Unwired: Not Happy, Taking requests Options

[masterofm]

It was supposed to be on this thread, and then the pointless nattering took place.... *sigh*

Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."

Also for those who like their game world to make sense, if the rules say something with a ... at the end of it players will take that ... and run with it. The problem is not that hackastack is annoying for some people it is just that it changes the game play when you extrapolate what you can do with the information given to you. If corporations have extensive drone networks then they just shut down a hacker. If a hacker has a bigger drone network then the competition then they can pull off the win. Now the book does not explicitly say this and/or points wildly at this as the example of how people should hack, but it is what a corporation would do if they wanted to stop a hacker cold.

It's like having a crap ton of tanks with experienced crew and knowing if you sent in the tanks it would utterly destroy the enemy without suffering any casualties. You know it and they know it, but in the end you decide to give the tank crews hand guns and send them in as foot soldiers, who then get horribly slaughtered. The problem that some people have is that if this is what would make sense given the rules then it is what happens in the game world. Data steals now are just physically removing the hardware containing the data before you have to bring it back to your home turf to overwhelm the ice and steal the sweet gooey pay data inside. Not that the rules are wrong, but it's just putting that extra little tack on the end that the DEV's didn't actually mean to create, or maybe even imply.... although it is what anyone would do given the situation and rule set. It can be disregarded, broken, changed, augmented. Call it what you will it's just the way some of us feel. For us we have had to just had to pass it onto an NPC so it doesn't mess with our game world.

I would just like it to be fun w/o tons and tons of dice rolling taking up too much time in game while all the other players are twiddling their thumbs and wondering what they should do next. If the errata solves this then yay let the good times roll. If Franks can pull it off fine with me. Don't care one way or the other.

[Aaron]

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.

I'm fairly certain that you don't have to pwn a node to get it to do stuff for you. If you don't have the appropriate access in the node, I believe you can make a $PROGRAM + Hacking test against the node's System + Firewall to make it work without actually getting yourself a account with the necessary access first. For example, if you need to open a maglock in a hurry, and have access to the node (say, in a public account), you could make an Opposed Command + Hacking Test to convince the node to do it. This wouldn't work with devices with no public accessible node, like the ones mentioned in SR4 that only have admin accounts (which include commlinks in my games, but your mileage may vary with your GM), so you're back to hacking in or spoofing those.

[Aaron]

But since you can just have the Persona set to repeat commands it receives in email to the Agent [...]

Sorry to jump in late, but I have a question. Where did you read that a persona is capable of receiving remote commands? I may have missed it in the text, but what you seem to be describing is an agent receiving a command, rather than a persona being used by a ... er ... user.

[WearzManySkins]

@Frank Trollman

What I would like to see is a system that has the ease of the current magic system, where attributes have a place in the tests of Matrix Actions and skills. And yes I understand that is "NOW" an optional rule. But that is a Band Aide approach. I prefer a total system that was designed to use such from the beginning rather than a house rule.

I do not wish to have a utterly complex book keeping system where software degrades so fast if at all. I did not use the SOTA rules from earlier iterations of SR.

Where characters get Warez more online with what is ongoing today with the various Torrents rather than pay system. Today's Torrents one's UpLoad (Seeds) is more important than ones Downloads. Having a less than a ratio of 1 in most Torrents does not get you the access to the more desirable Torrent Sites which are by invitation only. Partly based on one's Seed/Download ratio.

A system where Cracking Gangs shred copy protection in a matter of days rather than months.

Where Crackers can under take "Projects" to rapidly achieve the desired results.

WMS

[WearzManySkins]

Sorry to jump in late, but I have a question. Where did you read that a persona is capable of receiving remote commands? I may have missed it in the text, but what you seem to be describing is an agent receiving a command, rather than a persona being used by a ... er ... user.

Please note the quote from Frank earlier

But I am still interested in hearing from people who want my work to go in particular directions. I am obviously enough not particularly interested in hearing from people who want me to make do with the printed material in Unwired, and I'll attempt to maintain the discipline to refrain from responding to them. In the meantime, people who want to discuss the contents of Unwired and the specific effects it has on various aspects of the game should probably go get a new thread.

WMS

[Aaron]

Ah, thanks, WMS. That leads to another question, though: where should one post a request for clarification?

