IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Program rating idea
Garrowolf
post Feb 17 2007, 04:48 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



Okay a quick idea here.

I prefer the Attribute + Skill thing work across the board. Then add the program rating as an equipment bonus. Some people think that will make the dice pool too large.

I think I have a solution.

If we assume that rating 3 is the most commonly use then we can assign it a bonus of +0. Then 4 becomes +1 and 2 becomes -1. We still have a quick rating system for costs and comparing to skill rating but it won't make the dice pools to large.

You can alter the base rating based on what you want to be average.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knasser
post Feb 17 2007, 08:09 AM
Post #2


Shadow Cartographer
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636



I don't like that it makes program ratings 1 to 2 negative modifiers (I presume). Essentially by that point you are defaulting.

If you want programs to play a part, but not be the basis for the roll, then caps on successes might be a more user-friendly solution. You can't get more hits than the rating of your program for example. Players will still want to get decent programs, so they wont stop buying them, but it makes more sense that the vast majority of people are using rating 2 or 3.

Or if the reasoning was more that you just wanted the attribute to play a role (but I don't think it was), you could do it the other way around and have Program + Skill ratings capped by Logic, or Logic x 2.

But your system can work. I just don't see it as very elegant (sorry). Also, I think it alters tha balance a little with Technomancers (for those who play with them - urgh! ) as hackers are now universally getting +3 dice to all their actions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 17 2007, 08:44 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



I think that all skill rolls should have an attribute roll with them. It is the core mechanic. It should work in all places.

I don't have a problem with giving a penalty or two. I use the Att + Skill + program rating now and it works just fine. I don't know why people are afraid of it. It doesn't change the balence at all because it is across the board.

Personally I would like to get rid of the habit of having rating 6 programs for everything as well. It basically ends up being the only rating because it is so easy to get (once a single person gets it then it is everywhere on the team). It makes it pointless to even measure it.

And I do think that it is elegant. I think that the RAW is the one clapping it's flippers and barking.

And I think Technomancers are so messed up that there is no real point to them unless they are mostly rewritten.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Feb 17 2007, 06:55 PM
Post #4


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



I can't agree that Matrix operations should be handled with Attribute + Skill. Attributes are about what you are, and Skills are about what you know. One of the basic concepts of the Matrix is that it is an environment where your own self is subsumed by the electronic. It's why the phrase "meat body" is derided by hackers, and one of the main themes of cyberpunk literature.

Consider astral space, a plane of thought and emotion. One leaves one's meat body behind, and the character sheds those Attributes along with her body.

The Matrix is a step beyond that: a plane of electrons and data. Your character's commlink is infinitely better at processing that information than his brain is. When his programs and equipment are far better than his own Attributes are, it makes little difference whether he is average or genius.

I suppose that if one really wanted to include an Attribute in a roll, it would make sense to roll the Attribute as a teamwork roll, but people are already complaining about how long it takes to resolve Matrix rolls (an attitude with which I also disagree, but I started my SR4 experience playing a hacker, so I might have more experience with it than other people).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyoto Kid
post Feb 18 2007, 03:24 AM
Post #5


Bushido Cowgirl
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490



...one of the things discussed in our group was using the programme as a success cap as like with spells (as Knasser mentions). This would work even in extended tests since no single roll could exceed the programme rating. This would also be modified by response overload in that if the programme's effective rating is reduced, so is the cap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 18 2007, 04:00 AM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



Okay Game Mechanics 101: Have a core mechanic that works on all skill rolls.

Sorry Aaron, you reasoning doesn't work because you DO have attributes on the Astral. They just change. I wouldn't mind that concept in the Matrix but I don't think that it is neccesary.

The archetype of the hacker is a younger guy who is brilliant and able to visualize the math and programming he is working with. This is the only bit of reality in the game. The hackers I have met ARE brilliant, frighteningly so. They regularly do things that I thought were not possible with computers. One guy was able to do high level hacking with a Trash 80 because he liked the challenge!

The machine is not important. The software is either created by them or downloaded. It is their intelligence and skill that make them amazing.

