Unwired: Not Happy, Taking requests Options

[FrankTrollman]

So I'm unhappy with Unwired. I didn't want to be, but I am. Severely. The Matrix rules presented in the core book were severely jacked up on several levels, and while I sincerely hoped that these core problems would be addressed in Unwired, they were not. Agent Smith, Drop Out, and Hackastack are not only still present at the conclusion of the book, they are that much worse because at the end of the day things that were at least extremely vague and arguable in the original BBB are now completely clear in addition to being broken.

The Matrix Topology and Security sections are most to blame, they paint a picture of adversarial computing which while not necessarily unrealistic, is completely at odds with anything remotely playable. Attackers can increase their computational army arbitrarily, stopping only when they reach the limits of personal satisfaction or funding. Defenders can simply choose to arrange their computational architecture in a manner that their data stores are unhackable without social engineering or a distinct personal failure on the part of the data guardians. This is a state of affairs that is highly analogous to current computational affairs, but it is not a state of affairs which is in any way conducive to having hacker characters who mean anything at all. Worse, the system calls for people to make dozens or hundreds of die rolls on a continuous basis to actually play out anything. The Matrix Perception rules alone would take so long to resolve as to grind any actual game to a complete stand still. Actually playing the rules as written in their entirety is likely impossible - a state of affairs which is all too reasonable considering that at least two of the primary authors have separately confided that they never read the completed manuscript.

I have reservations ranging from minor to severe with every chapter, but rather than belabor every minor point of contention I am going to get right to the point: Unwired is not what I hoped for and I don't know how much of it I can salvage. I suspect the answer is "some of the flavor text." And rather than simply harp on every minor detail that I don't like I am going to expand upon what I already have. I am going to make a second generation of my own Matrix house rules. Probably the completed version will be about twice the length and have a lot more examples. And I'm taking requests as to what people want it to include.

Already on the counter: essentially unbreakable encryption. Yes, I think I've figured out a way to include "realistic" encryption and still have on the fly hacking work. It's complicated, I'll draw you a diagram. If people want me to cover other things, I'm willing to listen.

-Frank

[Daier Mune]

Frank's unhappy about the Matrix rules? in Shadowrun? Get out of town!

[Backgammon]

I haven't read your house rules, so I don't know if it's adressed (probably to some degree), but I find Hacking to often be an all-or-nothing affair. Either the Hacker is so superior to the invaded system that he can do what he wants, or the system detects him and he's fucked.

While not a specific request, I'd like solutions that allow a fair middle ground - partial success. This can of course be done with the current rules, but you sort of have to extrapolate here and there and be a bit imaginative. I would certainly like a system where partial success is built-in.

[Synner667]

But, dear chap, there's always the dilemma of realism vs playability.

I thought your house rules were very good...
...But still nothing I would use, because I find the very nature of matrixwork to be a sad little game of dungeoncrawl and magic items [even now, 20 years on and almost nothing has changed] and that's not how I want things to be, now how I imagine the internet of the future to be, and not the focus of games I Ref.

But that's me >shrug<

As always, I'll be interested in your houserules.

[Synner667]

I haven't read your house rules, so I don't know if it's adressed (probably to some degree), but I find Hacking to often be an all-or-nothing affair. Either the Hacker is so superior to the invaded system that he can do what he wants, or the system detects him and he's fucked.

While not a specific request, I'd like solutions that allow a fair middle ground - partial success. This can of course be done with the current rules, but you sort of have to extrapolate here and there and be a bit imaginative. I would certainly like a system where partial success is built-in.

Hmmm...
...What do you mean by partial success ??

I was reading a set of rules where your degree of success limits the resources available once in a network.

[Iracundus]

I'd actually like more exploration of Resonance and Dissonance and Technomancer paragons + streams. Right now it seems Resonance and Dissonance just come off like rebranded versions of Good vs Evil. Some of the paragons sound like overlaps and exist as little more than little blurbs without much else to expand off of. Given that these paragons are not magical/cultural archetypes with which real world players may be intuitively familiar with and thus able to characterize or emulate by looking at history, fantasy, or real cultures, they could do with some more fleshing out without turning them into just copycat mentor spirits.