[Cthulhudreams]

Frank, but what I am 99% confident we are both talking about is this

A) I get a new commlink

B) I get an agent

C) I load the persona of that commlink with the agent

D While using the persona, I order that agent to do stuff while I am using that persona, load scripts, set up standing orders, whatever

E) At a later date I take an action that triggers the scripts of the agent loaded into the persona

This can be as simple as bolting 10 mics together and ordering them all by shouting (after loading a script that says when I shout X do Y)

Or I could email them all (after loading a script that says when I email X do Y)

Now, you could say that an agent is incapable of talking actions if that persona is not 'attended' but that seems self defeating in the broader rules context. How can I have an agent in my persona that watches out for attacks, or does something (browse) while I am otherwise occupied. This is especially true as agents are explictly capable of interaction.

To draw an analogy. We want to use the Persona as a APC, and the Agent 'fights' the APC, keeping watch, firing out of the gun slits etc (using analyze, black hammer, analyze). The only limitation here is I actually have to jump into the APC (persona) and drive it to a new location. But once there the infantry (agent) are clearly capable of firing (using black hammer) out of the vision slits (persona)

[Jaid]

Frank, but what I am 99% confident we are both talking about is this

A) I get a new commlink

B) I get an agent

C) I load the persona of that commlink with the agent

D While using the persona, I order that agent to do stuff while I am using that persona, load scripts, set up standing orders, whatever

E) At a later date I take an action that triggers the scripts of the agent loaded into the persona

This can be as simple as bolting 10 mics together and ordering them all by shouting (after loading a script that says when I shout X do Y)

Or I could email them all (after loading a script that says when I email X do Y)

Now, you could say that an agent is incapable of talking actions if that persona is not 'attended' but that seems self defeating in the broader rules context. How can I have an agent in my persona that watches out for attacks, or does something (browse) while I am otherwise occupied. This is especially true as agents are explictly capable of interaction.

To draw an analogy. We want to use the Persona as a APC, and the Agent 'fights' the APC, keeping watch, firing out of the gun slits etc (using analyze, black hammer, analyze). The only limitation here is I actually have to jump into the APC (persona) and drive it to a new location. But once there the infantry (agent) are clearly capable of firing (using black hammer) out of the vision slits (persona)

synner's point is not that you couldn't give orders to these agents, it's that those agents are not functionally different from agents running off of scripts to begin with unless you are actively using the persona, managing the agents. so basically, you can manage agents that are attached to your current persona, or you can give orders (scripts, basically) to agents that are not attached to your current persona... but that's not really any different from setting up a botnet.

[FrankTrollman]

synner's point is not that you couldn't give orders to these agents, it's that those agents are not functionally different from agents running off of scripts to begin with unless you are actively using the persona, managing the agents. so basically, you can manage agents that are attached to your current persona, or you can give orders (scripts, basically) to agents that are not attached to your current persona... but that's not really any different from setting up a botnet.

No, it's not functionally different. But it's also not distinguishable from you giving the orders to the agents through your persona in an AR interface. Hell, you can give the orders through the AR interface by having a drone hand be the thing that actually receives your instructions. The fact that "you" are not "there" doesn't matter because AR hacking isn't connected to "you."

Under the Matrix Topology described in Unwired, there is literally no way to tell how many layers separate a live human being from the Persona that has the Agent loaded into it. And if the rules try to care about this particular data, they've failed. Is that a real hand in the AR glove that is connecting to the signal amplifier that is connecting to the commlink that is running a Persona that has loaded an Agent? Or is that just a drone hand that is being controlled through a thousand more connections? There's no way to know or care, because there's an actual break in the chain of matrix handoffs at that point. The rules say that an Agent loaded into a Persona does not count as a separate connection and therefore does not count its Access ID, full stop. Trying to come up with a special case where an Agent is loaded into a Persona but "effectively" being controlled from outside and therefore counts as if it isn't loaded on is not something I can respect.

You've made your AR bed, and now you have to accept the consequences. The consequences are that people can be an Matrix user with no direct connection to themselves at all, and therefore that the number of users is not in any way limited to the number of people. So you can be multiple users. So you can be dozens or hundreds of users. That is an inevitable slippery slope that you go down the moment that you allow people to hack without having any part of themselves connected to the Matrix. Flailing around trying to say that the Matrix magically knows whether the real buttons are being pressed by real human fingers is frickin retarded. If you wanted to have mandatory human interaction, you should have set up required DNI that actually mandated human interaction.

But regardless, please get your own thread to talk about this issue.

I do not wish to have a utterly complex book keeping system where software degrades so fast if at all. I did not use the SOTA rules from earlier iterations of SR.

