20 pages, and all I've gathered so far is:

1) Using 'Bricked' as an in-game term for 'impaired, but still functioning' is going to cause a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in the player base. (FWIW, in real life there is a term 'soft bricked' that means that specialised hardware can recover the device by accessing the memory directly, but whether soft or hard, 'bricked' always means that the device is unusable, not just impaired.)

2) Without an explanation as to why adding extra internet-connection communication protocol requirements to a device somehow makes it operate faster instead of slower, some gaming groups will simply opt to ignore the whole thing, and some may give devices the matrix-enabled bonuses for being DNI enabled instead.

3) Changes have been made to give hackers more options in combat, but apparently similar changes were either not needed or not implemented for the Face archetype.

Microsoft was going to an always connected Xbox and look where that got them.
Boy, I'm hoping that they pull a "Microsoft" on this and pull the plug on the idea that every piece of cyberware can be super charged by being connected to the matrix (and is there for hackable).

Great idea that some cyberware can be boosted by being connected, but retconning all Shadowrun cyberware to make it universal is just forcing the whole thing for no good reason.
It is all universal all cyberware can be boosted if connected to the matrix. So it is all hackable but not enough that a hacker could kill you or leave you a quadriplegic until it can be hard reset by a tech.

It so doesn't make any sense so why bother?
Most of my players would be seriously pissed off at the idea and as a GM, I know I don't need the hassle.
It so blows my suspension of disbelief and I've been playing Shadowrun since it came out. I didn't know I had one left.

The people I feel sorry for are the people who run or play in the Official Shadowrun Living Campaign System.
I bet there will be a lot of variation on how this rule is applied. It will be one big hassle.

I expect this will be voted the number 1 Shadowrun 5th edition rule to most likely to be ignored.

I got to say despite all this I'm really looking forward to SR5.
Sounds like you guys really tied to address a lot of issues and I'm hearing really some good solutions.

Thank you so much for answering our questions.

Wrong. I've just done a survey, and 100% af the people asked, answered that they liked the rule, and would like to keep it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

No bricked means unusable in game and out, the big confusion by people not actually in the rules in the permanence if such a situation. People got all frothy because I used a term (which I suppoose I should have provided context) which the book both defines and provides remedy for.

Addendum: Earlier I summarized the whole process.

In any poll it is how you ask the question and to who you ask it.


Should all SR5 cyberware be retconned to have a bonus by being connected wirelessly to the Matrix (even if some of the cyberware has no business being connected to the Matrix and given that it makes it vulnerable to be hacked)?

Or to keep from retconning all Shadowrun Cyberware should some cyberware (those not likely to get a boost from being connected to the matrix) not have a wireless connection for security reasons?

Also should a Data Jack DNI link be less effective than a wireless connection?
For example why does having a wireless connection allow you to activate a chemical seal as a free action but having a DNI link using a skin link doesn't?

Simple question: Are you OK with smartlink giving +2 to accuracy?
Are you ok with wired reflexes and reflex booster not stacking?
Are you ok with enhanced vision adding its rating to the limit of perception tests?

Me to. I like hackers who are out in the open, because it provides for smoother gaming having all characters more or less in the same place at the same time. Btw: thanks for shedding sone light on the concept of noise.

And I was comically referring to Epicedion's fluff:



I can't imagine implants causing crossover (unless they were built with loads of unshielded copper wiring). But it's quite elegant to come up with Resonance being blamed for the need to go online. That way you could, as a game developer, cancel this hilarious little move wihtout to great an effort (Resonance could as well ebb an flow like mana...). Chapeau!

@Epicedion: I hope you didn't take my joke as an insult. And if you did: my apologies. Actually I like the idea, and as I said: I would be suprised, if the official explanation were any better.

If you want fluff for skinlink being not around anymore...

The Triple A's had greenlit the skinlink technology after extensive testing, and security professionals began showing a marked interest; even militaries agreed the limited chance of being hacked was a great asset. It quickly found wide use even among normal people on the fringe of such industries... until the "Lightning Rod" incident. The extreme amounts of negative press this caused forced the Triple A's to put out a full recall on such devices, even to the point of setting a small "recycling award" for anybody who was able to turn in such technology. Quickly it seemed that skinlink was impossible to find and service, due to the specialized components that were already in short order. Now only a select few individuals at the tops of corps have reliable skinlink technology, and limit its use to only the most vital personal devices, lest they themselves become "lightning rods."

That's a nice one, too. Any explanation that states "wired is no longer available/working" is better than "wireless is better", because it saves you from technically explaining the unexplainable.

None of this came up in our feedback from 700 players and 15 GMs.

But hey, what do I know, it's not a big enough sample size.

(Shhhh Galen...)

I find that really surprising (not saying I don't believe you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

With the number of active posters here probably around that same number, there's been several dissenting voices. Although some might have expressed their dissent more vehemently or rudely than maybe they should've, the point stands that this dissent shouldn't be so quickly dismissed - unless the devs are only interested in being surrounded by yes-men.

That's why I find it surprising that out of 715 players, not one of them voiced the concern that DNI being slower than wireless Matrix doesn't make a lot of sense (without proper fluff justification). Is the fluff justification in the rulebook and we're just not seeing it? But no, some posters here have the rulebook and haven't made mention of it. The only slightly plausible fluff justifications I've seen are from some posters bending over backwards to justify why a cyberspur needs to be online to open faster. And the mental gymnastics that has to be done to find these fluff justifications makes it even more obvious to me that it was a bad idea in the first place.

