Legwork Discussion, Is it legging or is it sitting? Options

[tete]

But the face has to worry about maintaining those contacts, plus the fact that he needs the right one at the right time. For example, in On the Run, no one is likely to have a contact who knows a lot about obsolete music disks. While a face could simply unleash all his contacts to start asking around, that will get expensive in terms of both nuyen and favors. Plus which, you dramatically increase the chance that someone else will find out that you're looking for information on a given topic.

A Data Search is safe, and free. It gives you better general coverage on a wider array of topics. In other words, it's the linchpin of any legwork operation. Everything revolves around the decker, to the point where it's not unheard-of for players to go out for pizza while the decker does his thing.

I wouldn't say a Data Search is any safer than asking contacts. As I am typing this my keystrokes are going through many servers any of which could be logging what I type. If data is that sensitive someone will be sniffing.

[Cain]

I wouldn't say a Data Search is any safer than asking contacts. As I am typing this my keystrokes are going through many servers any of which could be logging what I type. If data is that sensitive someone will be sniffing.

True, but the point is that it's easier to count the number of people suddenly asking questions about you than it is to track the search engine hits you're getting. And since any decker worth his salt will be automatically spoofing his Access ID, a Data Search will be difficult to trace back to you.

[Blade]

A Data Search is safe, and free.

Heh, tell that to the hacker in my game who's now an unwitting loyal supporter of Saeder-Krupp... There are dangerous things out there in the 'trix.

If you're making Matrix-based data search safer, faster and more efficient than any other kind of legwork whatever the data you're looking for might be, don't be suprised that your player are relying only on someone with Data Search for everything.
I've never read anything in the books that said that everything could be found on the Matrix without any problem. To me, it's just a GMing problem.

[Cain]

Heh, tell that to the hacker in my game who's now an unwitting loyal supporter of Saeder-Krupp... There are dangerous things out there in the 'trix.

If you're making Matrix-based data search safer, faster and more efficient than any other kind of legwork whatever the data you're looking for might be, don't be suprised that your player are relying only on someone with Data Search for everything.
I've never read anything in the books that said that everything could be found on the Matrix without any problem. To me, it's just a GMing problem.

And as I said before, it isn't just my games. It includes a lot of GMs, including one Commando.

At any event, a Data Search roll, by itself, is safe. It's not until you start hacking something that you have to worry about IC. Which is a problem in and of itself: if the decker decides to go on a solo mini-run, there's not much the other players can do except get pizza. Granted, this problem isn't limited to just deckers, but it's worse for them since there's so much available on the Matrix.

[Wesley Street]

And as I said before, it isn't just my games. It includes a lot of GMs, including one Commando.

At any event, a Data Search roll, by itself, is safe. It's not until you start hacking something that you have to worry about IC. Which is a problem in and of itself: if the decker decides to go on a solo mini-run, there's not much the other players can do except get pizza. Granted, this problem isn't limited to just deckers, but it's worse for them since there's so much available on the Matrix.

Bad GM or GM who didn't understand the rules, not necessarily and not necessarily. And we just had this discussion last week.

[Cain]

And for the third time, it wasn't just one GM. Wasn't me, either, since I generally don't play deckers. And one GM was a Commando-- you know, official Catalyst Demo Team? He was actually a great GM.

But in the meanwhile, you're going to tell me that *five* different GM's experiencing the exact same problem isn't a system error?

[Backgammon]

I think Cain has a valid point, but in the end it is a GM error to place too much information in the Matrix. But there are two different topics (sort of). One if the Data Search roll and the other is the hacker mini-mission.

IMO the Data Search roll is basically a Google search. Information can be obscure and hard to find, but ultimately, someone had to make the decision to make that informaiton public. This type of information should never be enough to satisfy the full legwork of a mission. If it was, the Johnson would not have hired a bunch of criminals, he would've fired off his Agent with Browse 6 and that'd be the end of it. I think it's fine for just about every run to start with a Data Search, but the GM should basically just be using this to prop his story up, tighten up the angles he wants the runners to explore and such. I assume the decker is going to get an ungodly amount of successes. Doesn't mean he's going to read a user group post about "a concrete rumour that the victim is being held at 123 baker street". It's just NOT publicly available.

