Alternate Matrix Rules, Everyone is doing it Options

[Crusher Bob]

My logic train went roughly as follows:

As long as IC can blackhammer at connection range (which seems to be necessary to have IC be able to blackhammer at all), then the hacker's blackhammer utility should be able to do the same thing.

If you can blackhammer at connection range, you can do the following:

I'm the sysadmin of a hakkastack running a bunch of nasty IC. Using this system as my deck, I use backdoor to establish a connection to your commlink. Then, I say to my IC army, "OMG! it's an illegal haxxor connected to our system! Get him!" and a bunch of blackhammering ensues. I can throw down my own blackhammer across the connection, plus whatever my IC army is throwing down.

A bunch of hackers could do the same thing to you all at once, but I'd assume that each one would need to backdoor his own connection, risking detection. (Similar dynamic to ritual sorcery, I'd guess, with some of the same security precautions: wards = faraday cages; changing commlinks/signatures/pans similar to changing your genetic code, so that previous ritual samples (backdoors) are no longer useful).

To arrange the 100 hacker raid on your brain, you'd at least need to find 100 hackers willing to screw with you, but IC is just a matter of money (or theft).

[FrankTrollman]

The part I'm not getting is how you are getting all your IC into the Hackastack in the first place. Each Firewall only runs one, and the IC can only attack if they have a direct connection.

The weak point of the system as I analyze it seems to be Servers, where people could have arbitrarily large numbers of IC with connections to the server, force a connection to the server and then have all the IC close range. If that turns out to be a problem, and it may well be, it seems that bumping up the IC to the Server level would solve it straight off.

Anything I'm missing?

-Frank

[Crusher Bob]

I was using 'hakkastack' to indicate some large collection of computing power. Whether that be a bunch of commlinks I stole from a Best Buy all wired together or a complete server setup I stole with the help of some forged work orders and a rented truck, it doesn't matter too much. The more computing power I can lay my hands on, the more IC I can have in my army.

The IC doesn't normally gang up on you when you are hacking the system because they don't know you from Joe, authorized user. But if I force a connection to you, and then tag you as a really bad guy, then I'd expect all the IC to take a swing at you.

The thing is, the IC army is much more effective than just the hacker by himself, but there doesn't seem to be any more risk than if the hacker had done it with a regular commlink. If the hackee resets his PAN, the hacker might suffer dumpshock, but the real tool (the server full of IC) is still fine. So the hacker will be back tomorrow with the same trick. If I have a billion Y server full of a billion Y worth IC, I can have tag teams of hackers trying to blow up up with it every couple of minutes.

I wrote up the Agents/IC as brains in a jar, so that if you try that trick, all your expensive brains in a jar suffer dumpshock too, and potentially you lose some of them (the brains die), or at least they are damaged and reduced in rating, or something. If I have a billion Y server full of a billion Y in IC, if you use the simple defense of shutting down your PAN, I might be left with only 750 million Y worth of IC and a little bit of ghoul food. I lost 250M Y because you were very fast with the off switch. Thus, to use the IC army, you have to actually risk the IC army.

[FrankTrollman]

[Crusher Bob]

Thinking about it for a while, some of this can probably be solved by carefully working the rules and fluff.

Here's the example:

I'm a defensive hacker, protecting a server. I'm the only defensive hacker around right now. The server is running rating 6 IC with black hammer.

I'm not connecting directly to the server, I'm connecting to it through my rating 4 commlink. This commlink is running rating 4 IC, with blackhammer, in case somebody is trying to hack me personally, and not the server I'm protecting. If I detected someone connected to my comlink and trying to hack me, I could tell my IC to blackhammer him, as he is within connection range. I could also try to blackhammer him myself.

Then, the server's IC detects a hacker and start blackhammering him, and sends me an alert. So I start blackhammering the hacker too. Now comes the sticky part. If I'm in connection range of the hacker, because we are both logged onto the same server, then why can't I order my rating 4 IC (on my commlink) to blackhammer the poor hacker too?