[PlatonicPimp]

I'm generally happy with the matrix rules, being that they are very similar to the house rules I've been using. I'm not quite as good at systems analysis as you, however, and I would really like to hear your point by point belaboring sometime.

As for requests, please eliminate the difference between AI and Free sprites. It's a pointless distinction

[Muspellsheimr]

On the subject of Agent Smith

This was indeed a mistake. The section about being able to spoof an agent when uploading was a remnant from a previous draft and should have been removed. Unfortunately we missed it in proofing. It will be corrected in the first errata. The Access ID of an agent is integral to its code and was only intended changed with a patch.

As for the rest, there are indeed still many problems, but I believe most can be solved by including some of the Optional Rules / Tweaking the Rules.

I will of course look at your rules set once it is completed, and the one thing I would strongly suggest modifying from your original would be the 'Brain Hacking' - most notably the concept of Virgin Brains.

[Gelare]

Your matrix rules were a bit far out there for my taste, but they also more or less worked, which is far more than can be said for the core rules, which just less worked. Encryption, tracing, copy protection, program degradation (which I'm hoping will be a one-liner that tacks a few hundred or thousand nuyen onto your lifestyle cost) would all be nice, but really I'd like some way to spice up matrix combat. Right now matrix combat is Attack program vs. Armor program, repeat until dead, with some minor variation in damage type (icon, stun, physical) between Attack, Blackout, and Black Hammer, but really, functionally identical. If you can think of a way to make matrix combat more interesting, I'd really love to hear it.

[Cheops]

Your matrix rules were a bit far out there for my taste, but they also more or less worked, which is far more than can be said for the core rules, which just less worked. Encryption, tracing, copy protection, program degradation (which I'm hoping will be a one-liner that tacks a few hundred or thousand nuyen onto your lifestyle cost) would all be nice, but really I'd like some way to spice up matrix combat. Right now matrix combat is Attack program vs. Armor program, repeat until dead, with some minor variation in damage type (icon, stun, physical) between Attack, Blackout, and Black Hammer, but really, functionally identical. If you can think of a way to make matrix combat more interesting, I'd really love to hear it.

Agreed. Very sad that they don't have the combat maneuvers like they did in SR3.

[Muspellsheimr]

Right now matrix combat is Attack program vs. Armor program, repeat until dead, with some minor variation in damage type (icon, stun, physical) between Attack, Blackout, and Black Hammer, but really, functionally identical. If you can think of a way to make matrix combat more interesting, I'd really love to hear it.

Disarm, Nuke, Shield - there are a few nice options available now that are not the same. I do agree it could use a bit more variety, but it is not bad.

[masterofm]

I thought it would be nice to apply some damage codes and form some different attack programs. Make it more like the firearms of the matrix? I feel it would at least make matrix combat more interesting. Data bombs don't just have rating, but maybe could kind of work like explosives on the table version of the game. It might spice up the matrix as long as it adds variation. Give hackers nausia with the "fantastic light" R4 program where the rating can add to its base damage code and add nausea to the hacker if successful in the same way neurostun grenades would work in a sense. Programs can take damage and need to get repaired or in a sense kinda "de-fragmented" for a cost? Work in the armorer type angle so a hacker has to maintain and take care of the agent/programs he uses.

Maybe it can make matrix combat at the same time more dangerous, but more interesting. A node can look like anything, and scanning becomes a form of perception. Maybe the berries on the tree in the fairytale node that the Johnson build for his version of fun is actually a remote triggered databomb, which could act like a grenade. Scale down the price of some of the more powerful programs, make them one shot usage with a built in delete command (so companies will make you buy multiple data bombs.)

I would like to see something more like this instead of the bland landia matrix fighting going on now.

[KCKitsune]

What I want to know is if a Techonomancer can make a "Complex Form" (AKA a program) for a smartlink why can't a hacker? Why do you need a Smartlink cyber system when you can just code one for your commlink? If anyone says: "They're Technomancers... they can do this because <insert some good reason>" then my reply is that a Hacker can do the same thing. The reason I say this: a Complex Form is a program not a Sprite.

