IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Crackers of the world Unite!
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 73
Guests cannot vote 
BishopMcQ
post Mar 25 2008, 04:08 PM
Post #26


The back-up plan
**********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 8,423
Joined: 15-January 03
From: San Diego
Member No.: 3,910



Threshold = 12+Rating
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Odsh
post Mar 25 2008, 04:18 PM
Post #27


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 14-August 07
Member No.: 12,638



I allow cracking any program, as long as the character succeeds in the required test.

By the way, it would be interesting to know if some GMs allow their players to crack agents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Mar 25 2008, 06:31 PM
Post #28


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



I've always intended to use 10 + Rating * 2 (Hacking programs get a +4). Thus, cracking cheap, low rating software is easy, but higher rating software is better protected out of the box. And hacking software is more difficult than common use. 'Course, no one has ever tried it in my game, but that's a separate point.

Example:
Cracking an Edit 4 would have a threshold of 10 + (4 * 2) = 18
Cracking a Track 6 would be a threshold of 10 + (6 * 2) + 4 = 26.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 25 2008, 09:00 PM
Post #29


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



Wow, no wonder you don't have people trying it. A gifted professional (Logic 5, software 4) has a ~40% chance of failing to crack your Track 6 under those rules, and will take all day (9 hours) to do it. And your average hacker will have something like 30 or more programs to crack, though obviously not all of them will be hacking programs.

Oh, and where does the book talk about glitches reducing the rating of the copied utilities? I'm not sure I like the idea of glitching having mechanical drawbacks, given the silliness of glitch rules (you are more likely to glitch with a dice pool of 8 than you are with 7, for example; it's very weird to me that having fewer dice should actually benefit you mechanically.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 25 2008, 10:06 PM
Post #30


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (Odsh @ Mar 26 2008, 03:18 AM) *
By the way, it would be interesting to know if some GMs allow their players to crack agents.


Sure. Why not? It's just software.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Mar 25 2008, 11:24 PM
Post #31


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



EB: I think the glitch = -1 rating thing is a common house rule, not RAW.

Having said that, how is that different than broken tools, a flat tire or weapon misfires (all of which are cannon examples IIRC)? Maybe I'm interpreting your use of the word "mechanical" too literally? You mean game mechanics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dantic
post Mar 25 2008, 11:59 PM
Post #32


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 277
Joined: 19-November 06
From: Wagontown, PA
Member No.: 9,903



To me it seems acceptable if you start with a Hacker character in char-gen that any program you buy is yours to do with as you see fit. Hackers will simply hack the copy protection as per Source Code and Piracy (SR4 pg228) on any common programs (I'd simply allow that all this was done well beforehand over whatever time period the hacker was developing their skills) Hacking programs will generaly be something customized, or gotten from a source unconcerned about copy protection anyway. Similarly shadow riggers aren't likely to be installing programs requiring registration. I think that any autosofts would work in any drone/vehichle that you wanted to install it in, as long as required skills match (ie. Maneuver (Wheeled) only on wheeled drones, Targeting (Pistols) only works with pistols). Post char-gen, legal software would need to be hacked per rules and illegal software would still be freely copyable. (Just don't get caught re-selling or giving away software provided by UberHakzorezzll33td00dpwnzduezxxxtrasnarky, or he might get mad, hack your ID and ruin your life) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Pilot, OS, Agents, and Upgrades are different and I would treat all as unique and un-crackable for reasons distinct to each (I know, code is code and code is crackable, but in my matrix vision these are different in some way.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Mar 26 2008, 01:32 PM
Post #33


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 25 2008, 03:00 PM) *
Wow, no wonder you don't have people trying it. A gifted professional (Logic 5, software 4) has a ~40% chance of failing to crack your Track 6 under those rules, and will take all day (9 hours) to do it. And your average hacker will have something like 30 or more programs to crack, though obviously not all of them will be hacking programs.


Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going for. A ~40% chance of failure is still a ~60% chance of success. Some people might like those odds. Plus, I see very few rating 6 programs at my table. Most of the hackers that have played my games keep any program that gets involved in an extended test (e.g., Browse) to rating 3 and only those which are involved in success tests or opposed tests at 5 (since that's the cap from the System/Response limits at character generation). I've never actually seen a rating 6 program, although I've had two TMs get some of their complex forms to 7 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 25 2008, 03:00 PM) *
Oh, and where does the book talk about glitches reducing the rating of the copied utilities? I'm not sure I like the idea of glitching having mechanical drawbacks, given the silliness of glitch rules (you are more likely to glitch with a dice pool of 8 than you are with 7, for example; it's very weird to me that having fewer dice should actually benefit you mechanically.)


It doesn't; that's my own determination for glitches during software cracking tests. I'm not going to disallow such things because it's a legitimate action to take, but it's also something that I would prefer to avoid because most of the people who sit at my games don't care much about the programs they have running and those that do, buy them all at character generation. At my tables, software cracking isn't the rule for anyone, really, it's the exception.

To be honest, I've never actually shared any of these rulings with my players because no one's ever asked. I came up with the above equation pretty much off the top of my head after thinking about it for a while one day and made a note of it on my laptop. In other words, I don't think it's the rulings that are making people less likely to attempt to crack their programs, it's that cracking their programs has little or no value to them as players.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Odsh
post Mar 26 2008, 01:56 PM
Post #34


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 14-August 07
Member No.: 12,638



QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 25 2008, 05:06 PM) *
Sure. Why not? It's just software.


Everything in the poll is just software too...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 26 2008, 05:49 PM
Post #35


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (Dashifen @ Mar 26 2008, 06:32 AM) *
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going for. A ~40% chance of failure is still a ~60% chance of success. Some people might like those odds. Plus, I see very few rating 6 programs at my table. Most of the hackers that have played my games keep any program that gets involved in an extended test (e.g., Browse) to rating 3 and only those which are involved in success tests or opposed tests at 5 (since that's the cap from the System/Response limits at character generation). I've never actually seen a rating 6 program, although I've had two TMs get some of their complex forms to 7 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)
And you don't think it's a problem that the Thresholds are so much higher than just about anything similar in the game?

I mean, what else in the game has a Threshold of 26:
-Finding a deltaware cyborg CCU? Nope; Availability 24.
-Building a car engine from scratch? No.
-Building a Response 6 hardware upgrade? No.
-Writing the program from scratch? Also no.

Even the BBB disagrees with you, stating that the Threshold should be between 10 and 20. Of course the decision is up to you, but the fact that there is a nontrivial level of failure when a certified genius, who's a recognized, longtime expert in the field (LOG 5/skill 4) in cracking a program, when that same person could probably write the program from scratch anyway, is a little silly. Someone who is merely far above average intelligence and has a master's degree in computer science (LOG 4/skill 3) would find the task nearly impossible, as he would have to get 4 hits (TN 5) out of 7 dice, six times in a row.

QUOTE
It doesn't; that's my own determination for glitches during software cracking tests. I'm not going to disallow such things because it's a legitimate action to take, but it's also something that I would prefer to avoid because most of the people who sit at my games don't care much about the programs they have running and those that do, buy them all at character generation. At my tables, software cracking isn't the rule for anyone, really, it's the exception.

To be honest, I've never actually shared any of these rulings with my players because no one's ever asked. I came up with the above equation pretty much off the top of my head after thinking about it for a while one day and made a note of it on my laptop. In other words, I don't think it's the rulings that are making people less likely to attempt to crack their programs, it's that cracking their programs has little or no value to them as players.
Well, how often do your hackers lose their commlinks/have them wiped/have them destroyed? That's an awful lot of cash to lose all at once.

Part of the reason I think that experienced players don't think about it is because in SR3 if the decker ever lost his deck he was utterly screwed, and as a result it almost never happened. In a way it's kind of like D&D spellbook syndrome: that wizard's spellbook was supposed to be a balance consideration, but if he ever lost his books he suddenly became a peasant, so few DMs would ever bother doing it, and instead just go after the wizard himself. The same thing went for the decker: in OOC terms it is easier to just replace the decker than for a decker to try to replace his million-nuyen deck, so most GMs wouldn't even consider destroying the deck over just straight up killing the decker, because doing so would ruin the game for the decker's player.