------------

Requiring all connections to be explicit (so that the defensive hacker has to backdoor a connection to you first, before he can start blackhammering you too) will solve a some of this problem. Being logged into the same server only puts you in handshake range.

This means that for a defensive hacker to have the best response time, he should be connected directly to the server (and thus, onsite). Remote defensive hackers have to log onto the server under attack, and then backdoor a connection to your commlink to be able to blackhammer you.

-----------

This still leaves the rather odd mechanic that any matrix fight between two hackers is them + the IC native to the systems they are running:

The hacker1 and hacker2 are within connection range of each other, and are hostile. Hacker1 gets initiative. As a (free?) action, he sends and alert to his local IC, saying, "hey, blackhammer this connection". Then uses a complex action to blackhammer hacker2's connection himself.

Then it's hacker2's turn. He send and alert msg to his own IC, and blackhammers hacker1.

At some point, each IC acts and attempts to blackhammer the other hacker.

[Ryu]

Why don´t you continue the "IC can´t team up"-logic?

Just check the target instead of the attacker, have the IC-attack take place on the targets IP with the strongest rating of any IC that attacks. If the IC has more actions than the attacker (who might just spend no action in that system anyway), subsequent actions use the targets initiative.

[Seven-7]

A possible addition to Frank's Technomancer mentor spirit list:

Cake
This personality of Deus thought dead from the Second Crash the old Otaku and new Technomancers were surprised to find that this aspect of the Resonance is: Still Alive. The Cake's ability to lie and corrupt the Matrix stems from it's need to manipulate data for science. It's HUGE SUCCESS is only furthered by the select Technomancers that it picks.

Advantages: +3 BackDoor operation, +2 Corruption Sprite.
Disadvantages: The Cake likes to think with Portals, or rather think of alternative routes to impossible obstacles, and incurs a Willpower + Logic (3) to avoid telling lies to get things to go his way.

[Ddays]

Frank, I've decided to try out these rules for my next Shadowrun game, but I've having a few problems with a technomancer.

It states that complex forms are 3 bp, does that mean that the technomancer just buys it like a spell and the rating is equivalent to his resonance? Would "overcasting" be possible for the technomancer only powers?

Also, as previously mentioned, it would be great if you could provide some samples of what actual machine hacking looks like with your system since it looks like this is geared towards hacker v hacker warfare.

Also, some rigging examples, since people who screw around with the matrix always forget what the riggers are supposed to do. *cough*core book*cough*

[kindalas]

After thoroughly reading your rules I just want to say thanks for the excellent work.

[FrankTrollman]

Sorry, didn't notice this the last time it came up:

[Cthulhudreams]

I'm playing a slightly aberrant game of shadowrun with franks rules atm, and most informational gathering powers has really been repeatedly using taxman or the sprite 'find' powers to solicit information, which is just a face off test with the target system - quick and easy.

[Earlydawn]

I think a couple examples of how a hack would go using these rules would be a good basis for the thread.

[Sir_Psycho]

Wow, I find this hard to get my head around. I'm getting a glimpse of it being good, though. I couldn't quite find what programs do anymore, if the test is now Skill + Logic. What does the program do to the dicepool?

[Cthulhudreams]

Caps the number of hits, exactly like force does for a spell (it also determine the drain of compiling and decompiling forms for technomancers).

[KCKitsune]

Frank, is there a place to DL the PDF version of your Matrix rules?

Also, after reading all 10 pages, I'm surprised no one else suggested this to "limit" the power of brain hacking: To Brain Hack a person, you have to subscribe them to your PAN. This would eliminate the possibility of an "Evil" hacker from ruling the world as you can only subscribe a limited amount of devices to your 'Link.

[JoelHalpern]

After reading these rules, and the thread, and thinking about them, these rules seem to me a significant improvement in the RAW Matrix rules.
While I understand the argument about hacking brains, I follow FrankTrollman's reasoning on why it makes sense. However, one question did finally occur to me:

Given that braqins can be hacked remotely.
Given that a naked brain is more vulnerable.
When is a brain naked?