There are quite a few people here defending it as well. The large number of threads containing massive discussions on the subject are not one sided. I find the matrix rules as they have been presented to us so far to be a huge step in the right direction. I hope, upon seeing the final rules, that they are implemented well. I suspect they will be.
Your dismissal of the supporters arguments do not invalidate them. In fact the supporters arguments have been well laid out and based on concrete math and principle. I have found many of your detractors arguments to be ad hominem arguments consisting of personal attacks on the supporters. I will be happy to discuss and listen to any concrete arguments you may have that are not based on personal opinion stated as fact. I have asked multiple times for people to back up their statements with factual evidence. I have been simply ignored.
The fact is that the matrix issue comes down to the opinions of both groups. I believe it is a good move and you don't. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. I won't tell you your wrong for thinking differently than I do because I cannot PROVE you are. There is no game mechanic deficiency other than the benefits may not be strong enough to entice matrix active characters. Doesn't that get you what you want anyway?

Sample size alone doesn't come close to making a good sampling plan.To quote Six Sigma: "A plan that is not random or respresentative can have damaging effects on your customers". The reason in Statistical Analysis that people increase their sample size is to try and make it more representative.

I thought it was pretty clearly a game design decision with some mechanical wrapping to push it past RP flavortext. That's it.

What was the response rate from that official campaign group anyways? If it was anything like what FASA got then it's a tiny fraction of that 700 who care enough to even compose an email. Hopefully it was pretty high!

Daedelus, your post is a great example of exactly what's wrong with this discussion. It attacks things that weren't said. It rails against arguments that were never made. It goes on to say that one side's arguments are "well-laid out and based on concrete math and principle", yet in the same breath it characterizes the other side as having only "personal opinion stated as fact". Talk about dismissive...

At no point did I say my way was objectively right and your way was wrong. I pointed out that it seemed strange that in a sample size of 715, not one voice was raised in dissent on this issue. Surely you can agree that out of the posters of DS, there have been a few voices raised in dissent?

It does help that none of the events seemed to have any nasty NPCs attempt to hack player character's gear.

I strongly suspect most of the 5th Edition Missions will be similar in that regard, given that they need to be written for tables of ANY makeup. 5th Edition might be built with the assumption that most Runner teams have Matrix Overwatch, but Missions cannot.

And there was some chatter about the issues among the tables, but most folks were more just trying to learn the new systems and roleplay. I know I got into a couple of minor conversations about it, but it wasn't my main focus at the time.




-k

I expect all the good things in SR5 and the joy of actually playing it would cause some things to be over looked.

Also to quote another interested party, there are two types of GMs in SR.
Those that are "what goes around comes around" and will be trying to hack players and brick their cyberware every chance they get and those that will be ignoring it.
I expect all the players from the former will have a lot more concerns and issues with this once they have had a chance to experience it.
All the players of the latter will think it is cool until such a time as they experience it for themselves.

They are talking a good idea and trying to apply it in all cases by blunt force.
Removing skinlinks and making DNI connections obsolete to a matrix connection is retconning this in the worse way.
I like the idea, but the implementation leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I seriously considered a drive by hacker gang bricking something random. Using team work you could pretty much one shot brick a single item. It would have been a good lesson to think about matrix security and the need for some technical skills.

That isn't actually a what I would consider a counter argument or supporting to bricking. I could just as easily have a PC shot by a cybered sniper, or an arrow from a Physad, or a random uber spell from a mage, flattened by a vehicle, all of which would be rather more detrimental and bothersome than a bricked device. But none of those incite these feelings of rage and helplessness I've been reading about bricking and matrix bonuses.

I class all the arguments so far against bricking into the fear of change. It hadn't been done before(as easily) and now that there is other option to think about it would be so much easier if it went away.

Of course, in order to do that, you'd have to change and reprint the game in your own image and force me to accept the KarmaInferno way.

Here the thing, I think Hacking Cyberware and bricking it is way cool.
Good idea.

I just think that the Pros would take counter measures and wouldn't risk the exposure.
But the tech to do that ha been retconned out of existence (like skinlinks) or ignored (like DNI link to your gear) so they are as exposed as everyone else.
That and Matrix bonuses that don't make sense or should also apply to a DNI connection are my main concerns.
I'm sure they will fix this as the new books come out, but it is poor planning to throw a monkey wrench in to the standard SOP and make us wait six months to a year to release a book to fix it.

I also figure any team running the shadows would be worried about their matrix connected gear leaving big impossible to remove digital fingerprints telling what devices were active when and what they were doing.
Most runs it won't matter, but if you steal a priceless prototype, the corp will bring in the deckers and processing power to hack in every where and vacuum up all the data from the surrounding area.
Then they will parallel process it down until they find every needle in the haystack. And none of this has been addressed on how a decker could clean up after his team.

But there will plenty of civilian targets to hack and other ways to impact the battle field that a decker doesn't HAVE to be able to hack a street samurai or a corp High Threat Response team's cyberware.
And as always with a little preparation a hacker can rig some nasty surprises in even secure system if he know the target (Example a decker is watching another team of runners for his team because they are after the same thing,he puts a trojan horse in to a commlink that the other team is bound to ran across and examine just in case there is a showdown.)

Wonder how the GM's especially in Missions are gonna handle player Deckers walking all over the opposition while the player Samurai figure out how not to be affected . .
Because obviously this will happen:
Decker:"i hack the red samurais eyes and make him blind!"
GM: *no, that won't work*
Samurai:'OK, since there is a way to make that not work, i will retroactively have gotten that for myself too'

That's because all of these require LOS and give the character a chance to defend himself.

Never mind that lots of people state their love for the idea, but concerns about its implementation, which you so casually dismiss.

Could always just drop a thor shot on them.

Sure, because whoever has access to a cyberdeck must have access to that, as well.

Oh it looked like you were talking about GM directed actions and threats the GM shouldn't have access to.

I had an NPC that had about a half dozen marks by the time combat was avoided through diplomacy. She was ready to drop the hammer if we rolled initiative.