That's not the case anymore. Nowadays, the physical commlink itself only costs 7-15,000 nuyen to replace, and most competent hackers will have a backup commlink or two already, for running hackastacks or coordinating Agent Smith armies. You can challenge the hacker by taking away/destroying his commlink, and not ruin the whole campaign forcing the hacker to spend tens of thousands of nuyen to come back from being utterly useless. If, that is, he has backups of at least his most important programs somewhere. Replacing the decker's programs is far costlier, upwards of 50,000 nuyen sometimes, not to mention the hassle of Availability. Losing all of them could destroy your hacker's player more surely than if you put a bullet in his head, because at least with the later scenario the player can roll up a new character; in the former he's just become the SR equivalent of a civilian.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BishopMcQ
post Mar 26 2008, 05:50 PM
Post #36


The back-up plan
**********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 8,423
Joined: 15-January 03
From: San Diego
Member No.: 3,910



Odsh--I think you will find that any of the GMs who allow cracking of Pilots will allow cracking of Agents. The most common knee-jerk reaction against cracking Agents is to avoid the Agent Smith problem. My understanding is that Agent Smith is dead with Unwired. (Note: I was personally never swayed by the arguments used in the Agent Smith debates, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Mar 26 2008, 06:46 PM
Post #37


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 26 2008, 12:49 PM) *
Even the BBB disagrees with you, stating that the Threshold should be between 10 and 20. Of course the decision is up to you, but the fact that there is a nontrivial level of failure when a certified genius, who's a recognized, longtime expert in the field (LOG 5/skill 4) in cracking a program, when that same person could probably write the program from scratch anyway, is a little silly. Someone who is merely far above average intelligence and has a master's degree in computer science (LOG 4/skill 3) would find the task nearly impossible, as he would have to get 4 hits (TN 5) out of 7 dice, six times in a row.

Well, how often do your hackers lose their commlinks/have them wiped/have them destroyed? That's an awful lot of cash to lose all at once.


I don't mind disagreeing with the rules; it happens. If I'm at my own table I probably make any number of contradictions with not only the rules but with myself. I don't claim to be consistent, and I tell my players from the get-go that I'll do my best to keep things in line, but that if I mess up to just tell me. If they do so, I treat them with respect, determine if a mistake has been made, if so -- rectify it, and move on with life. If I'm running a game at a Con or some other situation where I'm not representing myself but rather CGL in an official capacity, then obviously this changes things and my focus would be less on the storytelling of my plot and more on ensuring that the experience of the people at my table would be generalizable to the experience they'd have at other tables with other GMs.

But, I digress. I think it appropriate that a good programmer be better at producing a newer and better program than cracking someone else's work. Plus, I'm not sure the threshold is the appropriate determining factor with respect to easy in this case: the interval to program your own is on the order of many months while cracking is still on the order of hours. Yes, it might be very, very difficult to crack a program but you're going to know if you succeed or fail by the end of the day. If you try coding your own software, you're not going to know if you're sunk for a (potentially) much longer time.

As for losing a commlink ... it's never happened. Really, though, the cost to replace the software on a commlink is roughly similar to the cost necessary to replace a heavily modified vehicle or perhaps a really heavily modified drone. Even some modified weapons can be pretty costly and a high level focus could break any mage's bank when they lose it. Every archetype has something that's valuable to them, and I don't see a major issue with asking a person who has such a piece of equipment to both:

  • do their level best to try and protect that item from damage and/or destruction, and
  • replace it with time, effort, and nuyen should that protection fail.