Part two are the hacker mini-runs. What can I say, that has always been a Shadowrun "problem". It takes indeed a skilled GM to balance the team's hacker desire to be challenged by a system while keeping everyone interested. To my knowledge, there is no perfect recipe. Ideally you want the system hacks to lead to clues that must be followed up by physical presence. But hey, if you have a pure, remote-only hacker, he is going to be going on that system hack alone while everyone else eats pizza or something.

[Tarantula]

Sorry, but the "fixed" adventures rather often do make everything available on the matrix. In fact, from the adventures I've played in and read over, I think every piece of information was available via data search. Is this a fault of the GMs? No. Its a fault of the mission writers, as the GM doesn't have the ability to say "well, that wouldn't be on the matrix" because its a missions game, where they have to follow whats written for the adventure.

So, no, I don't think your "multiple GMs did it" point is valid. Missions are going to have more options open to the players, because they don't know if every group will have a face, or will have a decker who can data search.

[Wesley Street]

Unless that Catalyst Commando was the developer who wrote the hacking rules I could absolutely believe that he flubbed them. Doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad GM, just that he didn't get the rules right. Or it was a badly written adventure.

When you have half a dozen non-rocket-scientists-but-relatively-intelligent-people on this board reiterating "this is how you handle hacking" and "this is what RAW says", I'm absolutely going to say those five GMs didn't understand the rules. Or they're all victims of bad adventure writing. But you know what? I completely admit to screwing rules up often enough myself. Being a GM is really hard, especially if you're expected to act as a rules arbitrator for a relatively new system. Doesn't mean there's a system error, it's just that unless you have a photographic memory parts of a game that are more conceptually abstract (and I'll throw magic in there along with Matrix actions) are going to run into issues. I'm a major math retard but after working with the 4th ed. Matrix/Legwork/Hacking rules on a weekly basis for almost a year they seem pretty much second nature to me now.

Part two are the hacker mini-runs. What can I say, that has always been a Shadowrun "problem". It takes indeed a skilled GM to balance the team's hacker desire to be challenged by a system while keeping everyone interested. To my knowledge, there is no perfect recipe. Ideally you want the system hacks to lead to clues that must be followed up by physical presence. But hey, if you have a pure, remote-only hacker, he is going to be going on that system hack alone while everyone else eats pizza or something.

A lot of that was solved with 4th ed. Hacking can be as complicated as a dungeon crawl or as simple as a couple of dice rolls depending on how the GM wants to run the game.

[Malachi]

As far as RPGs go, I don't put much stalk in tournaments, ladders, or "official" GMs with some sort of badge or whatever. I play RPGs to: 1. Tell a story, 2. Have fun with my friends (so that them and I are having fun). I don't believe that RPGs, by their nature, are very conducive to any sort of "official" scoring system. If you want that sort of thing I suggest you go find yourself a tabletop miniatures game. When it comes to RPGs, they should be run so that everyone at the table is participating and having fun. Period. If something in the rules is causing some people not to participate and have fun, if it's not in keeping with how the story should flow, then I change it.

The first time I ran On the Run was for some people playing their first SR4 run. They didn't have any contacts they thought would help them, so they tried a Data Search test. The group Hacker didn't roll enough hits according to the book so I didn't give them the info. What follow was a frustrating 45 mins of for the players as they struggled to try to figure out what they were supposed to do. Not good. I admitted to them afterward that it was my mistake. The next time I ran the adventure the same situation came up, and even though the second group's Hacker didn't roll much better, I gave him the clue. The adventure continued. The Data Search took about 5 minutes of game time. Why did I just let them have the info? To move the story along. If someone in the group would've had a contact I would've let them get it as well.

I believe there is ample precedent for keeping sensitive information from PC's Data Search rolls. I also think that asking contacts is more discreet ("safe") than doing Matrix searches. There has been fluff published that states that many corps watch the Matrix to see what is being searched (especially if Agents are doing the searching). Shiawase's MFID is a good example. Ask yourself what is more safe: asking some people you trust (your "friends") for potentially sensitive information, or Googling "Saeder-Krupp research facility security procedures."

In the end: do whatever keeps everyone happy and engaged in your game and your story. If doing tedious Data Search rolls is causing players to leave and go for pizza, then change it. If you refuse to change how you play (or your GM plays) keep in mind that you are making the choice to run the game, or allow the game to be run, like that. If we pulled Peter Taylor in front of us right now and said, "My group was getting bored with all these Data Search checks so I (as a GM) ruled that they would have to go talk to some contacts in order to get the more detailed info." I highly doubt that he would stand up and scream, "That's not cannon, you are hereby banned from every official SR event!" Play the game to have fun. Fix your group's problems. Don't blame them on the rules for them.

