Can Legwork be done on the Matrix?, The REAL poll. Options

[Malachi]

I haven't picked up Ghost Cartels so I don't know if it uses Legwork Tables but On The Run did and was fairly specific. So let's carry that thought over into GM created adventures. Let's say a GM models his game structure after published adventures (full disclosure: I do this as it keeps things simple for me) and creates Legwork Topics. He sets a threshold to achieve a certain amount of information about a specific topic. Is, by RAW, the Data Search skill the only sure-fire way to hit those thresholds?

Let me see if I can summarize Cain's beef with this in SR4:
1. The group should ideally use the method that gives them the best chance to achieve the maximum hits on every Legwork chart.
2. Contacts have knowledge of a narrow range of topics, the Matrix has knowledge of all topics.
3. Data Search rolls are Extended Tests, so they can continue to be rolled until maximum hits are achieved. Contact checks are a one-shot giving the player a limited chance to achieve maximum hits.
4. THEREFORE, Data Search tests are the clear-cut superior method to doing Legwork because the Matrix ALWAYS has the information, and (unless a Glitch is rolled) achieving max hits is only a matter of time.

Thus, in Cain's group the Hacker does all Legwork, rolling mountains of dice on every conceivable topic (he said in excess of 60 different topics in a game session), taking hours of gameplay time, while everyone else goes out for pizza. Cain's opinion is that this is how the RAW suggest Legwork should be done.

Others (including myself) disagree and believe that not all info is available on the Matrix, Cain believes that the RAW state/suggest otherwise. Thus, we arrive here at this poll.

The more I think about this, I'm coming to the conclusion that published adventures with those Legwork charts in the back are largely to blame for a lot of this. They encourage lazy, video-game like play style from the GM ("The book says you need to search for work 'blah' so I'm going to sit here until you say you are searching for 'blah'). It reminds me of those incredibly frustrating typing adventure games where you had to type almost endless variations of "LOOK AT THING" or "SEARCH THING" or some other special "key word" before the game would give you what you needed to continue. RPGs should avoid this formula at all costs and GM's should attempt to make the game flow in as "natural" a way as possible, involving all players at the table.

I haven't picked up Ghost Cartels...

Ghost Cartels uses "adventure frameworks" rather than fully fleshed-out adventures and I like that much more. The "legwork" sections of the Ghost Cartels frameworks look like this:

Th e fi rst step for the shadowrunners is good old-fashioned
legwork. It can be as diffi cult or straightforward as the gamemaster
wants.
Contacts in the gang world can help the runners fi gure out
what the First Nations has been up to since parting ways with
the Yakuza. On the surface, the gang has been working with
various factions to increase its infl uence in the Seattle area and
beyond (a chapter has recently formed in Vancouver). Preeminent
among these are the Koshari (looking to expand into Seattle), the
Dogmen and the Komun’go Seoulpa Ring (both of are provided
with much needed muscle by the First Nations). As a result of
these partnerships, the First Nations has expanded its operations
into the Verge in Redmond.

I like this format because it forces the GM to actually do their job rather than staring at a chart and waiting for players to tell them the "magic word" and roll a butt-load of hits on their Data Search test. Down with Legwork charts.

[Cain]

Let me see if I can summarize Cain's beef with this in SR4:
1. The group should ideally use the method that gives them the best chance to achieve the maximum hits on every Legwork chart.
2. Contacts have knowledge of a narrow range of topics, the Matrix has knowledge of all topics.
3. Data Search rolls are Extended Tests, so they can continue to be rolled until maximum hits are achieved. Contact checks are a one-shot giving the player a limited chance to achieve maximum hits.
4. THEREFORE, Data Search tests are the clear-cut superior method to doing Legwork because the Matrix ALWAYS has the information, and (unless a Glitch is rolled) achieving max hits is only a matter of time.

Thus, in Cain's group the Hacker does all Legwork, rolling mountains of dice on every conceivable topic (he said in excess of 60 different topics in a game session), taking hours of gameplay time, while everyone else goes out for pizza. Cain's opinion is that this is how the RAW suggest Legwork should be done.

Not quite, but close.

First of all, it's not exactly "my " groups, since I'm not the GM for all of them. I've also heard about a few people having the same problem here. It also doesn't take "hours", I've never even said that. My examples were 30 min-1hr. Still long enough for pizza. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Second, a distinction needs to be drawn between the "information gathering" phase of a run (legwork) and the preparation stage of a run (prepwork). Once you have a plan, you can unleash your face and others to get gear, meet people, spread bribes, and so on and so forth. Once you get there, the decker's role is substantially lessened. Some people are confusing this phase with legwork.

