What matrix rules do you want?, if you could choose Options

[Serbitar]

There are two concepts to do matrix rules:

Open rules, where lots of stuff is left to the GM. He can invent different mechanics and play the matrix just like the "real world" in SR, where agents are sneaking around, looking for you just like normal guards, and you can do lots of different things like "climbing" over the wall that represents the firewall.
This rule style calls for a creative GM and needs some effort on his side. The player will not be able to judge situations just by the raw "numbers" regarding nodes and commlinks, as the situation is much more complex. These rules are generally slower. If the GM wants to speed them up he can just invent shortcut rolls that summarize a whole set of actions.
A creative player with knowledge about computers might have an advantage, because he can invent creative ways to deal with problems (like editing data streams coming into a node to get admin access).

Closed rules, where the hacker has only a defined set of allowed actions and the node/IC/Agents a set of counter actions. Everything is defined. A GM does only have to make up the system topology (including matrix tricks like back doors) and the rest is set. Matrix is more like very complex chess game, which can be speed up if need be, by just rolling the dice for every test and leaving out the GM descriptions. The player is able to judge his situation very well because there is nothing to be invented by the GM or the player. This rule set needs no computer knowledge, as everything you can do is already described in the game mechanics.


At the moment SR4 has a very open rule set.

[Smed]

If I were playing in a long term face to face game, I think I'd prefer open rules. The downside to open ruiles though is that the player needs some time to get to know how the GM runs things so he knows how to react.

In a one shot game, or an online game, which is mostly how I game anymore, open rules like SR4's rules, can be a real problem to the players because they have only one shot to learn how the GM plays things and react accordingly.

[Thanee]

Closed. Then you have both. You don't really need any new rules for Open.

Bye
Thanee

[Blade]

Open, just like the vehicule combat rules : you only have some specific rules and actions and everything else is roleplay.

It may be a bit longer for a hacker player to get used to, but it makes things more interesting than just a succession of rolls and don't need the GM to learn a full ruleset just for the hacker.

I like the way it is now, it just needs some deeper explanations and some examples but I'd rather see that in Unwired than tons of new rules.

[Serbitar]

Please note: This is not about tons of new rules. This is about open vs closed. Both can be done with minimal or with very many rules. That is not correleated.

Example of minimal closed rulset:

You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System
you can:

hack in
edit files
download files


Minimal open rule set:
You roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System most of the time, sometimes the GM wil ask you to roll something else

You can do whatever the GM allows you to do, ask him what this is

[Blade]

I'm still in favor of open ruleset with some hints to what can be or can't be done. Something like :

You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System when trying to do something illegally on the node itself. This includes : hacking in, editing files, downloading files. This does not apply to, for example, fooling an agent because you don't act on the node directly but on the agent.

[Serbitar]

Sorry, this example does not help me as you do not oppose open vs closed, and agents have no place in this minimal example. There are just nodes and hackers, if there were agents, the closed ruleset would have to include rules for them.

Maybe I try another way of explaining open vs closed rule sets:

closed:
there is a rule for everything you can do. if there is no rule, you can not do it. This does not mean there have to be an infinite amount of rules because you can specify that a large cluster of actions just all use the same unified rules.

open:
there are rules for some things, but for most there are only some guidelines. A player and GM have full freedom of choice, but the GM has to do all the balancing and has to make up a lot of things.

The matrix is a constructed system. The rules (should) tell you what you can or can not do. This is different to "real world" Shadworun, where your daily experience and extrapolation of technonlogy tell you what you can or can not do.

You can not have closed rules for "real world" Shadowrun, but you can for matrix. So the question is whether or not you want that, understanding what it means.

[eidolon]

I'm already amused that so many people are voting for "closed" rules when everyone constantly whines about that same approach in SR3. :)

I also think it's shaky at best to say that a closed rule system will be able to get by on very few rules. Every time a system starts down the path to "any action that is possible is covered by the rules", I see one of two things happen.

On one end of the scale, you get d20, where the system just keeps getting more and more bloated as the designers try to cover every little situation with a rule, (ech...), and on the other end, the rules are ridiculously limited in what you can do, because by definition (yours specifically, Serbitar), you can't do anything the rules don't cover. That end of the scale sees players, GMs, groups, etc. coming up with tons of extra house rules so that they can do more in the game, which then defeats the purpose of "having a rule for every action".