The reason i am asking is that it seems that if hackers and technomancers can reacha brain even if it is not "connected" via DNI, etc... then a carried commlink ought to be able to reach that brain.
So does this mean that a person with no cyberwear, but carrying a well equipped commlink has some protection, or not? (I know lots of folks like Mages and adepts with Cyber, but I would hope that is a choice, not a necessity with these rules.)
If carrying a turned on commlink isn't enough, than what degree of connectivity is enough? Having cyber-eyese wired to your brain, with skinlink?

I apologize if I missed somewhere that stated this more clearly already.

Yorus,
Joel Halpern

[Crusher Bob]

You hook up with your commlink, as normal, and get protection from its firewall. Your brain is generally only naked when your commlink has been reset, or is damaged in some way.

[Cthulhudreams]

I think that your brain is naked in any circumstance where you don't have a DNI, because the level of control required to defend your brain is higher than it is to induce a seizure.

All the actions that can take place at Signal range are comparatively simple.

[FrankTrollman]

Cthulhudreams and Crusher Bob are both right. To avoid having a naked brain, you need to have a DNI. However, a standard commlink setup can provide a DNI to people who don't have a datajack through trode or skinlink technology.

The primary advantage of a Datajack is that the DNI is not interruptible with jammers or oil.

-Frank

[Sma]

Since I introduced these rules to my group over half a year ago they are in love with them. The ability to resolve simple tasks with a simple opposed test instead of several rolls speeds up gameplay and allows for more iconic deckers than the original rules.

On the downside Technomancers still are a tad expensive if they don't go the route of summoner.

[Leofski]

Cthulhudreams and Crusher Bob are both right. To avoid having a naked brain, you need to have a DNI. However, a standard commlink setup can provide a DNI to people who don't have a datajack through trode or skinlink technology.

The primary advantage of a Datajack is that the DNI is not interruptible with jammers or oil.

-Frank

If brains can be hacked directly with wireless, why is a trodenet or skinlink necessary? The device is already able to access your brain.

[FrankTrollman]

You can wirelessly connect to a brain as well, yes. But now you're getting into even sketchier connectivities. Someone else could take over just by having a bigger signal.

-Frank

[Hat]

I am looking for some insights on the rules that I'm hoping someone will be kind enough to provide. I have been working my way through this thread looking for recommendations on whether Frank's system is a good replacement for the core rules. I have yet to read through them in any detail and don't want to make that investment of time if it's easy to determine that his system isn't for me. I still don't truly grok the RAW, but the group I'm running for is happy with the job I've been doing so far. I stopped reading every post after page 3 or so, but have read every response Frank has written in detail. As the author if there were questions not evident in the rules he'd be the one giving the answers for the most part. I apologize if the questions I'm asking have been answered by someone else and not commented on by Frank.

The key bone of contention with this set of rules is Brain hacking. I understand that there are strong parallels to the magic rules, and that there are elements there that are easily abused. I am very interested in a set of rules that are logically consistent as at least by comment Frank's appear to be. I am more concerned that the game retains a balance between characters and that it remains fun for all. The group's hacker (out of 7 players) does the data research as well as the system hacking.

So with that being said, here are my questions.

My impression of brain hacking is that it allows the hacker to treat a brain as a computer with thoughts, memories and actions effectively being files and processes. It is therefore possible for the hacker to not only control another as a puppet, but to substantially read, edit, upload and download memories whole cloth.

As noted in one of Frank's posts, the longest a willpower 1 person is likely to be under the influence of a control thoughts spell is 75 seconds. This provides an inherent limitation. Because the spell requires LOS it is a lot easier for someone to be moved out of sight whether the cause is traffic, someone else closing blinds, polarizing glass, whatever. My recollection is that control thoughts doesn't screen out the thoughts that are put there. So if the controller starts requiring the target to review passwords or codes, there is at least a chance that the target will be able to recognize the problem and contact the appropriate system alerting them to a possible breech. This doesn't mean that a character couldn't get away with paydata, money, etc in that 75 seconds or so, but it does mean that the trace and pursuit could be VERY close behind. Casting a spell also requires a drain check. It is certainly possible that the mage could be built with a large drain resist pool, but they will continue to run the risk of taking drain through a glitch or critical glitch at the very least.

