logic attribute... who needs programs?, Am I interpreting this correctly? Options

[lunchbox311]

[Dashifen]

I only allow the Skill + Logic tests when a person is using a device without programs. Like sitting in front of a terminal with blinking lights and switches and trying to logically figure out what it does. But, if that same hacker uses his commlink to access the same terminal, he'd then be using his programs, thus the Skill + Program Rating tests.

The key phrase is in your second quote "When you are directly interacting with a device...."

[lunchbox311]

[Dashifen]

I would say yes, but I think you're assuming that wireless connections are rare and that wired connections are popular. The reverse is actually true. Even if something doesn't have a high wireless signal, it probably still has one. And, if it doesn't, it might mean that you can't control it directly, but only through the matrix.

For example, there may not be a good reason for the door locks in a secure facility to have a wireless signal. It would be a weakness that the savvy hacker can exploit. Thus, the locks might only be accessible through the matrix after hacking into the building security systems and locating the lock you wish to manipulate. This may require the right software to be undertaken because a datajack on a door lock would be a (perhaps greater) weakness, too.

[sunnyside]

No. I think this was in the FAQ. If a program covers it you absolutly can't fall back to logic.

What the drunk writers were supposedly trying to say in there is that if you want to do something basic with a device that isn't covered via a program you fall back to logic. They're trying to avoid a situation where a player can't do something if there isn't a relevant program. It's also for situations where you're using the device in more of a physical sense.

For example if a player found some electronic device that they hadn't seen before they'd use computer+logic to figure out what it is and how to use it properly. If you wanted to make it do something it wouldn't normally let you do by using it's own buttons and such it would be hacking+logic. This would all be heavily subjected to GM interpritation (through threshold if nothing else).

[Whipstitch]

Actually, you pretty much have it backwards. Many times it's much easier (and cheaper) to get by with a logic of 1 and appropriate high grade programs than it is to try and ride logic to victory. Logic+Hacking really only applies when you're directly operating a device you are not authorized to use. For example, if you physically get a hold of somebody else's commlink and for some reason need to attempt to gain full access to the accounts stored within it without the benefit of your own commlink/software, you'd use Logic+Hacking instead of Computer+Logic, since you're effectively trying to operate beyond the parameters of normal use. For just about everything else you're going to need a program.


[EDIT] Yeesh, enough quick replies for ya? :)

[Dashifen]

This seems to be the FAQ entry that sunnyside is referring to:

[sunnyside]

hacking+logic is harder to define. I think their idea is that if you wanted the above door to unlock without a comlink and all that maybe your char could figure out that if they wipe enough slobber on the biometric system the door realizes that it can't properly read samples, and, if they then turn on the fire alarm, the door will fall back on safety programming and open. Those kind of things. I'd suggest very high thresholds, and perhapse some physical feats like the above to make it happen, depending on what "it" is.

Something like getting curse words past the language filter on a billboard or something by using L33T speak would be low threshold.

Getting a plant watering drone to soak your boss by moving one of the beacons it uses for guidance would be medium threshold since you'd have to be carefull how you moved things to get it just right.

A real life example might be flipping the write protection tab on an old tape backup system so it isn't actually backing anything up (I think they had that, at least floppy disks did).

[FrankTrollman]

What's actually happening is that part sof the book were written by people who thought that Hackers were rolling Logic + Skill and parts of the book were written by people who thought that Hackers were rolling Program + Skill. Needless to say, the parts written with assumption A don't work at all with assumption B and vice versa.

Hopefully a unified mechanic will be introduced that makes Program Rating and Logic both important in Unwired. I think I'll start holding my breath until that happens.

-Frank

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, my GM has been considering setting it up so that the tests are all Logic+Skill with the hits limited by the rating of the program. It does end up nerfing programs a bit, but the way he plans on doing it, it'd actually give TMs a bit of a boost compared to vanilla hackers, since he apparently has no intention of making TMs roll Skill+Logic.