But when it comes to gathering information, the decker is king. You can amass a lot of data on a lot of things very quickly. Especially for the dozens of questions that players ask in both the prepwork and legwork sections of a run. I've had all sorts of crazy questions come up ("Where can I steal a snowplow?" is a famous one) and I expect lots more from the players ("Who makes their uniforms? Who does their laundry? What kind of soap do they use?")

[noonesshowmonkey]

In abstract I have used a bipartisan system wherein certain kinds of information have a primary gathering trait as either social or matrix. An example would be a run where the group has to find and kidnap a member of the Triads for whatever reason.

Certain kinds of information are available on the matrix if you look hard enough - things like call logs or purchase histories of known aliases. Generally speaking information gathered from running Matrix searches is of dubious utility unless the players either exert more skill checks or nuyen on the problem. They can find purchase histories but there is too much data to parse and they have no idea what they are looking at - there are just too many John Lee's out there purchasing stuff. If they pay someone a lot of nuyen, a data broker for example, they can get information that is significantly more useful - they actually will recieve some prepared information regarding their target (or I will have to make something up that will be useful on the spot).

Social information such as the low down on the most recent yakuza - triad gang war in detail beyond what can be found on the evening news is harder to get a hold of. Information which is most often held off the grid - contact names, safe houses, impending meets or buys etc. - are Social primary information gathering checks. These can be attempted by Matrix checks but I treat their thresholds as significantly higher in both hits and cost (time and money). Social networking, however, can reveal far more information, generally faster and with less cost.

A lot of what I do when I manage the information that my players can recieve has to do with prioritizing the difficulty, exposure and propogation of the information that they are seeking. Some things are held on public record with analogues of the Bureau of Land Management or the like. Others can be found if you dig deeper within other sources. Some information is simply not public domain. I generally handle a player going above and beyond with data mining to do a quick hacking run against a few nodes at rating 4-6 depending on the value of the information. He tells me what he is trying to do and where he is trying to find it, I think about it, maybe offer a suggestion... and then we hack.

But thats the crux of it to me. Hacking is what gets mission essential information. Social meets gets mission essential information. Rolling mitfuls of dice can get you helpful bits, but rarely anything else. I don't care how many hits you got.

[Wesley Street]

I like this format because it forces the GM to actually do their job rather than staring at a chart and waiting for players to tell them the "magic word" and roll a butt-load of hits on their Data Search test. Down with Legwork charts.

Woah, hey now! I like Legwork Tables. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But, yes, waiting for a player to say Today's Secret Word is absolutely not in the spirit of the rules. A GM should be flexible. I do like your analogy of the old text-adventure RPGs. That's completely counter to the organic style of live-action role-playing. I'm more in line with the notion that a game should be more improvisational theater than Choose Your Own Adventure. Or it should hold that illusion, anyway.

Second, a distinction needs to be drawn between the "information gathering" phase of a run (legwork) and the preparation stage of a run (prepwork). Once you have a plan, you can unleash your face and others to get gear, meet people, spread bribes, and so on and so forth. Once you get there, the decker's role is substantially lessened. Some people are confusing this phase with legwork.

Agreed.

I've had all sorts of crazy questions come up ("Where can I steal a snowplow?" is a famous one) and I expect lots more from the players ("Who makes their uniforms? Who does their laundry? What kind of soap do they use?")

If players are making Data Search rolls for every mundane detail of a target, I can see how your game would bog down. The GM is requiring too many unnecessary dice rolls that add nothing to the game. I would suggest having the PCs create a list of questions they want to find the answers to together and the GM can make a fair determination of what the Data Search roll threshold would be in order to gather all of it. If there's a logical correlation between questions asked (ie: uniform tailors, dry-cleaners, soap manufacturers) that can all be summarized in one Data Search roll as that kind of information would all be equally easy to find. Now, which megacorp bred the target building's barghast security animals and which local cleaner does the guards' laundry would probably require more than one roll as those are probably differing levels of difficulty.

[AllTheNothing]

I'm too lazy to read all this pile of posts so I will just say it dependes on what you are looking for; things that generate hipe will have alot of coverage (even if little of it actualy is usefull), while other info are in some anonimous archive that only people that know where to look would find it and has strong security that must be cracked before you can get a hold of the prize. Heck some info might not be on the matrix at all, just think if you're looking for a squatter escaped from a lab (of which the parent corp know nothing of course) with some experimental bioware in him/her, and this nobody-ever-existed is laying down in Glow City, are you going to surf the matrix or to hand some cash to the Rusted Stilettos for the info (after it's proven riable)?