If you can't model that in a system that is supposedly based partially on Cyberpunk then the game is a failure. It does not even model the characters in their own novels at that point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Feb 18 2007, 05:21 PM
Post #7


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (Garrowolf)
Okay Game Mechanics 101: Have a core mechanic that works on all skill rolls.

Cute.

Actually, you're not citing a "rule of game design" so much as a design preference. Kind of like a guide on where to put various elements of a web page.

I agree, though, that it's a Good Thing to have a unified system of doing stuff. But replacing your Attribute with your Program Rating is still following the system in SR4. Just like replacing an Attribute with a Pilot Rating. Or replacing a Skill Rating with an ActiveSoft Rating. Abstraction is, I believe, also in the Game Mechanics 101 syllabus.

QUOTE (Garrowolf)
Sorry Aaron, you reasoning doesn't work because you DO have attributes on the Astral. They just change. I wouldn't mind that concept in the Matrix but I don't think that it is neccesary.

Let me do a quick search-and-replace ...

Sorry Garrowolf, you reasoning doesn't work because you DO have attributes in the Matrix. They just change. I wouldn't mind that concept in the astral but I don't think that it is neccesary.

Your "Matrix Attributes" are your program Ratings. They're just very specific to each task.

QUOTE (Garrowolf)
The archetype of the hacker is a younger guy who is brilliant and able to visualize the math and programming he is working with.

Er ... you just described a skill. Either that, or martial arts is also an Attribute, along with skiing, archery, american football, basketball, getting a job, math, etc.

QUOTE (Garrowolf)
One guy was able to do high level hacking with a Trash 80 because he liked the challenge!

A TRS-80 makes it more challenging to hack? So you're saying that the machine is important?

QUOTE (Garrowolf)
The machine is not important.

Oh.

QUOTE (Garrowolf)
The software is either created by them or downloaded. It is their intelligence and skill that make them amazing.

Not exactly. In the Matrix, you don't have time to analyze and calculate, especially at combat speeds. Which logical ports are vulnerable right now? What commands has the IC just sent, and which of my processes are susceptible to them? What part of my commlink's state were put there by me, and which are induced by an attack? All at three times per second. The programs keep track of all this at high speeds, which is why it's their ratings that are most important (not all-important necessarily, just most important). Being the one with the best-designed program is the one that wins, and that's handled in design-time, not run-time.

QUOTE (Garrowolf)
If you can't model that in a system that is supposedly based partially on Cyberpunk then the game is a failure. It does not even model the characters in their own novels at that point.

Sure, the intelligence helps, but it's not the hacker's intelligence that makes the run. Why couldn't Case just make a run on Tessier-Ashpool, if he didn't actually need the military-grade IC breaker program? Why did Hiro Protagonist code so long on the boat on his way across the Pacific if all he needed to do was jack in and hack?

For that matter, you strike me as a person with an above-average Logic, Garowolf. Why did you use a web browser and a forum interface to post your message, when you could have just built the data stream out of text and sent it to the TCP/IP stack? Or, for that matter, why bother with the TCP/IP stack when you (or even your hacker friend) could have just accessed your NIC directly and sent the whole thing as bits after encoding it all in your head? I can tell you why I didn't.

It's faster.

Scads faster. Even if I had a BCI (a modern scientific term for something that the cyberpunk genre named first as DNI), I'd still want the programs to do my bidding, because binary encoding is slow and annoying. I'd much rather make some high-level, abstract decisions and have my program(s) handle it for me, like software is designed to do. I'm fairly certain that when a fighter pilot, for example, fires a missile at a target, he's not using his Agility or his Logic to make that happen (in fact, the rules already cover this with Sensor + Gunnery, but nobody's railing against that).

At any rate, though, a game is about what you and your friends think is fun, so if you want to include pistachios in your game, go nuts. I would suggest that any house rule you introduce consider another item from the Game Mechanics 101 curriculum: the KISS principle.

But hey, it's your game.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Feb 18 2007, 10:26 PM
Post #8


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
...one of the things discussed in our group was using the programme as a success cap as like with spells (as Knasser mentions). This would work even in extended tests since no single roll could exceed the programme rating. This would also be modified by response overload in that if the programme's effective rating is reduced, so is the cap.