[Cain]

Doesn't mean there's a system error, it's just that unless you have a photographic memory parts of a game that are more conceptually abstract (and I'll throw magic in there along with Matrix actions) are going to run into issues.

No offense, but how many GM's facing the same problem will it take? I'm not the only Dumpshocker who's reported this problem, either. Even the best advice amounts to "play around with the RAW". That basically means there's a problem, there's just easy house rule fixes for them. The majority of them I've tried, with limited success; I dispute the "easy" part but I acknowledge that if you bend the rules enough, you can minimize the problem.

A lot of that was solved with 4th ed. Hacking can be as complicated as a dungeon crawl or as simple as a couple of dice rolls depending on how the GM wants to run the game.

The same can be said of 3rd; the biggest difference is that the SR3 rules supported offline storage, while SR4 has no mention of it that I've noticed.

[Cain]

I believe there is ample precedent for keeping sensitive information from PC's Data Search rolls. I also think that asking contacts is more discreet ("safe") than doing Matrix searches. There has been fluff published that states that many corps watch the Matrix to see what is being searched (especially if Agents are doing the searching). Shiawase's MFID is a good example. Ask yourself what is more safe: asking some people you trust (your "friends") for potentially sensitive information, or Googling "Saeder-Krupp research facility security procedures."

In the end: do whatever keeps everyone happy and engaged in your game and your story. If doing tedious Data Search rolls is causing players to leave and go for pizza, then change it. If you refuse to change how you play (or your GM plays) keep in mind that you are making the choice to run the game, or allow the game to be run, like that. If we pulled Peter Taylor in front of us right now and said, "My group was getting bored with all these Data Search checks so I (as a GM) ruled that they would have to go talk to some contacts in order to get the more detailed info." I highly doubt that he would stand up and scream, "That's not cannon, you are hereby banned from every official SR event!" Play the game to have fun. Fix your group's problems. Don't blame them on the rules for them.

When it comes to general legwork, there is no reason to keep it off the matrix. When you're doing in-depth research, then you take stuff offline. But as far as Data Searches go, a botch or critical botch on a Data Search only gives you bad information; a botch or critical botch on a Contact test could lead you right into a trap. (BBB, p 281.) Google is safer, if only because of the sheer volume of people searching it. No human mind could filter it all.

But in the end: Just saying: "Change up your GM style" doesn't help when you're the player. If you've got a house rule to propose, I'm ready for it-- I'd love to have something substantial I could take to a GM as a house rule. But without something solid to propose, anything I say or do will sound like I'm criticizing his GM style. I don't think anyone here would appreciate that, so why inflict it on someone else?

[MaxMahem]

My favorite quote from last time we discussed this:

SR4 legwork sucks! When I GMed SR3 I decided that some data wasn't on the Matrix and that you couldn't find street rumors without talking to NPCs in the street, that you couldn't find sensitive data without breaking into the place where it was stored. I decided that some data was buried under tons of false rumors and search noise.

But with SR4 I decided that everything could be find on the Matrix (and I don't want non hacking character to buy the data search skill or an agent and a browse program), and now the hacker does all the legwork on the Matrix. I'm so frusterated!

Fact of the matter the amount, kind, and level of detail a GM gives out for any bit of Legwork is completely arbitrary. There are guidelines that he might follow if he wishes, but no hard and fast rules. Thus how and when data is given up to the players for leg-work or data search is completely at the GM's discretion.

I would also argue that there is also some misunderstanding of what data-search is an is not. Data search as a skill is designed to apply to both the Matrix as a whole, and to smaller networks. The examples presented reflect this. It may be reasonable to search for a Johnson's true ID after hacking into his corps server. But finding that information when trying to search the net at large would be much, much more difficult, if not impossible. Why is data search needed even within networks? Because in SR4 even a small network (like for a <A rating corp) holds a LOT of data. Finding the itty bitty bits you want within that can be quite a challange. I would argue that if a GM is giving up vital and sensative info while a Hacker is simply searching the matrix at large, he is probably doing something wrong, or doesn't understand the rules.

The other point ignored is what contacts can offer a character that data search can not. Data-search could find you all the snow-plow dealers in 100 mile radius fairly easily. But data-search can't find you one who is willing to lend you one at midnight during one of the heaviest snowstorms of the year without any ID or questions asked. For that, you need a contact. Contacts can DO things for you. Data search never can.

