All the more reason to not get fried when you're on the wrong side of the RF paint. A little risk makes for the spice of life, eh? The Spider could have mounted that chip you've got on your belt and corrupted all the data on it. Side effect of everything being wireless.

Fried commlinks were my idiosyncratic way of saying "compromised commlink". By that, I mean one which has been wiped clean of everything.

Not everything is wireless. That paradigm can not work. Many devices can be turned off, for example.

If your chip isn't wirelessly connected, then you have to spend a meat IP grabbing it and either toggling the wireless or inserting it into the commlink. Meanwhile, the target changes ID or calls in better security.

I support active computer security being scary as all hell. If you're not sneaking around as a user with the appropriate priveledges (afraid to so much as poke your head out), I would rather that you fail repeatedly when going up against any computer system larger than a doorlock. Once they boot you, you should not be able to use the same account. Accounts should take time and/or money to compromise (and, no, you shouldn't be able to make your own on the fly). I believe that supporting brute force attacks on all but the simplest devices is a grand failure of verisimilitude.

Once you are inside their network, they control your routing and they can just boot you messily by switching off the gateway you're using.

Something blade said in another thread got me thinking.

Each node in a hackastack costs a good 8K.

However in 4th edition 8K will also get you a fairly potent combat drone. But I don't think many people have had a problem with a full on smith like assault.

Why?

Well first of all stealth, but often enough players don't care about that. I think the primary issue is that they get blown up real good and you start losing money even if you complete the run.

However you stand to lose nothing with your hackastack.

So I wonder if a lack of Grey IC isn't actually a problem as opposed to just leaving out an old feature.

I figure the main issue would be player characters abusing it. But I think maybe the idea that some stuff only runs on ICE could be revisited, that worked pretty well back in the day I thought.

Correct. Drop-Out is really the problem with all this -- because even an Agent Smith burly brawl could go wrong for a hacker if he got slammed with a black hammer.

reintroducing proper gray IC is as easy as announcing that nuke has a version that lasts beyond rebooting the system.

The biggest thing about RPG's is that they require a gamemaster, and RAW just doesn't cut it against any decent rules lawyer or metagamer. All games have loop holes and exploits and its up to the GM to mitigate people breaking the game for their own self worship. When people quote RAW for selfish purpose (that is breaking all the imaginary supense, threat, and fun of all others at the table) then I point them to page 265.

That being said I'd like to note that I have a lot of respect for frank who is a an icon on these boards and has a swiftly capable mind to grasp some of the bigger loop holes in RAW. But I don't feel that any of these Matrix breaking effects survive unaltered at any serious GM's table. Of course my house rules and opinion aren't RAW, but that's really a moot point if you're sitting at my table to play.

A final note before the meat of the post. I don't have unwired yet so I cannot speak on what will and won't make it into the game. Also I spend more time playing than posting, though this forum has got me through many a long day at work.

Script Kiddies - So mama's boy bought an agent and yes the agent has some nice dice to roll. But the two largest draw back's to an agent is pseudo intelligence and the Spoof program. I'd like to focus on the pseudo intellect though: Agents are not perfect AI's that take commands and do whatever the player tells them to no matter what. Throw in a couple "does not compute" errors wasting an IP and they quickly lose their new shine while the player is making logic tests (albeit with 12 dice) against whatever threshold the GM is setting. Sure attack commands are basic, but what happens when the defending node throws something at the agent it just wasn't programmed to react to. Sure these are RP reasons but RAW on page 214 seems to give GM's quite a bit of leadway figuring out what is a "usual range of function" for the agent in question. In the end they simply do not have the imagination or creative problem solving abilities that hacking usually requires, and if the script kiddie doesn't know what he's doing, the agent is even less effective.

Drop out/AR hacking - I simply don't allow AR hacking to have more than one IP. Sure you can get wired reflexes and spend 1 of up to 4 IP's doing something in AR, but not anymore than that. As a programmer I can tell you that hands and brains don't always work smoothly and though i'm a pretty good typist, sometimes the faster I go the less gets done. Giving system commands usually requires exact language and mistakes amount to re-issuing the whole command string (or backspacing and such). I've heard the official ruling, but I simply can't let the Sam outhack the hacker and be safer too. This means a VR hacker will always be faster, hot or cold, and you're paying a stiff price for that safety.