You know, I thought exactly the same way when I first read through the rulebook. I was thinking, "they've got this perfectly good system for spells, why don't they just apply that to hacking?"

But as I read through them more, I realized that this was actually deliberate. Hacking and magic are two completely different things at the core, with two completely different numina, if you will. They should have a different feel, and so a different mechanic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 19 2007, 01:19 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



KISSS??!?!??!?!?!?!?
I AM talking about KISS
I started looking at this problem when I realized that nobody could remember what roll to make for the matrix because it was too complex. Program + Skill is not a simple replacement! It is much more complex and requires memorizing long lists of programs.
I can run a game all day long that doesn't involve the matrix and never need to look at the book because it makes sense. That is the sign of an elegant system.

Except for the matrix
Except for the matrix
It's always except for the matrix.

This whole edition was based around unifying the game mechanics and making the whole thing simplier.

Except for the Matrix.

People keep on wanting to play their favorite characters from cyberpunk novels but then the system fails to do that. Instead of something that flows, it always bogs down the game.

There are better ways to model that high speed stuff for the matrix but they want to bog it down.

It's always except for the Matrix. It has to work differently.
Well I guess in a way it has modeled computers well. They were supposed to make our lives easier and faster, but they bog us down. I like having a computer in the game but I don't want to have to learn a seperate system for it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Feb 19 2007, 03:51 AM
Post #10


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



While to a certain extent I agree that divorcing hacking and other matrix tasks entirely from Logic is a bit off, and hackers will almost always buy rating 6 programs for everything, I don't want to tinker with the system too much. It'll only complicate things too much if I have to remember which core rules I'm using and which I've houseruled. And if I'm confused I hate to think what that'll do to any players.

I rather hope that the Unwired book will provide some playtested alternative rules, although I shall consider the rules suggested on DS, as I don't see anything inherently or obviously broken about them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Feb 19 2007, 04:09 AM
Post #11


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (Garrowolf)
I like having a computer in the game but I don't want to have to learn a seperate system for it.

Sorry, I didn't see it before. Maybe I can help.

If you want to be smoother with the Matrix stuff, and you hate having to figure out which program to use for what, I don't think what's been stated before will be helpful. The RAW is already Program + Skill; I'm not sure how adding the Attribute in there makes it any more simple.

As far as the player side goes, I've found that letting the player deal with most of the details of his or her own commlink works fine.

For GMing, I find that it's really easy to pick a rating for the whole node (usually 2 or 3 for most systems, 4-5 for most corp sites and 6-7 for megacorps and military), and just set every program to that rating. Then I toss a die and use the table on page 223 of your hymnal to see what happens if the hacker is detected.

For example, let's say my hacker wants to bust into a parking ramp system so his team can park their van for free. It's in a mediocre part of town, not like downtown Seattle or anything, so I decide the place has a Rating 3 node, with Analyze 3. I toss the die and it comes up 2, which means Attack IC, so the IC and its Attack program have ratings of 3. Viola!

If a run calls for a more detailed system, I design it ahead of time, along with one or more security hackers, etc. But usually I just pick a rating and go.

I've also found it extremely helpful to have extra tools, such as the hacker cards or the cheat sheets on my Shadowrun Resources page. Check 'em out; they might just help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 19 2007, 04:25 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



yes that can always be the difficulty with house rules. Most of the time I am using house rules to make it easier on the players and myself. Some things are to simplify a set of rules or to consolidate something. Some times they are to fix some lack of lack or a disagreement with the game designers.

I think that one of the biggest reasons that people have a problem with house rules is that they want portability with other games. If it is in the RAW then they can always hold that up and say that their idea for a character or tactic is supported there. If it is a house rule then what they can do in one game doesn't necessarily carry over.

I understand that but I also tend not to be a player. Most of the time I am the GM. When I am a player I have a bad habit of out thinking the GM and messing their adventures. I don't do it to be mean but I just end up doing an end run around their story.

Besides I really enjoy telling stories. I love being a GM. I love creating long and short story arcs and watching characters grow and change the world around them.