Lastly there may of course be dangers in a data search. When surfing the matrix at large not so much, but it's conceivable that some other entity could be keeping an eye out for unusual search requests about sensitive subjects. Or that the location bearing that data might be monitored in some way. For example, its highly probably that the UCAS's FBI has a hacker/agent monitoring the homepage of any Seattle Independence movement. Rember that data-search also only covers finding the location of the data. The actual act of retrieving it is separate, and could be complicated. As indicated above the data could be trapped, monitored, defended ect... Also obviously breaking into a node for a data search entails its own dangers.

I talked alot, but I still think Blade's quote above sums the situation up best.

[the_real_elwood]

I always figured that legwork would usually include casing out a building, doing some on-site investigation, or maybe trailing someone to get a sense of their schedule. I think most of those things are better investigated in person. Like, suppose your shadowrun team has to break into a building. Well, the decker searches the 'net and finds a building layout. Except, maybe the layout is old and security systems have been added/changed since they were published. There's plenty of ways to involve other characters, and frankly, I'd say that a good amount of the relevant information simply can't be found in the Matrix.

[Cain]

None of that changes the fact that, while the decker is hunting down a laundry list of topics, the other players may as well be on a soda run. And there's a good chance that the decker might develop a few new leads as he searches, leading to even more searching. Even if you decide that essential information is mysteriously not on the matrix, the PC won't know that, and will make at least one Extended Test to look for information that isn't there. So, we have a wasted dice roll on top of all the others.

As far as the "dangers" of a Data Search goes, there is nothing in the BBB indicating that such a search can be traced back to you. OTOH, there's a good chance that a contact search could turn into a trap, and the rules are right there in your hymnal. So, unless there's something in Unwired that I missed, by RAW there is no danger in a Data Search roll.

[Kingsnake]

...Man, this discussion made a lot more sense to me at the beginning...

I mean, I get that the way the SR4 adventures present "legwork" is a bit oversimplified, but I can't help but think that the old adage 'it's there if you need it, but if you don't like it, lose it' applies.

For my money, I never give my characters info that I don't want them to have. If a piece of info is really good, I'm going to make them work for it, whether it's in the Matrix or not.

As a GM you have to try to balance it all out. And in the end, what fun is the run if the legwork is too easy? So give the simplest info easily (Data Search) and make the best info difficult (Matrix run/or face time). Either way though, as a GM, it's your job to make sure everyone has fun with your game.

Hackers are the data-monsters, so they should provide the overall framework, but let everyone else flesh out some good stuff too...

Too simple? I dunno? I can't think of a great house rule except to say that a data search only gets you to (this level) of information. From there, get off yer lazy PC arse and give me some creative ways of getting an edge on your competition.

[MaxMahem]

None of that changes the fact that, while the decker is hunting down a laundry list of topics, the other players may as well be on a soda run. And there's a good chance that the decker might develop a few new leads as he searches, leading to even more searching. Even if you decide that essential information is mysteriously not on the matrix, the PC won't know that, and will make at least one Extended Test to look for information that isn't there. So, we have a wasted dice roll on top of all the others.

A typical Data Search test can be handled by a simple extended test, which takes all of 30 seconds. At which point you either hand over the data, or don't. If the data you give the player leads to more questions, he might make another test. Which again takes all of 30 seconds (at most). I'm begging to question whether you have actually run any actual data searches in your games, it should rarely be a lengthy process, even if making multiple inquiries. Typically a players meeting with a real contact takes much more time real life time. Especially if you decided to role-play out the meet, or have it take place in an interesting location.

Now if you are referring to hacker actually penetrating a specific node to get info, you have another story all together. If anything this has vastly improved in SR4 as a data run can be handled in a handful of rolls if you desire. But its no different in being a solo activity then a mage's astrally scouting a place or a ninja doing some stealthy snooping.

As for data 'mysteriously' not being on the matrix, there's nothing mysterious about it at all. In fact it would be foolish and contrary to common sense for sensitive data (like guard schedules, building layouts, ect...) publicly accessible from the matrix. Recall again that data searching for these sorts of things is only intended to be used in this manner when already inside such a node. Assuming they are acessible from any where in the matrix is a naive and foolish interpretation of the rules.