[sunnyside]

[Buster]

That's how the magic system works, so it makes sense that's how the hacking system works. Therefore, most tests would be Logic + Hacking with the number of hits limited by the rating of programs.

[Whipstitch]

I'll have to ask my GM what he intends to do about that, but I imagine it'd be pretty simple to just apply the restriction only to Hackers rather than to automated systems (which is pretty much exactly what he's doing with TMs already anyway). Of course, that just potentially opens up a new can o' worms, but that's why these things have to be ironed out and inspected from time to time. One thing that I'm curious about is just how severely in practice this could tip things in favor of technomancers. Not that I'd lose any sleep over TMs getting an indirect boost, mind you; they give up an awful lot to achieve dominance in their realm.

[lunchbox311]

Thanks for the replies. I have a better idea now.

Hacking was just such a gray area in our group so I was rereading the section, (honestly I am the only hacker in it when I play,) to make sure I had the stuff down. I came across those parts and got confused as it did not mesh with everything else.

Frank, I believe you are correct about the team a-b mismatch stuff.


8)

[Aaron]

[deek]

I've been using Hacking + Skill, limited by Program Rating (as it is a popular house rule) and it works quite well in practice.

I have allowed systems to ignore the rule, and just roll Pilot + Program Rating with no limits...and so far that has not played out to be unbalanced. Granted, I haven't really tested the extreme limits so YMMV.

My only suggestion for a hacker who is the lone techie in the group...pick up some firearm skill and dump some points in that combat skill...you GM may tailor more to you, but I know that if our hacker had to solely depend on matrix stuff to keep him busy, he'd likely just be playing guitar hero 2 and the wii when we get together:)

[lunchbox311]

[Whipstitch]

[Kerris]

It almost makes more sense to me to have Logic as the limiter. As far as I see it, there are two options:

We have a character with Hacking 4, Logic 4, and Edit 6.

1) Limit the dice gained from programs to your logic. This character would roll 8 dice on hacking (4 from Hacking 4, and 4 from Edit 6 (limited to logic 4)).

2) Limit the hits to logic. If the same character rolls 10 dice and hits on 7 of them, he only gets 4 hits.

I don't really know how balanced or useful this is (came up with it just now), but it seems to me that a script kiddie with a rating 6 program wouldn't necessarily know how to use it, but a character with logic 6 would know exactly how to use a rating 6 program.

Of course, doing it the other way around (limiting hits to program rating, as has been suggested) might be good as well.

[kigmatzomat]

[Moon-Hawk]

My group uses a very short collection of house rules for hacking based on Logic+skill, and treats programs more like spells. It also reconciles the problems with copy protection and makes casual hacking more accessible to the non-hackers, without removing the strategy from the hard-core hacker.
It works really well for us. I'll post it if anyone wants, but last time I tried everyone was too burned out on hacker debates to care. :-)

[sunnyside]

Really the "spell" type changes probably work fine in the normal ranges of hackers in normal hacking. In fact there may not actually be a noticible difference. Assuming you don't treat systems the same.

I'd say the general effects would be that the edge roll wouldn't be so effective. (i.e. if you have a system with a firewall over six, which you see in SR missions now and then, it cannot be hacked on the fly in one pass, meaning the hacker will almost certainly be detected)

And you can run some cheap progs where the successes required aren't generally so high. This would make life much easier for the technoshamen.

[Dashifen]

[Ravor]

[Dashifen]

For those of you which have used the "spell" like house rule for hacking, how have you handled Technomancer threading? Seems like rolling 10 dice with a cap of 4 hits (for example) or rolling 10 dice with a cap of 6 hits (after threading a program) doesn't much matter, since you're still going to average around 3 hits, which is less than both caps. Granted, threading might allow a potential benefit, but in reality, you're still rolling the same number of dice so things should average out to the same number of hits regardless of program rating.

Perhaps both increasing the program's rating for the purpose of capping hits and rolling extra dice while threading would be a way to go?