But I also realized that the game mechanics can either support you or hinder and distract you. A bad game mechanic can cause all kinds of problems. That is why I focus so much on house rules and game mechanics. So I don't have to focus on them in play.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Feb 19 2007, 07:14 AM
Post #13


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



QUOTE (Aaron)
If you want to be smoother with the Matrix stuff, and you hate having to figure out which program to use for what, I don't think what's been stated before will be helpful. The RAW is already Program + Skill; I'm not sure how adding the Attribute in there makes it any more simple.

My issue is that having all the hacking utilities doesn't make you an effective hacker. In SR it does, and since the utilities are so trivial to obtain you need to change that if you want a certain feel. Otherwise you have a world in which a 9 year old kiddiescripter gets 7 dice, while a professional shadowrunner gets 9 dice.

The threshold approach would work, or limit the amount of attribute dice used to the program level. I'd be tempted to use twice skill with the program as th threshold, but I have no idea how effectively that would work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Mar 22 2007, 01:23 AM
Post #14


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (kzt)
My issue is that having all the hacking utilities doesn't make you an effective hacker.

If only that were so.

Case in point. True story.

I teach Computer Science at a high school of 2000+ students. One of my students wants to be a hacker, and he has some sk33lz. I told him the best way to become a hacker is to learn how things work, because otherwise, you're a script kiddie and not worthy. So he studied up on many things, and discovered many nifty exploits for the network that the school uses. However, he never used them except in a controlled environment, and is conscientious about the line between White Hat and Black Hat hacking, so it's been cool.

However, today he showed me a simple little program he wrote, complete with user-friendly GUI and a number of nifty features, that just about anybody could use to apply the exploits that he's learned about. He has no intention of releasing this program, but if he were to pass it around to any student that was capable of navigating a Web forum, that student would be able to exploit the same security holes that he can.

That's just with the program and their own knowledge of how to use applications. Meathead McGee and Cutiepie Jailbait are just as capable of, say, shutting down other computers remotely or hijacking their screen as our aspiring hacker is.

Needless to say, I patted my young padawan on the head and told him that if I ever saw anything like deployment he would be doomed in many unimaginable ways. But the fact is, it's more about your software than your wetware.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Mar 22 2007, 02:01 AM
Post #15


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



The real key to cracking isn't in using the exploits or even finding them, but in getting people to make themselves vulnerable and that actually requires social skills rather than computer skills.

Even the most secure network is vulnerable if the people who have legitimate access are compromised. For this reason, the most important aspect of computer security is not the hardware or the software but the policies that are in place to govern computer use.

It doesn't matter how secure the network is if I can walk into a random guy's office and walk out with his laptop, containing all of the information that I need, in hand. Likewise, it doesn't matter how difficult the passwords are to crack if I can just call up the IT guys and tell them that I'm Steve from accounting and I forgot my password.

SR has never really embraced the fact that the face is probably a better cracker than the decker is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Mar 22 2007, 02:45 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



By far (mata)humans are by far the weakest link in most systems.

If you have the time social engineering is one of the best ways to compromise a system, and certainly is the Face's job not the Deckers.


That being said the two work soooo well together.

Face: social engineers an ID and password.

Decker: Uses legit ID and password to get in, then merely upgrades the account, bypassing a large porition of the security system. (and possibly doesnt even need to upgrade, if a sufficient user can be compromised).

WHile hacking doesnt require social engineering, most systems are cracked at least in part with the help of social engineering. (Be it as direct as getting a users name and password, or indirectly by social engineers the specs of a system from a non-related targeted, but one that uses the same system).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Mar 22 2007, 03:23 AM
Post #17


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (laughingowl)
If you have the time social engineering is one of the best ways to compromise a system, and certainly is the Face's job not the Deckers.

That being said the two work soooo well together.

In our game, the face is the hacker. And yeah, he pretty much sleazes whatever he wants.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dionysus
post Mar 22 2007, 04:27 AM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 200
Joined: 22-June 06
Member No.: 8,764



QUOTE (Aaron)
QUOTE (kzt)
My issue is that having all the hacking utilities doesn't make you an effective hacker.