All in all I think it should be 50%, something for the hacker/'mancer, something for anyone with contacts, everything in the fate's hands (and GM's too).

[Cain]

If players are making Data Search rolls for every mundane detail of a target, I can see how your game would bog down. The GM is requiring too many unnecessary dice rolls that add nothing to the game. I would suggest having the PCs create a list of questions they want to find the answers to together and the GM can make a fair determination of what the Data Search roll threshold would be in order to gather all of it. If there's a logical correlation between questions asked (ie: uniform tailors, dry-cleaners, soap manufacturers) that can all be summarized in one Data Search roll as that kind of information would all be equally easy to find. Now, which megacorp bred the target building's barghast security animals and which local cleaner does the guards' laundry would probably require more than one roll as those are probably differing levels of difficulty.

That would help, except for the fact that the few times I've seen it happen (missions games, mostly) the team put together a laundry list of things they wanted the decker to Data Search for, then get up and go for pizza. Combined with switching attention, this trick does keep people from going on soda runs, but still leaves the decker as the centerpiece. When we hit the planning phases, this can be mollified by having players come up with the next question on the spot: "No snowplows? What about a bulldozer?"

I'd also say that while combining some things would work, there's a lot of information that shouldn't be combined. Who trained their barghests and what soap they use in their laundry are a good example of information that shouldn't be combined, no matter how easy it is to get.

[Malachi]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I had never differentiated between a "legwork" section and a "preparation" section of a run. If you're defining "legwork" as simply "gathering mundane facts relating to things about the run" then, yes, your decker/hacker would dominate this portion. However, in my sessions this mundane "fact gathering" time doesn't take up very much time at all. When I GM if info is public and what I would call "trivially accessible" then I don't even make them roll for it. Suggest to your GM that he use the (very RAW) "buy hits" chart for the really easy stuff.

Another suggestion would be to do your legwork/preparation sections "topically" rather than in stages. So for instance if they have some plan revolving around the cleaning company, then do all the stuff relating to that part of the plan first. While your sneaky guys are breaking into the cleaning company's office to steal some uniforms, the Hacker can be off researching the next topic. That should help keep things moving and keep everyone interested.

[Wesley Street]

That would help, except for the fact that the few times I've seen it happen (missions games, mostly) the team put together a laundry list of things they wanted the decker to Data Search for, then get up and go for pizza. Combined with switching attention, this trick does keep people from going on soda runs, but still leaves the decker as the centerpiece. When we hit the planning phases, this can be mollified by having players come up with the next question on the spot: "No snowplows? What about a bulldozer?"

The Commando GM should have combined questions of obviously equal sensitivity into one roll. Missions adventures are for conventions and are designed to be completed in a few hours at most. That was some poor management on his part. I also can't imagine that a reasonable group of players couldn't devise a set of questions for a Missions adventure that could be answered in a handful of Data Search rolls. I've been running Missions adventures with my group as filler games and my players have hardly ever needed to do any of the Legwork bits as they're very straightforward stories. I'd also say that those players who left the table were being incredibly impatient and borderline rude. As a GM I'd be very peeved if the group just up and left me alone with a single player simply because they weren't in the spotlight for a few minutes.

I'd also say that while combining some things would work, there's a lot of information that shouldn't be combined. Who trained their barghests and what soap they use in their laundry are a good example of information that shouldn't be combined, no matter how easy it is to get.

Agreed but that's the GM's fiat. If the group is getting restless, it might be time to combine Data Searching into fewer rolls.

[Cain]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I had never differentiated between a "legwork" section and a "preparation" section of a run. If you're defining "legwork" as simply "gathering mundane facts relating to things about the run" then, yes, your decker/hacker would dominate this portion. However, in my sessions this mundane "fact gathering" time doesn't take up very much time at all. When I GM if info is public and what I would call "trivially accessible" then I don't even make them roll for it. Suggest to your GM that he use the (very RAW) "buy hits" chart for the really easy stuff.

Another suggestion would be to do your legwork/preparation sections "topically" rather than in stages. So for instance if they have some plan revolving around the cleaning company, then do all the stuff relating to that part of the plan first. While your sneaky guys are breaking into the cleaning company's office to steal some uniforms, the Hacker can be off researching the next topic. That should help keep things moving and keep everyone interested.