My questions therefore are what are the inherent limitations or balances on a brain hack? The posts indicated that planting a repeater on an individual is fairly easy, so the LOS is bypassed. There's no drain for a standard hacker. Making permanent modifications to a target including a replacement of memories for what happened in the last 30 seconds is HUGE as it eliminates the possible discovery or suspicion that something's been done. There are a limited number of magically active folk, especially ones of a sufficient bent, rating and talent to go the control route. This isn't to say they are incredibly scarse, but certainly limited. The number of hackers by comparison is arguably measured in orders of magnitude.

If widespread mind control is effectively possible, then why hasn't there been an arms race for global domination? The first organization to put a sufficient set of orbital mind control lasers in place wins the planet. Game over. There are mob control spells, but they have limited areas. Multiple castings can expand the area, but must be maintained and at the very least the area for the spells are limited by magic/force. Technology doesn't have those limitations. Additionally, sustaining foci of any sufficient size are expensive and to have them in sufficient numbers for large scale manipulation makes it curious as to why the person's still running the shadows. The active spells can also be traced and if active have a signature associated with it making identifying the fact that a person's being influence as well as potentially the identity of the caster easier to get to.

All of the above aren't intended as a "your rules suck!" sort of commentary. As I've already said, I haven't read them. I expect many of my questions already have a balance that's described in detail and a response of "here's the relevant section of the rules, come back after you read them" is sufficient. My impression is that some of the balances/failsafes aren't in place as they would otherwise have been used by Frank as part of his process of refuting the arguments.

I'm not opposed to the process of brain-hacking. I'd certainly want to consider it carefully before accepting the rules. I'm still working my way through the process of how to limit the power and effectiveness of the mages in the group as it is, or at least ensure that the other character types are able to contribute an equal amount. No limitations on astral scouting either in person or by proxy (spirit) already limits the effectiveness and role of some characters including the rigger.

Brain hacking if permitted especially for minds that aren't more traditionally accessible has large world implications and before I change my world radically, I'd prefer to better understand whether the new system is going to provide the game-balance in order to make the conversion effort worthwhile.

Respectfully and with a sweep of his...

Hat

[WeaverMount]

I have read the rules closely. While I haven't played with them yet, they struck me as head and shoulders better. As for balance, magicians still have more options and sammie still do more damage. There is just a rules justification for bringing the decker on the actually run rather than just needed to get the comlink past the wi-fi pant. All and all it is absolutely worth your time to read it ... unless you can just hold off on until unwired comes out and see if that makes the matrix rules playable.

My plan is to do just that, then see if want to switch or not.

[Sma]

The rules actually are rather conservative in regards to what a hacker can accomplish in terms of brain hacking if he isn't allowed time measured in days alone with his target.

If you take a look at the veracity table you'll find that a hacker needs quite a few net hits to convince a target of more than just the simplest factoids. Combined with the limit on hits being equal to program ratings makes this really hard to accomplish.

Take a decker fresh out of chargen, sporting an effective logic of 7 (5 + 2 for cerebral boosters), a maxed out hacking skill and a rating 6 Jingle Program. He rolls an impressive 15 dice (including specialization) and usually gets five hits.

John Doe has average stats so three's all around. Even if John never took a course in Matrix safety and therefore doesn't bring any cybercombat to the table he'll average 2 hits on the Firewall + Willpower test opposing the deckers attempt to implant any information in his brain.

This leaves 3 net hits, which is on par with something you saw on yesterdays news show. Handy for making people think they read about the change in cleaning services, so you can smuggle your team in ? Yes. More effective in terms of world domination than simply owning a news station ? No, since it's easier broadcasting your newsreel to lots of people at once, than hacking each and every member of your target audience to implant a fact that they'll take at the same face value.

If there's interest I'll post a short rundown on the programs seeing the most action, or other material that has accumulated during play.