If only that were so.

Case in point. True story.

I teach Computer Science at a high school of 2000+ students. One of my students wants to be a hacker, and he has some sk33lz. I told him the best way to become a hacker is to learn how things work, because otherwise, you're a script kiddie and not worthy. So he studied up on many things, and discovered many nifty exploits for the network that the school uses. However, he never used them except in a controlled environment, and is conscientious about the line between White Hat and Black Hat hacking, so it's been cool.

However, today he showed me a simple little program he wrote, complete with user-friendly GUI and a number of nifty features, that just about anybody could use to apply the exploits that he's learned about. He has no intention of releasing this program, but if he were to pass it around to any student that was capable of navigating a Web forum, that student would be able to exploit the same security holes that he can.

That's just with the program and their own knowledge of how to use applications. Meathead McGee and Cutiepie Jailbait are just as capable of, say, shutting down other computers remotely or hijacking their screen as our aspiring hacker is.

Needless to say, I patted my young padawan on the head and told him that if I ever saw anything like deployment he would be doomed in many unimaginable ways. But the fact is, it's more about your software than your wetware.

Ok, for the sake of argument if we accept that what makes a hacker good is the logic/training (attributes) the hacker has, I would suggest that the application of all that comes when you're writing programs, not working right on the node. So you roll attribute+skill to write a program, but program+skill to use the program.

So Meathead McGee is piggybacking off of your student's attribute+skill roll to *code* the program, and must use the program rating+*his skill at using computer programs* to use it properly. If he can't find the "OK" button, the program could be the kewlest in teh world, but it would do nothing.

I think what I'm suggesting is that the skullsweat happens before the hack, and the hacker's activity during the hit is mostly about picking the right programs and keeping them running well. If the programs suck, you aren't going to be able to make up for that on the fly with Logic alone.

my $0.02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dentris
post Mar 22 2007, 05:01 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 10-June 06
Member No.: 8,691



Cap the program rating to the hacker's Logic. It's not about how good the system is, but about how well the hacker can use it.

Or switch the relation around, use attribute+skill, but cap the dice pool at Program rating*2. No matter how bright you are, if you do not have the right gear, you're out of luck. (Edge would ignore these limits of course)

As for technomancer, the best way to unnerf them is by giving a little submersion bonus. They add the submersion grade to all their matrix test...Simple, and giving them the extra edge they needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Mar 22 2007, 05:48 AM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



Here's a different idea. Get rid of program ratings. Make it attribute + skill but you have to have the program to make the roll. Make it just a requirement of the roll instead of a bonus. Take the rating 3 or 4 cost and use that one. Then it is more focused on the hacker the the software.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Mar 22 2007, 10:06 AM
Post #21


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



I think the biggest problem with programs is that the high end ones are too easy and cheap to get at character creation, and never, as it were, go out of style.

I'd suggest that hacking utilities shouldn't be available above rating 4 or so unless it's written specifically by the hacker (as anything that has become widely distributed is more likely to have had fixes made against it). A hacker contact might sell rating 5 programs, but the only way to get hold of a rating 6 program would be to write it yourself (which requires lots of logic and software).

Of course, this might be thought to be a little harsh.

And I've not even covered a program degradation mechanism. I'm not sure how to make one work in a simple and elegant manner. There are some mechanisms around on DS, but I'm not sure where they are, off the top of my head.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bibliophile20
post Mar 22 2007, 12:17 PM
Post #22


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-January 07
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 10,737



QUOTE (ornot)
And I've not even covered a program degradation mechanism. I'm not sure how to make one work in a simple and elegant manner. There are some mechanisms around on DS, but I'm not sure where they are, off the top of my head.