Totally with you. I think it best if the SotA is confined to just a couple of areas of "current" arms racing. Currently looking into a category of "program" that isn't programmed at all but is instead based on stolen information and look-up tables: like a modern day satellite descrambler. These key sets would be good for a certain amount of time, and thereafter only be of any use if you found an archaic system that ran on old codes. Then the rest of the SotA checks can pretty much go away.

Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."

Speed of resolution is an important one. Lots of things can be streamlined, just one Matrix Perception test rather than one per icon, and have a set table of information by hits similar to the Assensing table rather than the incredibly time consuming 20 Questions model. But the big thing here is to have many actions handleable with a single roll. A computer system that just runs a door only has two states: locked and unlocked; so requiring a lot of die rolls to get it to change from one to the other is not good for the game. The Jedi Trick should just happen in one die roll so that the rest of the team is grateful to the Matrix specialist for their contribution instead of annoyed.

-Frank

[Cthulhudreams]

synner's point is not that you couldn't give orders to these agents, it's that those agents are not functionally different from agents running off of scripts to begin with unless you are actively using the persona, managing the agents. so basically, you can manage agents that are attached to your current persona, or you can give orders (scripts, basically) to agents that are not attached to your current persona... but that's not really any different from setting up a botnet.

Look, I can drive an agent with a keyboard, a mic and a screen.

So what you are saying is that while I'm tapping away (and that can be on something else completely because the agent is capable of independent action while loaded into a persona) the internet treats my agent one way, and then as soon as I take my hands of the keyboard and go get a can of coke out of the fridge the agent is treated a different way and suddenly everything grinds to a halt. How does everyone know I went to get a coke? How is that different from me stopping to read the screen? Are you saying that agents in personas just constantly lock up all the time unless you have 3IP and can interact with agents at their speed? Is sitting at my terminal reading 'war and peace' actively using? If so, why cannot I just go sit on my lounge and read war and peace?

What if I have 20 of these setups in a big wall infront of me an its all voice and gesture controlled like some sort of conductor. Am I using them all now? Thats another perfectly legit control setup. I'm certainly watching them all, nd interracting with them all (though the order might be 'invalid input' over and over and over.

That is crazy talk. The problem is AR has no definition of actively using that make sense and will hold up. VR kinda almost does, but I don't have to use VR, I can use AR. If you want AR gloves, well, I'll just make 20 pairs of them into retarded oven mitts, and use voicecomms for actual orders while I wave my hands around like a Captain retard Mcspackypants to count as 'interacting'

[Gelare]

Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."

I agree, it would be nice to have some way to get the rest of the party involved in the matrix. I remember finding it very cool that, as of Street Magic, you could bring your buddies with you during your vacations to the sunny metaplanes of hell or whatever. Missions that send the whole team into the matrix to do something would be far more interesting than taking the hacker aside for an hour. I don't know how possible that setup is, but it'd be nice.

Also, Frank, since I assume you're building off the alternate matrix rules you've already posted, I'd like some more information on actual applications of those rules. For example, it seems like computers in your rules are more secure when hooked up to human brains because they get all that additional processing power (and Willpower) and so forth. So if a corp needs a secure server, do they have some minimum-wage guy stand in a room with a computer on his head sending data all over the place? What would a 2070 chat room look like, and would it be run 24/7 by a guy standing around letting his spare brain cycles be used? Heck, what would Jackpoint, or the ZOG matrix security system look like? You've already got most of the hard rules developed, at this point I'm more interested in examples.

[RunnerPaul]

Getting back to the original point of this thread: feedback on where Frank's houserules should go from here, here's my shortlist of requests/things I had questions about:

• A fleshing out of the concept of the datajack's role in compartmentalizing the brain and securing it against external access.
  Do "Secure Mental Folders" have to be pre-defined by the player ahead of time, or is this a chosen on-the-fly type bonus against certain Type "B" hacking procedures?
  
• An expansion on the general concept of Hacking an Occupied Network, specifically what it means when brain and machine "reinforce themselves defensively."
  It's explicitly clear how machine reinforces's the brain's security, as the brain gains the benefit of the Network's firewall.
  
  What's less clear is how the addition of the brain's extra processing reinforces the security of a network, unless we are to infer that the hacking-on-the-fly bonuses to running software that can only be achieved from the creative power of a skilled brain is what makes security "orders of magnitude more effective" for an occupied network. Or is there a passive component that any brain can provide, skilled, or not, with or without spending of avaiable actions?
  
• Integration of a brain with a Network taking time at bootup:
  Must a network be always be booted to integrate a brain, or can it be up and running and integrate a brain on the fly? Can more than one brain integrate with a network at a time, and if so, what happens when a brain has to disconnect but others remain?
  