That said, a hybrid is usually the best approach in my opinion. Cover the most common, most needed actions with rules that are written so as to be able to stretch to cover other situations. And have a GM, because that's why he/she is there.

[Blade]

Ok, I get your point.

I'd prefer semi-open rules : some rules but everything is just derived from that. That's already how I GM the Matrix : the player tells me what he wants to do and I tell him how he can do that. After playing some games, he's able to come up with hiw own ways of doing things. And rather than just saying "I hack the node, I use spoof to reroute that, I use edit on this file" he describes the whole action, making it far more interesting for other players.

For example, I'm okay with just knowing that exploit is used to exploit breaches in the code and that you use it with hacking+exploit. I then infer that it can be used to get access to nodes, or to exploit an ICE program (the way you can exploit a game AI in some games by doing things it wasn't programmed to deal with) and I can improvise if a player asks something or wants do do something that aren't in the rules. It also limits the number of rules you have to keep in mind.

I just need to know the resistance of a rope and the DV of a falling object to deal with a player wanting to cut a rope to make something fall on an opponent's head. I don't need something stating that it can be done this or that way.

Sure, closed rules are more complete than open and so someone interested in open rules will have what he needs with complete rules, but it may lead some players to think in rule terms rather than in roleplay terms. For example, in D&D, nearly every combat move is described in a rule. This leads to combat where players tell "I use my xxx skill". In Shadowrun, there are just tables and modifiers for some action, that leads to actual description of what is done rather than just dice rolling. It's far more interesting for other players to watch roleplay than a chess game.

[Mal-2]

If I have to choose between 'very open' and 'very closed' I would prefer to run a 'very closed' system. I would prefer to play in a 'very open' system. My ideal, of course, is somewhere in between the two.

Running a very open matrix system means that I have to think a lot about how the system works, in descriptive terms, so that I can give guidance to the decker's player. He can't know ahead of time how I visualize the matrix working, because the system is very open. On one hand, this allows for some neat narration and inventive storytelling. The problem with this very open system, is that it requires me to devote a lot of thought to a part of the world that likely only one or two of my players are going to have a lot of interaction with, which is that much less thought that goes into the rest of the world.

[Serbitar]

[Jaid]

i would prefer to see a mostly closed rule system. obviously, no system will ever be perfect, but it would be nice to see a comprehensive rule set that covers most things. further rules to cover specific oddball situations can at least be extrapolated from those closed rules, as well.

also, it provides a better starting point for discussion... if hacking is all about the houserules, then it becomes nearly impossible to discuss the hacking rules with anyone who is not familiar your house rules.

plus, if you're making house rules to cover specific situations, you are ultimately building a closed system out of your open system anyways...

a closed system is also easier for a starting group, and especially to a starting GM.

that being said, much like capitalism vs. communism (or socialism if you prefer, i've heard communism described as the extreme end of socialism... which is not how my school explained it, but whatever), neither end of the scale really works quite perfectly if you take it to the absolute limit. a system that is 100% capitalism will pretty much inevitably end up with a huge divide between rich and poor, poor working conditions, and a large portion of the society being poor with a small portion being extremely rich, and a few in between, but with almost no possibility of moving from poor to rich. a communist society will almost inevitably lead to people getting lazy (why work when the state has to take care of you either way), or the government becoming a dictatorship where you essentially end up with the government owning everything and using it for their own purposes, while the people are not nearly as well off as they might be under a more capitalistic system (provided said system is, as indicated above, not full-blown, 100% capitalist).

the trick, of course, is finding that exact spot in the middle ground where you want to be. which is easier said than done.

so, again, to summarise: mostly closed system is my preference. certainly not "if the rules don't say it, you can't do it", but rather "the rules explain how to do most things clearly, and provide a good framework for extrapolation of other rules to cover specific situations if needed". the goal being to need those extra rules as little as possible while not overburdening the system with rules.

[OneTrikPony]

I cannot support a two party system, that is not democracy.

Seriously why are you making us choose between VERY open and VERYclosed. It seems to me that the matrix rules shoud be set at about the "level" that the magic rules are set at but without all the loopholes that will make me smack players of mages.

I vote for FAIRLY open but KINDA closed. This is the launch of my "Modration in RPG Rules" underground movement.

[eidolon]

Can I be the organizer for my area, OneTrik?

