's body, it might similarly have benefitted from an alternative description which was more in line with the actual mechanical effects within the game. But again, I'm pretty sure that the majority of game designers and decisionmakers are more focused on making the mechanical side of the game work as intended, than part of the gaming community is. Some of us would seem to prefer a fairly high consistancy between the mechanics and the describing fluff, and some of us would probably be quite happy with a lesser degree of balance in the game, if it would lead to a world that, in our perspective, would make more sense.


Personal comment:
I'd like to say that I'm consistently amazed that designers actually bother reading thread like these. It really must be such depressing reading. My hat's off to you gentlemen.

Thank you, Lurker, for the attack.

I did NOT come up with the definition of bricking from any part of my anatomy. I claim field-use as my citation (currently working in a tech-heavy field). In my office, and among other tech-savvy individuals outside of it, "brick" (verb, transitive/intransitive) has a definitive meaning, and is seldom-to-never used for a reversible situation. If one of the products my office deals with is "bricked," it needs to be sent back to the factory and harvested for parts; even a service facility wouldn't be able to get it working again.

Additionally, I was not the first person to provide a definition for "bricking," I added support to the one who did. I'm willing to accept that the meanings of words can be altered over time ("brick" itself is an example in the present day), and willing to accept that the book may have defined it differently. All things being equal, we had nobody and nothing telling us specifically that the book was using the term differently than it's colloquial, common, technological definition. I'm willing to bow to Critias as a higher subject matter expert (he helped make the game, after all). It's refreshing to know a "bricked" cyberlimb isn't just flat nuyen down the drain. But I don't appreciate that insult, and would appreciate an apology. I don't know what your area of expertise is, and wouldn't presume to know what it is or isn't. I'd expect similar courtesy in return.

Hah no unless your making a joke and its going over my head "noise" as a mechanic in 5th Ed is basically a mechanic to stop "from around the world" hacks. If my not at my book right now but at the kilometer mark you incur a point of noise that goes up to 8 for around the world with other environmental factors datajacks, one of the programs, and IIRC a complex form can help mitigate noise. Any noise not mitigated is a straight 1 for 1 dice penalty. The net result is an attempt to get the hacker out of the bunker and into the action. In practice he or she if they are not combat proficient will likely just be in the van instead.

I should note that getting the hacker out with the team is a move I fully support.

So what are the chances that they will pull some thing like this partial special edition release for Origins (and no PDF release until much later) with the sixth Edition of Shadowrun?

Writers like Critias, Aaron, and Bull are able to answer all question regarding SR5, seeing that the core rulebook is written and just two weeks ago from release.

There's a difference between having the answers and being able to adequately answer questions, as a note.

For one, it takes time. Something I no longer have. I've spent a couple hours a day over the last week+ answering questions, and that's time I could (and should) be spending on paid work, like Missions and my Cartoon Action Hour Gig.

Two, sometimes answers aren't as simple as a couple typed lines, and then people freak out because they have questions or jump to the wrong conclusions, and our short answer didn't answer or explain everything adequately. Some of this stuff involves a page or two of text, and it's not an easy thing to sum up.

Three, Honestly? I'm incredibly frustrated trying to answer questions, and I know Aaron and Crit and Patrick are as well. Because everytime we answer something, we get blasted for it by someone. I've been flat out told I was LYING to them, I've been called names, and just generally been run into the ground. I'm just trying to help and provide answers, and it's incredibly demoralizing to have that thrown in your face time and time again.

I've stopped trying to answer any but the simplest questions because of all three points. It sucks, but... It is what it is. Coming on here and answering questions isn't my job, isn't something I'm required to do, and isn't even something I've been asked to do by anyone at CGL. I was doing it to try and be helpful. But I'm honestly burnt out and just don't have the time anymore, and even when I do have the time, I just don't feel it's actually worth the abuse.

I'm still around, I'll still jump in from time to time, but... I'm no longer trying to follow every thread and answer everything I can. Sorry.

Bull