As far as the "dangers" of a Data Search goes, there is nothing in the BBB indicating that such a search can be traced back to you. OTOH, there's a good chance that a contact search could turn into a trap, and the rules are right there in your hymnal. So, unless there's something in Unwired that I missed, by RAW there is no danger in a Data Search roll.

You must have totally missed what I wrote then. By RAW a data search only gives you the location where the data is stored. Actually retrieving the data is a separate action (specifically a Transfer Data action). Which requires connecting and possibly penetrating the node (which a full matrix search does not necessarily). In many cases a GM can simplify these two actions because retrieving data from the public library or a rumor mill BBS is rarely interesting. But if the data is stored on a server monitored by a corp/FBI or is trapped in someway, a GM would be well within his rights to create some complications if he felt they were warranted. Just as a GM would be within his rights to include an encounter with some gangers on a meet with some contacts in Redmond if he wished. Though the BBB says nothing about that either.

[Fortune]

I have to say that I have never experienced the problem with Hackers in SR4 that Cain describes, either as a GM or a Player. In previous editions, Deckers were a nightmare, but with the new edition things seem to flow better.

Also, I can't recall exactly where right now, but I do seem to recall off-line storage being mentioned several times in the SR4 books.

[the_real_elwood]

None of that changes the fact that, while the decker is hunting down a laundry list of topics, the other players may as well be on a soda run. And there's a good chance that the decker might develop a few new leads as he searches, leading to even more searching. Even if you decide that essential information is mysteriously not on the matrix, the PC won't know that, and will make at least one Extended Test to look for information that isn't there. So, we have a wasted dice roll on top of all the others.

As far as the "dangers" of a Data Search goes, there is nothing in the BBB indicating that such a search can be traced back to you. OTOH, there's a good chance that a contact search could turn into a trap, and the rules are right there in your hymnal. So, unless there's something in Unwired that I missed, by RAW there is no danger in a Data Search roll.

So the problem isn't with the the concept of the legwork, the problem is with the decking rules necessitating decker-only action, to the exclusion of all the other PC's. I only ever played SR3, but we had the same problems then, and frankly, no one ever really played a decker. If we needed decking done for a mission, we either paid one, or the Johnson provided a decker for the parts of the mission where they were necessary.

[Cain]

A typical Data Search test can be handled by a simple extended test, which takes all of 30 seconds. At which point you either hand over the data, or don't. If the data you give the player leads to more questions, he might make another test. Which again takes all of 30 seconds (at most).

Now, multiply that by the 60 or so Data Searches that every team should be rolling, and you've taken up a half hour of game time. Enough time for a pizza. Most of these, of course, won't pan out; but each one forces the GM to come up with something, which usually takes more than 30 seconds per. And while 60 might sound like a lot, it's actually a lowball estimate of some games I've played in. There was one game where I left, came back about a hour later, and they were *still* rolling Data Search tests!

As for data 'mysteriously' not being on the matrix, there's nothing mysterious about it at all. In fact it would be foolish and contrary to common sense for sensitive data (like guard schedules, building layouts, ect...) publicly accessible from the matrix.

Oddly enough, sensitive data is exactly what the Data Search skill example entails. One example is "Finding a Mr. Johnson's real identity", which someone previously said should not be on the Matrix.

Recall again that data searching for these sorts of things is only intended to be used in this manner when already inside such a node. Assuming they are acessible from any where in the matrix is a naive and foolish interpretation of the rules.

I'm afraid you're wrong, here:

USING DATA SEARCH SKILL
Your Data Search skill represents your ability to track
down information online, whether you’re sorting through a
single database or mining the entire Matrix.

So, you are intended to be data searching the whole matrix at once.

By RAW a data search only gives you the location where the data is stored. Actually retrieving the data is a separate action (specifically a Transfer Data action).

Again, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on that one.

Once you’ve
found what you’re looking for, you don’t need to search for it
again—unless the information has been relocated or deleted,
of course.

You don't need to perform a Transfer Data action.

Also, I can't recall exactly where right now, but I do seem to recall off-line storage being mentioned several times in the SR4 books.

If you could find it, I'd appreciate it. I can't recall seeing any reference to it at all, but I might be remembering wrong.

So the problem isn't with the the concept of the legwork, the problem is with the decking rules necessitating decker-only action, to the exclusion of all the other PC's. I only ever played SR3, but we had the same problems then, and frankly, no one ever really played a decker. If we needed decking done for a mission, we either paid one, or the Johnson provided a decker for the parts of the mission where they were necessary.