[ShadowDragon]

Closed closed closed! I need some kind of benchmark before I feel comfortable houseruling the game as open as I like. If the rules start off too open, it leaves too many unknowns about the spirit of the rules.

Borrowing Serbitar's examples:

[Blade]

His example is biased : the closed ruleset is just like the open one with more content...

Don't forget that if you follow the first example you can't, for example, upload a file : it's not in the list, you can't do it (according to Serbitar own's words).

[eidolon]

That's also not his complete rules.

[Serbitar]

But Blade has a point. Of course, a closed ruleset would include a lot of actions, and definately all actions to allow for complete hacking runs, but it would definately not allow everything there is and you can think of.

But this is a wanted effect. Some things are not intended to be done and it is much more easy to balance a system where you have a system of X known rules.
Especially when you have a topic like computers where you can not say wheather a certain action is already part of an abstract game mechanic (for example a firewall) or wheteer it is not.

[blakkie]

[Ryu]

I voted "open", because you put chess in the context of dice :P

I like clear and simplified rules. I REALLY like the idea of skill+logic/whatever with program rating limiting successes. I DON`T like multiple agents in a rules-heavy environment. The rest of the list is very short: the encryption rules suck and devices need limited function. One needs "closed" rules, the other explicit examples. Your toaster should not come with the processing power to run an agent.

Quote dilbert "I don´t think the coffee maker acted alone".

[Serbitar]

really damn close vote

[PlatonicPimp]

Serbitar, I know you make a lot of house rules (which I like and use), but with all the polls recently It seems like you're gearing up to redesign the whole system from the ground up.

[hobgoblin]

hmm, serbitar pulling a raygun on the SR4 matrix rules?

[Synner]

I believe Serbitar was trying to make a point, though I'm equally sure the results aren't as clear cut as he was expecting.

[Serbitar]

My intention is to find out whether there is a preferred playstyle for the matrix.
I am not gearing up to do something (as I am doing my stuff constantly, anyways).

Concerning this poll:
As I wrote in some post further up, I already have made up my mind in this discussion, but want to know what others think. I certainly do not want to make a point by an internet poll (which is not very representative, and, well, its the internet . . .), although it is, of course, hard to resist to use such a thing to make a point, when the outcome is extremely in favor of one anser.
I had the discussion (open vs closed) for some time now (actually more than half a year) with some guys on the fanpro forums, and the point came up in a discussion with synner, too. I think the answer depends very much on the way you look at the matrix and the way you play it. I for example, do not roleplay in the matrix at all. Matrix runs are just hard facts, numbers, dice rolls, and desicions. Anything else would make the average matrix run too lengthy. There is no time to roleplay how you hide from the IC, you just roll the dice and get done with it.
But others may have other plays of style. To get a rough idea of the fraction, I did the poll.
The actual reason why I started the poll just now, is a new GM our group has, who displays a very open game style, to a point where game consistency is completely irrelevant as long as it helps the plot. I had a longer disussion with him and found it interesting how this actually works, and how this is motivated.

The result as it reads now is quite clear: There is not.
There is even a slight prference for open style, as I argued a lot for closed in this thread which might have given closed some more votes than it would have deserved without the argueing.

If I wanted to make a point, though I would have elaborated on the argument, that matrix rules needs to be closed, as there is no common ground a player and a GM can extrapolatre from, because the matrix is only "virutal" in the purest meaning of the word. Only the rules tell you what the matrix is and what is possible, as you can not extrapolate from day to day experience which is the case in real world SR4.

Thus you either need to have rules for everything, or have played with a GM for a long time to know what he expects, which is kind of a meta rlue system, too . . .



The intention of the math poll was:
There are a lot of SR4 rules where polynomials are replaced by linear functions. For example the programm costs are a quite good linear interprolation of a X² function. I thought: Why not just use the X² function? This is never going to be used in a fight. Same goes for ally costs and such. Dont get me wrong: The linear intrapolation is doing well, but still somebody must have thought that the "real" thing must be to hard to calculate or it would not have been done that way.
I was curious to know whether people thought the same.

Concerning the numbers thread:
I was really just rechechking whether somebody hat a good idea for a number change for my next revision of my house rules.

The overall problem with votes and forum surveys is, that people tend to get carried away by a certain topic and not focus on the question at hand (see my numbers thread).