• LOS targeting vs. large possibly armored objects where it isn't visibly obvious where the node hardware you're trying to target would be located.
  While it can be assumed that there is some degree of electronics located throughout vehicles and bulky milspec armor suits, is that enough to allow for someone to just look at a main battle tank and have LOS to the tank's network?
  
• Sieze vs. M-B-W:
  Will there be any special interaction between the Sieze Program and a target with a Move-By-Wire implant? Seems like a ripe opportunity.
  
• Pornohacker:
  Have you considered variants to the Peristalsis program that target more interesting bodily systems? (Why should mages be the only ones with an Orgasm spell?)
  
• Hardening:
  Will the Electronics Hardening option from p.58 of Arsenal be incorporated into the rules for Signal Defense?

[Fuchs]

What I'd like:

Nerfing of "manual" AR. Data Gloves, Keyboards, and such should be much, much worse in handling any matrix matter than DNI. Speed of thought should beat Data gloves so badly, only the poor who can't afford better would even contemplate to buy data gloves.

Nerfing of agents. Agents running autonomously should be clearly inferior to a hacker doing stuff directly. Not just 2 dice less, not just "once a while they may have problems", but "any hacker with more intelligence than a potted plant is better than an agent in just about every situation other than operations such as searching and similar automated tasks".

[Teal Deer]

Make Technomancers not be retarded.

Been said before, but it's worth saying again. Conceptually, mechanically, and in terms of character power parity: MAKE THEM NOT SUCK.

[FrankTrollman]

I'd like some more information on actual applications of those rules.

Examples are the biggest thing. I think we're looking at a full length chapter of examples and walk throughs.

Will there be any special interaction between the Sieze Program and a target with a Move-By-Wire implant? Seems like a ripe oportunity.

Agreed. Something I would like to do is to have a set of expanded program/object interactions. A Move By Wire system by rights should be extremely good at suppressing a Seize attack. I would like a standardized rule for that, which is probably going to be something along the line of having devices have the capability to be "optimized" against certain attacks - a state which gives them a dice pool bonus on defending against those attacks (either Rating or a flat optimization bonus depending upon feedback). A MBW, for example, is optimized against Seize (on account of constantly suppressing exactly that attack in the first place) and provides a dicepool bonus to defense if the wetwork gets attacked by it.

Have you considered variants to the Peristalis program that target more interesting bodily systems?

Nice one. A lot of people seem to want more diverse attacks, and that can certainly be up on there. An attack that basically just stims out your Accumbens Nucleus and overwhelms you with pleasure to the point that it becomes hard to care about or do anything is certainly plausible.

-Frank

[otakusensei]

Man, it's depressing to see so much debate and disappointment over Unwired. I waited a long time for it, and I didn't feel cheated at all. I loved the original rules (both as a GM and a player) and was delighted to see the clarifications in Unwired. I completed my cover to cover read through a few days ago and now that it's sunk in I allowed myself to come back to Dumpshock and see what was up.

I just want to say that I see no reason why using the rules as they are stated constitute some sort of playability issue. I thought the crunch and fluff both supported the idea that systems must balance usability and security, and being an IT professional I agree. The rules as they stand provide plenty of opportunities for players to have fun with a hacker no matter what they want out of the experience. It's up to the GM to accommodate that and the rules as given don't tie my hands or make it overly complicated to do what needs to be done.

I'm very happy with my purchase of Unwired, both digitally and my hardcopy once it arrives.

[Nightwalker450]

One of my fellow runners, who as a character and player understand matrix activity very little, asked my Technomancer to make a drone "Unhackable."

Here's how I forsee it...

Me: "Here's your drone, hope you enjoy it."
Him: "Sweet, did you make it unhackable."
Me: "Yeah, just as long as you never touch that button."
Him: "Whats that button do?"
Me: "That would be the power button."

[deek]

I'll re-read Frank's ruleset once there are more examples. My biggest gripe before was that it was not any less complex than the current matrix rules. It filled some gaps in logic and exploits, but didn't look like resolution would be any more/less fun than RAW. So, that's the #1 thing I am looking for, playability. If I need 40 pages to even play in the matrix, then its not an improvement. If complex tasks can be broken down into fairly simple dice roll resolutions and the whole slew of pertinent data/tables can be condensed to a single sheet...then yeah, this will be good.

The other thing I was thinking needed more fleshed, was the equipment and programs. Costs, availabilities, etc, were all missing. I think the biggest hurdle is that if you are going to make these alternate rules and not use anything in RAW, then you have to duplicate the sorts of things that are needed by other parts of RAW (i.e. costs and availability, maybe even some descriptions if its new).