Daisy chain of commlinks - You can't have more than one persona active, you're only one you. You don't get IP's for each persona because every commlink is hot sim or whatever. Even if you link them up for more storage, processing, backup comms, you're only actively linking with one comm and the rest are on standby (or using the connection of the one active comm since all the others are subscribed). If you crash the active commlink, sure you can just switch over to the next without rebooting but your connection is gone. Your persona appears in the next commlinks node and you have to hack all the way back in.

Agent Smith - I'm torn, some part of me thinks this is really cool, but the effect on the game just isn't tolerable. Since you can only have one persona active at a time then your limited in the number of agents you have. And considering agents aren't perfect themselves having an army of them flashing error messages could be worse than anything any other hacker could do to you. Also if your issuing commands to a group of agents (all attacking) it isn't that difficult to imagine another hacker spoofing a command to all of them as well (since the command seemed to come from you anyway), considering it's a complex action to load an agent back up, it could be an extreme deterrent to command them all to deactivate.

In the end I try to reward creativity but I also try to keep it fun and fair. It's a game of imagination after all so there really aren't any rules other than what is agreed upon when you sit down, and even that is open to some discussion.

To each their own.

Logical argument has a specific meaning. One that has little to do with arguing. That said, I feel that we can take a stab at it.

Given: RAW hacking has areas that are vague. (Please note that I do not have access to Unwired and therefore, can't speak to any rules therein.)

Given: Some players (and GMs) have issues with vague rules.

Given: Some players (and GMs) will automatically create interpretations to fill in the vague areas, some won't.

Given: The interpretations of the various groups will not agree, you have the seeds of conflict.

Question: How does the potential conflict get resolved?

Answer: One of two ways:

1. Use RAW and make it work. (I believe that Aaron is arguing for this.)
2. Use houserules instead.

Intermediate conclusion: They are essentially the same thing. Option 1 is just an agreed upon set of houserules while Option 2 is agreed upon houserules. Arguing about who is right is almost as bad as Technomancers shiving each other over whether or not it is Resonance or Disonance which is important.

My opinion: The only way to make any progress is to sit down and take a hard look at the RAW rules and determine if they are truly consistent. If not, then we either need to fix them or replace them.

Conclusion: Sorry, I can't provide a general conclusion because each of us has to look at the analysis to determine where we stand. Frank, however, made his statement, loud and clear. The devs made theirs as well. Time for you to make yours.

Mine?

I have never been a matrix fan: it was too dungeon crawl for me in earlier editions. However, I felt that the 4e matrix was going to work for me. Unfortunately, after spending some time reading the rules and noting that it became a sub-system with similar but not identical rules to the main game (I'm looking at you Program + Skill), I became worried. When I tried to make a Technomancer - because I like the parallels to mages and the fluff was cool - and failed ... due to the rules, I became disheartened. When I realized that the matrix was broken using the printed rules, I gave up.

I now handwave the matrix in all my games. (e.g. Hacker = NPC)

I don't own Unwired and have no plans to purchase it as everything I have heard about it seem to indicate that it is more of the same. However, I would like to have a set of rules that makes sense to me and that I consider playable.

Frank's rules give me that. However, I'm still kinda neutral on the matrix from a storytelling standpoint so don't expect my games to have a lot either way.

Anyway, this post has gotten far longer than I intended and I have to be up early tomorrow for work. Have a wonderful morning, afternoon, or evening - wherever you are in the world.

Most of the time, according to discussions on Dumpshock, such problems are actually treated this way:

1. Interpret RAW in a way that makes it work fine.
2. Interpret RAW in a way that makes it totally broken and then complain about it/make house rules.