[Nightwalker450]

As for requests, please eliminate the difference between AI and Free sprites. It's a pointless distinction

At first I was iffy on this, but it makes sense that they are treated differently. AI were created by man, while Free sprites are born out of the matrix itself. The AI are easier explained then the Free Sprites, once you start examining their make up.

What I want to know is if a Techonomancer can make a "Complex Form" (AKA a program) for a smartlink why can't a hacker? Why do you need a Smartlink cyber system when you can just code one for your commlink? If anyone says: "They're Technomancers... they can do this because <insert some good reason>" then my reply is that a Hacker can do the same thing. The reason I say this: a Complex Form is a program not a Sprite.

I don't see any reason a hacker couldn't. It's a rating 1 program, he can get hacking it'll take about a month (maybe less if your GM will divide the month by number of hits). He'll still need the Image Link eye ware for it to be any use, and the modifications done to his gun, so he'll save 475 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) if he spends the time. Technomancer still needs a smartlinked gun, but doesn't need the image link since they can view AR naturally.

[FrankTrollman]

I will of course look at your rules set once it is completed, and the one thing I would strongly suggest modifying from your original would be the 'Brain Hacking' - most notably the concept of Virgin Brains.

Sorry, no can do. At the end of the day, for wireless hacking to make sense you have to accept one of two conditions:

1. Direct hardware manipulation from across the room.
   or
2. A complete failure of data encryption and a basic limitation of fiberoptic cable as a data transfer medium that isfor some reason not shared by wireless.

If either of these two conditions are not met, then people will simply make their systems unhackable by any of a number of architectural means (you can enjoy yourself in Unwired by slaving your sat uplink to your comlink, connecting them with a cable, turning the wireless off on the comlink master and then laughing like a lunatic according to page 55 - all wireless attempts at exploit have to go through the comlink which they automatically fail at, and any spoof attempts also automatically fail because there's no wireless communication to listen to so you can't have perceived the Access ID of the Master and the cheese stands alone). Furthermore, the human brain is hardware in the 2070s, full stop.

But seriously, have you read the first chapters of Unwired? People can direct neural interface themselves with no internal equipment with no prep time to speak of, on the fly, in the middle of crowded streets. And they do, all the time. Those devices create VR so immersive that you can't even notice people walking through the room and stealing your fridge. There's nothing magical about that equipment that makes it only function when you want it to. The "do you want to be completely shut out of the real world's sensory input and thrown into a fantasy world of the chip designer's choosing? [Y/N]" prompt doesn't magically come up for you, it comes up for the dude holding the device. If someone wants to display shit over your sense data, they just can unless some other piece of tech comes in to stop them. That's what the tech actually does, and the fact that the book fetishizes the ability to voluntarily unplug from that data feed when it is the machine and not the man who is clearly master is just one of its many failings.

The Access ID of an agent is integral to its code and was only intended changed with a patch.

Sorry, that's not going to happen or matter. The Access ID is generated by the hardware you are using. Every piece of hardware you load an Agent onto is entitled to one Persona and one unique Access ID. And you can load an Agent into that Persona and it uses that Access ID. Unwired Pgs. 48, 51, and 55. So you can copy the same Agent onto multiple comlinks and they all get to act as unique Agents with unique Access IDs so long as you choose to activate the Persona in each of the separate 'links. The Agent Smith Access ID limits only trigger when they are run autonomously, which there is straight no reason to do because you are entitled to a free Persona with every piece of hardware, which you need anyway to keep the programs from maxing out your processor load.