I suppose that part of protecting a commlink and its associated software could be considered to be cracking the software to make backups, but that hadn't occurred to me or to my players in the past. And, to be honest, I don't think I'd have a problem with the owner of a piece of software making a backup of that software on some form of storage. Black storage media comes in at 1:nuyen: per datachip. If the hacker is worried about software loss, buy a bunch of chips and write the program onto them. Then, when the commlink is stolen, just read the chips off and back onto your commlink. Problem solved.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nathanross
post Mar 26 2008, 07:04 PM
Post #38


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 811
Joined: 30-January 07
From: Portland, OR
Member No.: 10,845



QUOTE (Tzitzimine @ Mar 25 2008, 12:13 AM) *
I don't allow it. The value although stated in nuyen, represents the "cost" of the software. Be it purchased with cold hard cred or purchased through sweat of brow and time spent cracking. For a starting character who chooses to have contacts in a cracking gang, sure, we can work something out on the side.

I completely agree with this. At chargen, everyone must pay for the programs they are expected to have (no sharing with group right after). This does not mean they necessarily bought the programs, but is a representation of the time/effort they put into making it, etc. After all, any hacker/decker worth his salt makes his own utilities.

Also, I like contacts like the Choson Rings or hacker contacts to be worth something, and allowing cracked software because of these is fair in my mind. Contacts aren't cheap!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GryMor
post Mar 26 2008, 07:30 PM
Post #39


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 91
Joined: 24-September 07
Member No.: 13,404



QUOTE (Dashifen @ Mar 26 2008, 01:46 PM) *
I suppose that part of protecting a commlink and its associated software could be considered to be cracking the software to make backups, but that hadn't occurred to me or to my players in the past. And, to be honest, I don't think I'd have a problem with the owner of a piece of software making a backup of that software on some form of storage. Black storage media comes in at 1:nuyen: per datachip. If the hacker is worried about software loss, buy a bunch of chips and write the program onto them. Then, when the commlink is stolen, just read the chips off and back onto your commlink. Problem solved.


Except, due to the super awesome copy protection, you can't actually DO that without cracking the software.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Mar 26 2008, 07:55 PM
Post #40


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



Why not?

Edit: Nevermind. I guess it depends on what you see as program duplication. IMO, duplication means I run the software and you run the software. So there are two duplicate copies of the exact same source code being used. If I run the software and make a backup on a chip, then I'm still only running one copy of the software. Thus, no duplicates are running.

In other words, I would allow someone to make a backup copy of their own software. They couldn't however, distribute those backups to other people and expect them to be able to use them without cracking the program. Why does it work this way? Who knows -- maybe the system has biometric data as a part of the copy protection key or maybe it uses a far more sophisticated and accurate type of hardware key so that any given program only runs on one given commlink (which could be problematic for upgrades and new commlinks, etc.).

Regardless, I'm comfortable with the rules that I've stated above. I don't think they're too rough and they've been successful at curbing software piracy at my table, which was their intended purpose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 26 2008, 09:39 PM
Post #41


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (Odsh @ Mar 27 2008, 12:56 AM) *
Everything in the poll is just software too...

And your point is?

I already responded to the poll questions. My answer to those were the same as to Agent crackability ... yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Odsh
post Mar 27 2008, 12:53 PM
Post #42


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 14-August 07
Member No.: 12,638



QUOTE (BishopMcQ @ Mar 26 2008, 12:50 PM) *
Odsh--I think you will find that any of the GMs who allow cracking of Pilots will allow cracking of Agents. The most common knee-jerk reaction against cracking Agents is to avoid the Agent Smith problem. My understanding is that Agent Smith is dead with Unwired. (Note: I was personally never swayed by the arguments used in the Agent Smith debates, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.)


I think cracking agents is somewhat more powerful than cracking pilots. With a cracked pilot program, you still need to pay for the drones that will use the pilot. Agents "only" need the node that will run them, and that node doesn't necessarily have to be your commlink, you could as well hack your way in the commlink of a random unsuspecting target and load your agent(s) on it.

So I could imagine that some GMs would allow cracking pilots, but not agents. But anyway, as you say, the Agent Smith problem will (hopefully) be solved with Unwired.


QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 26 2008, 04:39 PM) *
And your point is?

I already responded to the poll questions. My answer to those were the same as to Agent crackability ... yes.


Never mind, I thought you implied that the question had no point as any GM would allow it, but you were just giving your opinion, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 27 2008, 03:17 PM
Post #43


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



Ah, not at all. Every question has merit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th May 2025 - 04:58 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.