More or less. The problem with playing deckers in SR3 was the "dungeon within a dungeon" aspect, which could be beaten by putting the paydata in offline storage. That forced the decker to come along. Now, in SR4, there's actually slightly less incentive to come along. The dungeon issue has been partly resolved, but now legwork is a major issue. Powerful matrix searching tools simply didn't exist in SR3, which makes the decker king of information.

[MaxMahem]

Now, multiply that by the 60 or so Data Searches that every team should be rolling, and you've taken up a half hour of game time. Enough time for a pizza. Most of these, of course, won't pan out; but each one forces the GM to come up with something, which usually takes more than 30 seconds per. And while 60 might sound like a lot, it's actually a lowball estimate of some games I've played in. There was one game where I left, came back about a hour later, and they were *still* rolling Data Search tests!

Of course! Just what any reasonable person would assume, the problem isn't with rolling 60 data search tests, which is a perfectly reasonable use of the players time. It must have to do with the core of the data search rules! I mean, if those rules took 5 seconds each it would have only been 30 minutes! I'm pretty sure your alone here with your '60 data search tests' lunacy.

Oddly enough, sensitive data is exactly what the Data Search skill example entails. One example is "Finding a Mr. Johnson's real identity", which someone previously said should not be on the Matrix.

The examples most notably don't differ between which are examples of searching the whole matrix, and which are applicable to searching a network, and which are applicable to searching a node. One would assume you would apply some common sense to this situation then. And not let players use a simple data search of the matrix from their pad to find "the specific paydata file you were hired to snitch" and complete the run in a couple minutes. But you know what they say about common sense...

Maybe you should re-read this rules section with a more critical eye? Your analysis of it is laughably incorrect. Again the rules are clearly intend for one skill (Data Search) to be used in a variety of different situations (searching a node, a network, the matrix, looking for a comm signal, ect...) with different results as appropriate for the situation. Assuming that you can find the same info by searching the matrix as you could by searching a specific node is just foolish.

Once you've found what you're looking for, you don't need to search for it again unless the information has been relocated or deleted, of course.

You don't need to perform a Transfer Data action.

The rules don't say that at all! They simply say you don't have to search for something you've already found again, unless it has been relocated or deleted, of course. The very fact that you might want to search for the data again should indicate that transferring it is a separate action. As should the existence of the Transfer Data action! I mean why transfer data to your commlink ever (and run the risk of logic bombs and the like) if you could simply access it via data search!

Now obviously there are going to be lots of time where going into the detail of a transfer data action isn't going to be necessary. But there are going to be plenty of situations where it is significant. Like when you have to log on to a terrorist's node to retrieve bomb making plans.

[Cain]

Your analysis of it is laughably incorrect. Again the rules are clearly intend for one skill (Data Search) to be used in a variety of different situations (searching a node, a network, the matrix, looking for a comm signal, ect...) with different results as appropriate for the situation. Assuming that you can find the same info by searching the matrix as you could by searching a specific node is just foolish.

Nope, I'm still right and you're still wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Seriously, though, the rules give a difficulty modifier for searching a node vs searching the whole matrix, via the almighty "GM discretion" that SR4 cannot live without. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) It does not say that the quality of the information changes, just the difficulty. So, by RAW, you still get the same information, no matter what you search. There's also no mention of a Transfer Data roll needed; although most of the time, Transfer Data doesn't even need a roll! No decking required, it just happens.

I'll also point you at On The Run and Shadowrun Missions, both of which do not distinguish the quality of information based on how you use Data Search. They have different levels of information based on successes, but no difference in quality. In fact, the only way to affect the quality seems to be a botch/critical botch. So, basically 100% of the official modules say that Data Search is the best way to track down information.

[MaxMahem]

Nope, I'm still right and you're still wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Consider with me for a moment. You are repeatedly comming to these forums, claiming that your interpretation of the rules leads to these absurd broken results. Others respond to you that your interpretation of the rules is incorrect, and, when interpreted correctly no such absurd situations occurs. Now, if you continue to persist in sticking to your admittedly broken interpretation, might one assume that you are in fact looking for a problem and not a solution?

Seriously, though, the rules give a difficulty modifier for searching a node vs searching the whole matrix, via the almighty "GM discretion" that SR4 cannot live without. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) It does not say that the quality of the information changes, just the difficulty. So, by RAW, you still get the same information, no matter what you search. There's also no mention of a Transfer Data roll needed; although most of the time, Transfer Data doesn't even need a roll! No decking required, it just happens.