Not of course that this would in any way stop Agent Smith. If he cost an extra 15000¥ per Rating 6 Agent acting you'd still be in the situation where arbitrarily large amounts of computational badassery were yours for the taking for decidedly less than it takes to get yourself a real man of anywhere near the quality. But it doesn't. You seriously just throw down 8000¥ for the response chip and a few ¥s for a short length of fiberoptic cabling and then you copy your Rating 6 Agent Smith onto the new chip and have it run from there. It even gets a brand new set of subscription slots, so you can wire it up to another response chip that you designate as a peripheral and run a second (or third, or fourth) set of programs there. Not only is there no meaningful limit to the number of Agents that you can throw around for under a 100k¥, but there is likewise no meaningful restriction on how many programs you can have running any more. If a starting hacker wanted to make a point and simultaneously load up all the programs in the basic book at Rating 5 with no slowdown (and yes, I am aware that there is no reason to do this other than hacker pelvic thrusting), such a cluster of datachips would cost... 36000¥. That's asswipe money, costs less than than your reaction enhancement. Costs less than the programs themselves. If you're willing to use up a few subscription slots you can do it for even less with straight accessing of distinct peripheral processors.

What I want to know is if a Techonomancer can make a "Complex Form" (AKA a program) for a smartlink why can't a hacker?

I'm totally with you. If a Complex Form can emulate the bonus of having the actual hardware of a smartlink system, then the flavor text doesn't match up. If a smartlink system is pure software and does not require genuine hardware, then it shouldn't take up capacity in your cybereyes. Something isn't right there.

Encryption, tracing, copy protection, program degradation (which I'm hoping will be a one-liner that tacks a few hundred or thousand nuyen onto your lifestyle cost) would all be nice, but really I'd like some way to spice up matrix combat.

I'll see what I can do.

-Frank

[Synner]

Another 10 minute break from editing for some clarifications.

As of Unwired, all autonomous programs aka "constructs" — defined as software that can operate independently of the hardware and can autonomously move from one node to another (incl. agents but also intended to extend to roving IC and even AIs) — possesses its own built-in (software) Access ID (p.110) to allow routing and identification regardless of the hardware it is currently using. Because they are autonomous programs and can change their home node, accessed nodes/accounts always identify constructs by their integral Access ID rather than the Access ID of the hardware they are running on. This software Access ID functions just like a normal hardware Access ID on a commlink, but is embedded in the construct's core code to account for hardware autonomy. It can be altered by patching. (As quoted above the line about spoofing agent access IDs in the second paragraph of the Access ID section on p.110 will be removed in errata).

To the best of my understanding, Hackastack isn't the issue it has been made to be (and never has been) due to the fact that active accounts on nodes (and hence access logs) are always associated to specific (hardware or software-based) Access IDs (spoofed or not). This means that if the original commlink is disconnected when you switch commlinks in Hackastack, the connection to the account/node you were hacking is severed and you need to re-log on (usually a setback). If on the other hand, you leave the original connection on and manage to spoof and replicate the original commlink's Access ID (which may or may not be spoofed) and then try to access the same account, your duplicated Access ID will be flagged (p.101) and both accounts are blocked. In both instances you are"safe," but you're back (almost) to square one.
Note there is no provision in the rules for somehow using the first commlink connection as a "trojan" for a second commlink, since nodes require that the account(s) being used be associated to a hardware or software Access ID.

Drop Out has always been and will remain be an option. As with any strategy it has its advantages and disadvantages.

[FrankTrollman]

Synner, it absolutely does not matter what Access ID an agent "has" because as p. 55 demonstrates an Agent that is loaded onto a Persona does not get its own subscription slot, and is thus not itself accessing anything. Even though it can act on the target node, it is not acting with its own account, so it does not use its own Access ID. Page 110 does not dispute this and the limitations you speak of kick in when and if you want the Agent to "act independently of its persona" - which you don't because the Matrix Topology chapter entitles us to more Personas than Agents. So having Agents load themselves onto hardware distant from their Persona is in almost all cases a complete waste of time. For one thing, it subjects you to the ravages of the Access ID limits, which nearly double the monetary cost of throwing an Agent Smith attack with 12 die pools at problems.

To the best of my understanding, Hackastack isn't the issue it has been made to be (and never has been) due to the fact that active accounts on nodes (and hence access logs) are always associated to specific (hardware or software-based) Access IDs (spoofed or not).

In this case Hackastack is a severe problem because you can declare a new Access ID for every single piece of hardware you have. The fact that you can at any time (even before you begin to hack) Spoof one or more of the links in your Hackastack into having the same Access ID and tagging out for your primary certainly exacerbates the problem, but isn't nearly a central theme here.