I mean, if we are talking about a whole rewrite, then we can't assume anything can be used, so nodes have to be redefined (or copied)...I mean, I think you know this already, but based on the first go-around, there was a lot of information I still needed in order to play your rules.

[Thufar_Hawat]

Hi Frank

Do you have a link to the rules you've already created for the matrix? I couldn't find a link anywhere.

[RunnerPaul]

Do you have a link to the rules you've already created for the matrix? I couldn't find a link anywhere.

I'm not Frank, but what you're looking for is here.

I would like a standardized rule for that, which is probably going to be something along the line of having devices have the capability to be "optimized" against certain attacks - a state which gives them a dice pool bonus on defending against those attacks (either Rating or a flat optimization bonus depending upon feedback).

Will that pendulum swing both ways? Will there be hardware that's non-optimal against certain attacks?

[Thufar_Hawat]

thanks for the quick link

[Tabula Rasa]

First of all, thanks for your work on your houserules Frank. They pretty much rock, specially the infinitely easier to implement character creation fixes.

I did have a question and a request. I know you mentioned that you will put in more examples and such into the book which will help a ton because you are basically changing an important part of the game from the ground up. I would also like to request examples of how brain hacking and all the other basic changes you made would effect the SR world. So essentially, I am asking for good fluff that will make it fairly obvious how the world should be different.

I think I'm essentially asking for a complete sourcebook though and I would think that's a shit load of work...

The question I had was about trodes and nanopaste trode interfaces. Why is it that when someone can hack my brain wirelessly from a distance when I'm meat only, my commlink can't interface with my brain wirelessly without trodes from my pocket? I mean I personally love DNI and datajacks - and I found that fluff bit about them being "so last decade" to be one of the most setting distrupting pieces of fluff I've ever read. However, since the logical conclusion you are going with is that wireless brain hacking on virgin brains works, I want to know why I need trodes or shit if I don't have cyber instead of just beaming that shit straight into my grey matter.

[RunnerPaul]

The question I had was about trodes and nanopaste trode interfaces. Why is it that when someone can hack my brain wirelessly from a distance when I'm meat only, my commlink can't interface with my brain wirelessly without trodes from my pocket? I mean I personally love DNI and datajacks - and I found that fluff bit about them being "so last decade" to be one of the most setting distrupting pieces of fluff I've ever read. However, since the logical conclusion you are going with is that wireless brain hacking on virgin brains works, I want to know why I need trodes or shit if I don't have cyber instead of just beaming that shit straight into my grey matter.

If I understand what Frank's said previously on that subject, [Edit: this must have come from someone else, as Frank gives a different reason a few posts down.] -it's a matter of signal strength. If you're relying on the commlink to beam radio waves into your brain from your hip, you risk someone else comming along with a stronger signal to jam out your commlink and beam its radio waves into your brain instead. The advantage of trode nets/nanopaste is while they have weak signals, they're also that much closer to the brain, and benefit from the Inverse-Square law for signal propagation.-

(-That's Frank's reasoning.- Personally, I'm like you and I don't like manipulation of a naked brain at a distance, so I tweaked Frank's rules to require Handshake range or better for all Type "B" attacks on naked brains. Since the handshake range of the human head is "contact" under Frank's setup, this means you've got to slap a trode-net on someone if you want to do naked brain hacking on them, or be a Technomancer, who are automatically at Connection range with everything within the scope of their signal.)

[PlatonicPimp]

And that's what I'D like to see from Franks House rules. If you can, Frank, please make your rules in a cell structure, so that maybe if we like something from them but don't want the whole package, we can pull it out and use it.

[Tabula Rasa]

Well, I guess my issue with that signal strength description is that I would think my commlink in my pocket only traveling a meter or so would have a stronger signal than some guy's commlink from 30 meters away. Maybe if they had military strength signal they could override it or something.

It just seems that by the logic that he follows to explain wireless hacking. Which as far as I got it says because people can have wireless signals going out their brains via trodes and into their brains via trodes then you should be able to do the same thing at a distance. So given that, you should be able to defend yourself at a distance too through your commlink without trodes. Or at least maybe there would be some signal contested test or comparisson that would make DNI infinitely better for those who cared enough, but at least the option should be there.

Maybe there is something else I'm not seeing though.

@ Frank
One more request. Please give a flow chart or something that covers the connection ranges and everything so I can just show it to someone and they'd get it without a terrible explanation from me. That'd be nifty.