It is because of the presences of a 'almighty GM discretion' that the rules can assume the players will have some rationality when approaching the rules. The examples list 4 different kinds of information you might search for. Now common sense would seem to dictate that while some of these examples would be appropriate for searching for data on the net (the latest online rumors about Ares), while some would obviously not be (the specific pay data file you were hired to snatch). They also note that the GM is free to modify the threshold or dice pool as he feels appropriate for the situation. How you can get that its appropriate to search for any data, anywhere from this is beyond me. By your same logic, I should be freely able to search my own commlink for the secrets about the identity of Juan Atzcapotzalco, after all there is no difference in quality of data, no matter what you search.

The same common sense reasoning would also lead one to assume that getting data from a node would require accessing that node, and that data, and then transferring it to your commlink. Which normally is a simple operation, with no rolls necessary, but does not have to be. Again, following you logic next time the GM sends me on a data run I can bypass all that and simply perform a data search and retrieve it all without any effort.

I'll also point you at On The Run and Shadowrun Missions, both of which do not distinguish the quality of information based on how you use Data Search. They have different levels of information based on successes, but no difference in quality. In fact, the only way to affect the quality seems to be a botch/critical botch. So, basically 100% of the official modules say that Data Search is the best way to track down information.

I don't have On The Run on hand right now as reference, but I have run virtually all of the Shadowrun Mission modules. And I know that quite a number of them very much DO make a distinction between data that can be found on the Matrix, and what can be found by contacts. Some of them don't even list legwork tables for Data-Search at all, mentioning only Contacts who could get that information.

[Cain]

Consider with me for a moment. You are repeatedly comming to these forums, claiming that your interpretation of the rules leads to these absurd broken results. Others respond to you that your interpretation of the rules is incorrect, and, when interpreted correctly no such absurd situations occurs. Now, if you continue to persist in sticking to your admittedly broken interpretation, might one assume that you are in fact looking for a problem and not a solution?

Close, but the way I see it happening is usually thusly:

1. I find a rule that is broken or hideously incorrect, or comment on a similar rule someone else finds.
2. Someone says: "The rule isn't broken, because you can make up a house rule to fix it."
3. I point out that if it needs fixing, it was broken in the first place.
4. The cries of "Heretic!" and "Infidel!" begin. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

I'm not sticking to a "broken interpretation", I'm discussing the RAW. If the RAW are broken, then we need to admit it, and fix it. Fixing it without admitting there's a problem is a serious mistake.

Now common sense would seem to dictate that while some of these examples would be appropriate for searching for data on the net (the latest online rumors about Ares), while some would obviously not be (the specific pay data file you were hired to snatch).

Since when has "common sense" been a major factor in game mechanics?

I don't have On The Run on hand right now as reference, but I have run virtually all of the Shadowrun Mission modules. And I know that quite a number of them very much DO make a distinction between data that can be found on the Matrix, and what can be found by contacts. Some of them don't even list legwork tables for Data-Search at all, mentioning only Contacts who could get that information.

I'm afraid you're mistaken again, or at least not looking at the Legwork section of the modules. What I see is a bunch of charts on various topics, and a listing of what information you get for X successes. It doesn't matter how you score those successes-- you could be Data Searching your own navel, although the rules do give suggestions of where to look-- all that matters is that you score between 1-5 successes when researching a topic. You could be searching the matrix as a whole, or his personal diary, you get the same information. No difference in quality, the information is exactly the same.

[Blade]

I have to say that I have never experienced the problem with Hackers in SR4 that Cain describes, either as a GM or a Player. In previous editions, Deckers were a nightmare, but with the new edition things seem to flow better.

Also, I can't recall exactly where right now, but I do seem to recall off-line storage being mentioned several times in the SR4 books.

Same here... I guess we are (and play only with) very good GM. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

@Cain: The problem is that most of the time you're the only one to find something broken, and most of the time it's only due to the way you choose to read and apply the rules. So most of the time it's something like :

1. You find a rule that you say is broken or hideously incorrect, or comment on a similar rule someone else finds.
2. People tell you that it's not broken because you've been reading it wrong, or not applying it the way it is intended, or because you're ignoring a part of the rule.
3. You insist that it is broken, because you've played with an "official GM" (who I guess is perfect and never wrong) and had the problem.
4. The discussion goes downhill.