The Hackastack is at its core simply circumventing the limits of Matrix by giving yourself a large number of processors and imitating the benefits of being a large number of users. Unwired made that a reality the likes of which we never would have imagined out of the confusion that was the basic book. Seriously, the hackastack can now expand the number of programs you can run simultaneously without limit. The hackastack can log run around and do things on your behalf with the power of Agents, heck with the power of one Agent. The Hackastack drives Agent Smith. Agent Smith would not be possible without it.

Drop Out has always been and will remain be an option. As with any strategy it has its advantages and disadvantages.

This is the heart of the matter; and why I don't believe that any amount of errata you can levy at this book will make it a non-broken product.

-Frank

[KCKitsune]

Synner, I would like to know why Technomancers can make a program Complex Form that allows them to access a Smartgun. I would like to know why a normal character (or a Mage who is willing to take the Essence hit) who has a cyber commlink (plus had a Hacker make a Rating 1 Smartlink program) and cybereyes couldn't just run a program on his 'Link to get the benefits of a Smartgun without the Smartgun cyberware.

Heck I can almost seeing that program be integral to TacNet Software. Buy a Rating 2 TacNet package and get a free Smartlink Software that runs better than the Smartlink cyberware.

[MaxHunter]

I never really expected you to be happy with that book Frank. I am also quite sure you are reading it and interpreting it in the worst possible way as you already have a parallel system you want to push. It is allright to me and If you are helping some people with your Matrix rules, fine. I rather use what is in the books and fix whatever I believe it's grounds for abuse. It is simpler to me, and I like the flavor text better.

Plus, and I say this while not personally involved in the issue; when someone confides me anything I usually do not post what they said on Internet forums.

So, no requests from me, and good luck with your endeavour anyway.

Cheers

Max

[FrankTrollman]

Plus, and I say this while not personally involved in the issue; when someone confides me anything I usually do not post what they said on Internet forums.

Confide was perhaps the wrong word, these were statements made on this board by the people in question. So no special magic betrayal on my part.

In other news: I seriously would have preferred to have liked Unwired, and seriously suspended work on my own Matrix projects for 8 months hoping that Unwired would address the problems I wanted addressed. And it didn't, so now I'm going to work on my Matrix project again.

-Frank

[knasser]

I never really expected you to be happy with that book Frank. I am also quite sure you are reading it and interpreting it in the worst possible way as you already have a parallel system you want to push.

Though I only know Frank mainly through these boards, I can say, having had a couple of big clashes with him myself, that whilst I can imagine there are people it is more pleasant to be corrected by, I don't think there are many people better qualified to do it. At least on the subject of game systems, anyway. I can honestly say, despite seeing him in some extremely heated threads, that I've never found any real trace of bias. I'm not done with my own reading of Unwired yet, so I've made few comments on it. But my feeling at this point is that it would have been good to have Frank review the manuscript as soon as they had an initial draft.

Admittedly it would probably have ruffled a few feathers.

I also would prefer to work with the existing rules, but I'll be watching this alternative system to see what comes of it.

Regards,

Khadim.

[MaxHunter]

@knasser:

So you say it is a matter of style more than substance? Maybe. I can concede that. I do think it is useful to find loopholes and exploits in the existing rules, providing material for errata and such. I do believe Frank is very good at it and have contributed with his -somehow feather ruffling- rants (bloodzilla fix and all) What I also said is that I feel sometimes he tries too hard.

@Frank: and, Frank, please consider I have been posting to you directly instead of using third person, It is difficult to do both on the Internet. I do not mean to show disrespect.

Cheers,

Max

[Demonseed Elite]

But my feeling at this point is that it would have been good to have Frank review the manuscript as soon as they had an initial draft.

I just want to say that I totally disagree with the quoted portion of your post. I'll admit that Frank is good at dissecting game mechanics, but I personally don't like many of his solutions. The back-and-forth that would have resulted from your idea would have delayed Unwired's release considerably, and we already get criticism for delays in release dates.