And that can be the case even if the rules are clear and consistent, since, as with all communication, there is noise. There's a difference between the intention and the writing and between the writing and the interpretation of the reader.
So you end up with two sides: RAW supporters and RAW detractors. As usual when two sides argue about something, they convince themselves of the truthfulness of their point of view and further debates are getting nowhere.

Personally, I tend to try to get rules working instead of trying to understand them in a way that'd make them totally fucked up. That doesn't mean I don't use houserules. I use a lot of houserules, but only when my intent is different from the writer's.

For the Matrix, I agree that it was really hard to make sense out of the BBB rules and that they lacked some capital information to be playable without at least some personal interpretation. I don't know if that's because I already had done a lot of work on the Matrix, but for me Unwired added everything that was missing (and many new and interesting elements as well) and let you use the Matrix without the need for any house rule.

Sure it's still possible that some people will play differently with the same rules, but that's the case with every rules. There are groups out there where the GM will never apply modifiers that aren't listed on the tables and there are other group where the GM will add a lot of modifiers that aren't listed. Both follow the rules.

The RAW can definitly be made to work. The extend of what I´d like to see is clear houserule territory, but a creative application of the RAW can make the unnecessary complexity of main-book RAW go away. Unwired offers quite a few options for doing just that (Open Source, Software Options, Logic + Skill, epic processor limits for clusters and nexi...).

Agreed. However, I personally feel that having to interpret the RAW is bad for the game. It is my biggest peeve about the d20 rules for things such as grappling.



Communications theory made simple:

1. What you thought.
2. What you said/wrote.
3. What they heard/read.

While I agree with you, that is why it is so important that someone outside of the creative process get called in to proofread and shoot holes in your creation. Makes for a stronger creation when you know 1 and can get 3'. (I say 3' becuase the process also works in reverse.)



I would love for someone to help me see the RAW hacking in a way that works. I don't think I would keep it anyway, because of where I want my game to go; however, I would still like to see it.



Your statement is the first non-developer, non-CGL endorsement of the rules I've seen. If I were to get more feedback from other, I might give the rules a try. As it stand, I would rather spend the money on Arsenal or the new Companion.

Like I said make stealth king. Systems that detect multiple intrusions figure they're humped and kill all(or at least all wireless) connections. Doing such(dropping all via a use of the command program to take out the antenna), doesn't take a test and couldn't be countered unless a stealthy intruder was already in.

Systems that detect a single intruder go a bit more paranoid than you probably have them now, especially ones with dirt paydata (runner figures they either get in clean or they're screwed).

The results. 1 Hackastack and smith are essentially no go for useful shadowrun stuff. As they'd inevitably set off alarms.

2. The larger dice pool and ability to use edge means the hacker has a significant edge over a script kiddie (and no spoofing). Since stealth matters they actually care.

Raw does leave you with the drop out problem. On the other hand they are two dice down on everything, and they have to get some solid cyber to be able to keep up.

Though the advantage of drop out(black IC immunity) is balanced out if you re-introduce grey IC. That's semi RAW, as it's stuff from previous editions. Sort of like how there aren't any rules now for military vehicles and ships. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

That sounds more the Netrunning in fiction...
...Do as much as possible quietly, 'cos when the system comes after you, it'll be loud and dangerous.

And what skill is there is using brute force to get things done ??
The skill is in getting in, doing what you want, getting out - all without anyone knowing, until it's too late [bit like a well executed Shadowrun, actually].

Of course I suppose that still leaves some uses for piles of comlinks. Off the top of my head using them to continually do the electronic warefare thing to find and decrypt hidden nodes as the player moves around.

Though I'm not sure if that's a bad thing except for the dice issue. It means that if the player spends enough cash they can effectively hack during a run.

Though if a runner has a bunch of comlinks active and someone else just wanted to find one I'd really lower the threshold. And again grey IC play in here as runners would be nervous about losing piles of comlinks.

What are your specific problems with the RAW? I absolutely don´t like the main book matrix RAW, but Unwired is a totally different animal. (Don´t let yourself be deceived about that, not by someone who has a serious stake to loose if everybody thinks otherwise.)