There was one in SOTA: 2064 IIRC, but I don't have a copy with me (I was looking through the selection at the local gaming store and read it there), but I think it was like every so many game months, the rating of your programs dropped by one to reflect the improving technology, forcing you to upgrade or get behind on SOTA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Mar 22 2007, 01:12 PM
Post #23


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



I seem to recall the SOTA rules requiring a roll every month or so, and it would affect some aspect of technology, equipment or theory randomly. Some months there would be no SOTA costs for players, and other times a development in magical theory would require a magician to purchase upgrades to their library or similar. This system affected everything from computer utilities to armour and guns. Seemed a touch haphazard for my liking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
deek
post Mar 22 2007, 01:54 PM
Post #24


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,706
Joined: 30-June 06
From: Fort Wayne, IN
Member No.: 8,814



I've been using the Skill + Logic, capped by Program Rating + 1 for about a year now and my players like the mechanic and it flows well with the rest of the core rules. I agree, that rating 6 programs are way too easy to get a hold of and we have made a conscious decision to put more focus on attributes and skills, and less on programs.

Now, programs still come into play as there is only a limited amount of active programs, so if our hacker doesn't have a Command program or a Stealth program loaded, they don't get the benefits/functionality.

But, when it comes to rolling, we just use that program as a capping mechanism. The biggest problem I have with RAW (on this topic) is that Logic basically becomes worthless to a hacker not writing his own programs, as that attribute really isn't used anywhere...and personally, I don't like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Mar 22 2007, 06:47 PM
Post #25


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (dionysus)
Ok, for the sake of argument if we accept that what makes a hacker good is the logic/training (attributes) the hacker has, I would suggest that the application of all that comes when you're writing programs, not working right on the node. So you roll attribute+skill to write a program, but program+skill to use the program.

I'll buy that.

QUOTE (Dentris)
Cap the program rating to the hacker's Logic. It's not about how good the system is, but about how well the hacker can use it.

Um ... wouldn't "how well the hacker can use it" better describe a skill than an attribute?

I mean, if we were talking about missiles than programs being the tool, and Agility rather than Logic, and a street samurai rather than a hacker, and then said "It's not about how good the missile's Sensor Rating is, but about how well the sam can use it," would that make sense? Would an increase in the sam's ability to get a lock on targets with a missile increase his ability to do flips or swing a sword?

By the same token, would an increase in a hacker's ability to use programs also increase her ability to repair a pistol or stabilize a bleeding teammate? More importantly, is it impossible to advance ability in one without also advancing the others? I put forth that if the answer to either question is "no," then Logic should not be used for using programs.

QUOTE (Garrowwolf)
Here's a different idea. Get rid of program ratings. Make it attribute + skill but you have to have the program to make the roll. Make it just a requirement of the roll instead of a bonus. Take the rating 3 or 4 cost and use that one. Then it is more focused on the hacker the the software.

At some point in this thread (or a similar one), somebody was arguing that the hacking system should reflect themes and concepts already established in the cyberpunk genre. I believe that a system that removes ratings from programs would invalidate the "military grade" distinction in Neuromancer and the Sprawl Trilogy and many other cyberpunk works in which one party's software is better than another's, not to mention the entire concept of program versions and improvements.

QUOTE (ornot)
I think the biggest problem with programs is that the high end ones are too easy and cheap to get at character creation, and never, as it were, go out of style.

I can totally get behind that sentiment. I can see bumping up either or both the cost and the availability of hacking programs; if it was me making the decision, I'd make the availability at least (Rating x 3).

QUOTE (deek)
I've been using the Skill + Logic, capped by Program Rating + 1 for about a year now and my players like the mechanic and it flows well with the rest of the core rules. I agree, that rating 6 programs are way too easy to get a hold of and we have made a conscious decision to put more focus on attributes and skills, and less on programs.

That's great, if it works for you. This is Dumpshock, though, and therefore I am required to voice my dissent. =i)

I actually only have two objections to your system. First, it forces hackers to be more dedicated hackers, and makes hacker/sam, hacker/rigger, hacker/face, hacker/whatever combinations less viable. Second, it's an exception to the something + something mechanic; what, for example, is the skill rating of IC, or a sprite? Sure, it's easy to say "its Rating, duh," but then you've added yet another exception to the rules.

It just occurred to me that I could have gotten more mystical forum points if I'd replied to all of these posts separately. Ah, well.
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: 1st July 2025 - 09:18 PM

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.