Second, Frank was a freelancer for a short period of time. That doesn't get you editorial review of drafts. I've been a freelancer for Shadowrun for eight years--longer than most--and I don't get any special editorial review of drafts. Nor do I expect it. Sometimes I'll ask Peter (Synner) if I can read a draft and he'll send it to me, and then I'll offer my feedback and step aside, because it's not my project and I'm not the line designer. Freelancers don't get any special veto on designer decisions, no matter how long we've been involved with the game. I argued strongly against technomancers being in SR4, and you all know how that worked out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Third, I don't know if you've ever worked with Frank, but I have. I've worked with over two dozen different freelancers in my time with Shadowrun, and I think Frank has to be the most difficult one I've ever worked with. That can be a badge of honor when you're the outspoken critic on a forum (I know, being a sometimes antagonistic freelancer myself), but when you're working in a collaborative environment like RPG writing, it's not desirable. It slows down the production and frustrates the other writers.

So I'm not sure where this over-inflated sense of significance originates, but it's annoying. I'll give Frank credit where it's due, he's very good at pushing the limits of the mechanics and finding the spots where they can be broken. But if you can't work with someone, it doesn't much matter, unfortunately.

[FrankTrollman]

I'll agree with you on some of that demonseed, there is absolutely no reason that someone who is not part of the team and is not a signatory to the NDAs which accompany the project should be given a draft before printing.

I will say that Unwired should have been delayed as long as it took to get the people actually working on the project to read the whole thing and wargame out the real effects of what they wrote. I don't think that I should have been entitled to any special reading, and frankly wouldn't have had the time for it this last year anyway.

But I am more than slightly nonplussed that the people you actually had working on this project went to release with what appears to be a very shaky grasp of what they actually did - and even more nonplussed at the effects of some of the work that they came out with.

-Frank

[knasser]

I just want to say that I totally disagree with the quoted portion of your post. I'll admit that Frank is good at dissecting game mechanics, but I personally don't like many of his solutions. The back-and-forth that would have resulted from your idea would have delayed Unwired's release considerably, and we already get criticism for delays in release dates.

Second, Frank was a freelancer for a short period of time. That doesn't get you editorial review of drafts. I've been a freelancer for Shadowrun for eight years--longer than most--and I don't get any special editorial review of drafts. Nor do I expect it. Sometimes I'll ask Peter (Synner) if I can read a draft and he'll send it to me, and then I'll offer my feedback and step aside, because it's not my project and I'm not the line designer. Freelancers don't get any special veto on designer decisions, no matter how long we've been involved with the game. I argued strongly against technomancers being in SR4, and you all know how that worked out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Third, I don't know if you've ever worked with Frank, but I have. I've worked with over two dozen different freelancers in my time with Shadowrun, and I think Frank has to be the most difficult one I've ever worked with. That can be a badge of honor when you're the outspoken critic on a forum (I know, being a sometimes antagonistic freelancer myself), but when you're working in a collaborative environment like RPG writing, it's not desirable. It slows down the production and frustrates the other writers.

So I'm not sure where this over-inflated sense of significance originates, but it's annoying. I'll give Frank credit where it's due, he's very good at pushing the limits of the mechanics and finding the spots where they can be broken. But if you can't work with someone, it doesn't much matter, unfortunately.

Demonseed Elite - I like your work enormously. And I can well imagine that a comment like mine is annoying. To answer your question, no I have never worked with Frank but I'm a quick study. I can imagine (no offense to any thread starters present) that he is a real pain. But I wasn't suggesting that anyone should have to get approval from him from their work (definitely not)! Merely that "Trial by Frank" is a powerful way to iron out any kinks. Judgement as always, resides with the developers, but outside feedback is useful.

That said, I still haven't completed my reading of Unwired properly, so whilst there are things in there that I'm unsure about, I'm not making any real comments on the book myself yet and I certainly read Synnner's or your responses to people's comments with great interest.

I wasn't meaning to denigrate anyone who has worked on Unwired. Apologies for any unintentional sleight.

Regards,

Khadim.