All that is really needed IMO is
a) a limit on agents, Unwireds solution does not work => try giving agents a limit on hits
b) a simple explanation to your players that everyone needs a way to get free software, so it can! be glossed over.
c) the logic+skill capped by program rating optional rule.
d) a required personalisation of all skillsofts

Now we have done a few things on top of that, like removing the dumb extended tests that are all over the place... "try again" works similar for "your bracket of doable systems", while removing the unwanted auto-success.

THis makes hackastack BETTER. Under those rules, I can set two agents to completely DoS any given mainframe CONSTANTLY.

Why do you say that Unwired's solution for agents doesn't work? (Once you consider that the text about changing the AccessID will be errated out, according to what was said on these boards)

Newsflash, a hacker can knock out mainframes anyway. Just take a couple hours to probe, get in undetected, crash it or do whatever. Why aren't they knocked down all the time? Presumably people have better things to do than piss of Gridsec for no profit whatsoever.

Cracked agents are dirt-cheap. I very much approve of cheap or free software (open source and all that), but it removes money as a balance mechanism. Agent strategies get "broken" in the single-digit range, so you could buy eight different ones.

Botnets work as advertised, and are balanced by the inherent danger for the user. Broad-scale attack on mostly random nodes, linked to your home node? MCT Matrix Security wants to have a word.

Getting unlimited agents is merely a function of time. You just need a drone, and some autosofts.

And a GM that is stupid enough to permit a Software autosoft for drones, if I get your method at all. "See, I even bought it mechanical arms so it can type on the virtual keyboard...."

Actually you can probably get the same result without autosofts or with monkeys instead of drones...
Given infinite time, they will produce an infinite number of agents, probably after finishing Shakespeare's complete works.

I disagree for economic reasons. There are at least 10 big software houses in 2070, and they all produce functionally identical programs (this is canon). The price wars will have driven their program costs down to the bare minimum possible to support development.

The tricks 'n' traps deployed by corps against crackers will have only improved, and all the advanced statistical crunching and modelling software will make tracing the spread of cracked software back to the source much easier (helps when you actively go out and create botnets to watch the world). The risks of selling cracked software are high, the value of cracked software is higher than normal software (replicable, after all); the price of cracked (or, at least, replicable) software is, therefore, higher than normal software.

Then again, the business model implied by the "Registered" option is untenable and destroys the Software market. If you have a piece of software that will always be up to date without ongoing costs, what need do you have to replace it with a competitor's? The population in 2070 is relatively stable and everyone who is going to buy software already has (mostly, there's a little influx and outflow in the market). The software market is minute if you support free updates, and all the corps will recognise that. They have been around for a long enough time that they will be wise in the ways of the business.

The only way to profit in a world of free updates is product churn, whilst subsequently abandonning support for old products to incentivise switching to new programs. The alternative to is to charge for update access, which I think will be common in 2070. The first method is not supported by RAW (wherein you always get access to a better copy of the program for free if you have Registered, it doesn't run out ever), the second is definitely not support by RAW. By RAW you don't have a software market for anything but bespoke scuplting and commercial-scale number crunching.


I would suggest the following pricing modifications. Software costs its price to purchase outright, you don't get the Registered option but you do get Copy Protection. You can license the software for 10/20% of its base cost in immediate costs and a further 5/10% (needs tuning) every month. Licensed software comes with Registered and Copy Protection. Finally, you can get cracked (or free, as in "freedom") software, which has neither, for 150/200% of the normal cost.

This is why it helps to have easy to get along with players who are interested in working with the GM to get a good game and a good story, rather than simply abusing the rules. A good smack to the noggin with one of SR's nice, hefty hardbacks helps. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It's functionally a house fluff rule. But the way I figure it is that, like viruses, it's sort of an arms race with code. In the sense that if they see enough of a certain type of attack they'll have patched it up in the next update.

Therefore to avoid heuristics most true hacker code is custom made. Unique like a work of art. Give out throusands of copies though and the next day it just won't work against a lot of corps.