The mundane fact-gathering takes time because of volume, yes, but legwork is more than that. This is where you amass your clues to plan your run. For example, in On The Run, you have to do a lot of Data Searching to figure out what disk you're after, and follow a trail of breadcrumbs until you reach Nabo. Once you've researched Nabo, or at least know he's received the email, then the whole team cuts loose with their weird and wacky plans. But until then, you're stuck asking questions into the electronic ether. I know what the book says, but that assumes that you'll have a contact who's even tangentally connected to obsolete music disks.

[Wesley Street]

I know what the book says, but that assumes that you'll have a contact who's even tangentally connected to obsolete music disks.

They players did have a contact who was more than tangentially connected to obsolete music disks: Mr. Johnson/Darius. The players also have fixers; and if they didn't one was provided in the form of Smiley. Fixers are job and info brokers and can usually provide whatever answer a team needs, provided the PCs have the in-game time to wait for a call-back. Fixers are uber.

[Malachi]

The mundane fact-gathering takes time because of volume, yes, but legwork is more than that. This is where you amass your clues to plan your run. For example, in On The Run, you have to do a lot of Data Searching to figure out what disk you're after, and follow a trail of breadcrumbs until you reach Nabo. Once you've researched Nabo, or at least know he's received the email, then the whole team cuts loose with their weird and wacky plans. But until then, you're stuck asking questions into the electronic ether. I know what the book says, but that assumes that you'll have a contact who's even tangentally connected to obsolete music disks.

As I said before, I don't like the published adventures' Legwork charts, I think they too often influence GM's to "stick to the script" rather than just having the adventure flow in a natural way (thus leading to the text-based adventure game scenario I described earlier). I've run On the Run 3 times now. The first time I ran it, I decided that the "Nabo" connection couldn't be made with a Data Search test. My player's didn't think any of their contacts could help (even though both had some fairly well-connected fixers/fences) so they attempted a Matrix search. When that turned up nothing, they got frustrated at the roadblocks until I essentially just told them to call their fixers. Bad GM'ing on my part, I will freely admit. The second time, the players (again) didn't think their contacts had any info on the music industry so they did a Data Search. In the interests of keeping the adventure going I let them discover the Nabo connection from the search and the session moved on from there (total play time: 90 seconds). The third time I ran it, my players were veteran SR3'ers and knew that Fixers/Fences would know about all interesting items for sale on the black market. They called the contact, I rolled a few dice for formality (I wasn't going to let the contact fail to know about Nabo, again, in the interest of keeping the adventure going), and then told them of the Nabo connection (again total play time: about 90 seconds).

Bottom line (and I think I've said this before): if the players need a piece of Legwork information in order to move the adventure forward, then let them find it. Doing anything else is just being a finicky GM, IMO.

[Cain]

They players did have a contact who was more than tangentially connected to obsolete music disks: Mr. Johnson/Darius. The players also have fixers; and if they didn't one was provided in the form of Smiley. Fixers are job and info brokers and can usually provide whatever answer a team needs, provided the PCs have the in-game time to wait for a call-back. Fixers are uber.

Mr. Johnson was also very restricted in what information he'd give the team. Besides which, if he already knew about Nabo, why wouldn't he tell the team in the first place? It'd be in his best interest to do so. Fixers are fine, except they cost money, and they're not typically antique dealers. Smiley also doesn't have any knowledge skills relating to music.

Bottom line (and I think I've said this before): if the players need a piece of Legwork information in order to move the adventure forward, then let them find it. Doing anything else is just being a finicky GM, IMO.

Let them find it is fine, but as you pointed out, handing it to them on a silver platter is not good either.

[Wesley Street]

Fixers are fine, except they cost money, and they're not typically antique dealers. Smiley also doesn't have any knowledge skills relating to music.

Who says fixers cost money? That's not in the RAW, that's GM fiat. Smiley didn't have music knowledge but as a fixer he would have known someone who did.

[Cain]

Who says fixers cost money? That's not in the RAW, that's GM fiat. Smiley didn't have music knowledge but as a fixer he would have known someone who did.

Fixers costing money is a genre convention. And fixers are not omniscient. He wouldn't be guaranteed to know anyone in the music industry, or who deals in antique technology. If he did, that would essentially be the same as handing the info to them. But the bottom line is, fixers don't know everything and everyone. They have a large contact network dealing with a variety of information, but usually specialized in one or two areas.

[Wesley Street]

Fixers costing money is a genre convention. And fixers are not omniscient. He wouldn't be guaranteed to know anyone in the music industry, or who deals in antique technology. If he did, that would essentially be the same as handing the info to them. But the bottom line is, fixers don't know everything and everyone. They have a large contact network dealing with a variety of information, but usually specialized in one or two areas.

The players, the Game Master, and to some degree the setting determine what the genre's conventions are, not the rule mechanics. And what genre are we talking about here anyway? It doesn't matter. All I'm concerned with in this discussion are the rules and there is nothing written that says if a PC wants to tap a fixer, said PC must pay.

Check out the write-up of the fixer on in BBB. To paraphrase, he's the center of a web of information. If he doesn't know someone with needed knowledge, he'll know someone who knows someone. That's where a Fixer's Connection rating comes into play. That's right in the Using Contacts section of the BBB. A specialization simply means he can get the info that much faster, not that he can't get it at all.

[Cain]

Check out the write-up of the fixer on in BBB. To paraphrase, he's the center of a web of information. If he doesn't know someone with needed knowledge, he'll know someone who knows someone. That's where a Fixer's Connection rating comes into play. That's right in the Using Contacts section of the BBB. A specialization simply means he can get the info that much faster, not that he can't get it at all.

Just because he's in the center of a web, doesn't mean that web is all-encompassing. If a Fixer really knew everything, there'd be no need of Shadowrunners. Heck, the whole point of a Shadowrunner is to get things (like information) that you can't get any other way.

[Blade]

That On the Run example just shows that every shadowrunning group needs a Rockerboy.

[masterofm]

Fixers are not the end all be all. They probably know some runners, and they know a way to make things happen. Do they do everything for free? I think I can answer that question with another question... Is this Shadowrun? Fixers charge, Johnsons charge, and everyone skims off the top. If a fixer hands you over free information you bet your ass you owe them a favor and it will probably demand more then the information they gave you... if they just want a "favor." That or you will pay them. They might be the center of a web that is attached to other webs and those are in turn... ect ect, but guess what? Your hacker could probably find out the same thing if they looked hard enough.

I just don't see fixers setting up runners with that kind of intel on good faith.

[Wesley Street]

Hey, you all can flavor your games your way and I'll flavor my games my way; if I don't want my NPC fixers charging the PCs for every little thing that's my right as GM. However, how I or others view the setting of Shadowrun is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

My initial point stands: there's nothing in the RAW that in any way, shape or form states a fixer must charge PCs for information. Using the RAW Connection Rating rules, a fixer can find out whatever info is needed, if the GM so chooses. And I'm definitely not convinced that the RAW concerning Legwork are broken.

RAW RAW RAW! "I'm a monster!"

That On the Run example just shows that every shadowrunning group needs a Rockerboy.

\m/ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif) \m/

[DireRadiant]

Just because he's in the center of a web, doesn't mean that web is all-encompassing. If a Fixer really knew everything, there'd be no need of Shadowrunners. Heck, the whole point of a Shadowrunner is to get things (like information) that you can't get any other way.

Thought all you needed was Data Search!

[Malachi]

Thought all you needed was Data Search!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)
Love it!

If the test is successful and the contact knows something,
then the gamemaster will have to determine if the contact is
willing to share that information. Generally contacts will readily
share information if it’s inconsequential to them and they
wouldn’t be hurt if word got out. If the contact knows something
that he was asked to keep confi dential, or if he thought
he would be hurt if the wrong people learned he knew it, he
will be reluctant to share it. In this case, a Negotiation Test will
be necessary to get the contact to divulge what he knows; apply
the contact’s Loyalty rating as extra dice to this test.

[Cain]

Thought all you needed was Data Search!

That was Toturi, not me.

[Cain]

My initial point stands: there's nothing in the RAW that in any way, shape or form states a fixer must charge PCs for information. Using the RAW Connection Rating rules, a fixer can find out whatever info is needed, if the GM so chooses. And I'm definitely not convinced that the RAW concerning Legwork are broken.

As Malachi pointed out, there are rules indicating that contacts must charge for information a great deal of the time.

As far as the rules being "broken", I certainly haven't said that. If you mean "broken" in the sense that theyre overpowered, I certainly haven't said anything of the sort. If you mean "broken" in the sense that they're totally nonfunctional, I haven't said that either. What I have said is that legwork is heavily biased towards deckers, often to the point of excluding the other players. No one's said anything to contradict that.

[masterofm]

Honestly I think if loyalty would come into play this would be the time to make a call. Loyalty 1-3 is generally just biz and they will sell you up the river if they are handed money or pressured. A loyalty 4-6 will probably give you the information if you asked for free. Well I think it would make loyalty a little more useful as well.

[Wesley Street]

As Malachi pointed out, there are rules indicating that contacts must charge for information a great deal of the time.

That is not what the quoted rule states.