Effect of programs, alternative to SR4A and Unwired option Options

[kombofink]

Second post also regarding the Matrix.
I'm one of those who don't like the skill + program mechanics in the normal ruleset.
However I'm also having problems with the limiting effect of max hits = program rating (even if you just halve the hits above the rating), this rule is similar to magic, but is still extremely restricted by program ratings.

So without having ever played a hacker (or decker) and even used matrix rules before, I'll go out on a limb and suggest the following two rules as a rule (only one of them will be used, off course) for my own group:

a.
Any matrix action using a program less than the system node, suffers a -2 dice modifier on any test using that program per program rating below the system node. (so using an attack program 3 in a rating 6 node would incur a -6 DP modifier).

b.
Another way to do this would be to add the difference between the system rating and program rating as a threshold.
(using an attack 3 on a rating 6 node would add 3 threshold to any test).

This way you can hack even without programs (but with heavy dice modifiers or a large threshold)

The programs in the "system" package (see my program packages post (armor, realityfilter, biofeedback, eccm, firewall)) would work normally, and not be affected (?).

Would this be totally unplayable? Is there any problems with any of these two ways?

[deek]

It would be pretty unplayable. Let's look at an example:

Commlink with all 2s
Data Search 4 (which is really good)
No Browse Program

In your system, that's a die pool of 4 (skill + program) with a -4 DP mod, so they can't do the test without edge or a long shot. Your rule b. would have a die pool of 4 with a threshold of 2. Doable, but still fairly unplayable, as if the player doesn't have Browse, they are not likely to spend many points in Data Search.

Have you considered using skill + program limited by Logic? That's the other option if you don't want to limit hits by program. I will say that limiting hits by program rating is not as restrictive in play as you may think. Our hacker has all programs at rating 5, and its pretty rare that he has to give up a successful hit due to his program rating...

[kombofink]

It seems that I forgot the dice pool: logic (or in some cases intuition) + skill (sticking to the attribute + skill), limited as noted. I know, this can yield very large dice pools, but that's not any different from the rest of the game.

[Malachi]

Have you considered using skill + program limited by Logic?

I use this rule in my games. My PC Hacker got a Cerebral Booster off of chargen so he has a Logic of 7. I don't think he's ever had to give up a hit (we ignore the limit when using Edge).

[deek]

I use this rule in my games. My PC Hacker got a Cerebral Booster off of chargen so he has a Logic of 7. I don't think he's ever had to give up a hit (we ignore the limit when using Edge).

I've been considering this rule, as its always cumbersome to tell my hacker, "Well, do a Hacking + Exploit test, which is really Hacking + Logic, limited by your Exploit program." Its just always a mouthful...I think I may just start saying use your Exploit program and let him figure out the rest himself...if that doesn't work, we may be switching to rolls limited by Logic.

[Chibu]

Why do you need to limit success? More importantly, why do you need to have a rule to limit it that no one ever attains? If it is extremely rare to get more successes than X limit, why not let them have been lucky (since that is essentially what is happening IRL) if they ever DO get more than that?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just don't understand the point.

[toolbox]

Why do you need to limit success? More importantly, why do you need to have a rule to limit it that no one ever attains? If it is extremely rare to get more successes than X limit, why not let them have been lucky (since that is essentially what is happening IRL) if they ever DO get more than that?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just don't understand the point.

I think some people dislike the fact that hacking rolls have no connection to mental stats and are trying to introduce some sort of link that isn't too horribly crippling in standard usage.

[deek]

I think some people dislike the fact that hacking rolls have no connection to mental stats and are trying to introduce some sort of link that isn't too horribly crippling in standard usage.

Ding, ding, ding!

The issue is not wanting to limit successes, it is the basic premise that a Logic 5 hacker shouldn't be equaled by a Logic 1 hacker, assuming the same gear. Now, if that is not an issue at your table, then no biggie.

[Chibu]

OH! ok. That makes alot more sense. When you put it like that, I think I probably would agree.

Correct me if my thought process here is flawed, but I might have something of an idea....

In effect, a skill and a program are pretty similar. Data Search is a skill that you use to find the data you're looking for. Browse is a program that does the same thing. I agree that a person with Higher logic/int would be better at using these. So, it would seem that since the two currently use as the Pool, need to somehow be incorporated together and added to Logic/int. Though, when using a program, like browse, is the hacker actually using her Data Search skill? I don't want to say "Pick the program or the Skill and add that to Log/Int" because that seems to deviate too far from how the designers envisioned it. Nor do I want to say "Average the Program rating with the Skill rating and add that to Log/Int", as this makes it harder for Hackers to get better than for anyone else (They would have to raise a skill, AND get a better program to add one to the Pool).

So, I suppose that I don't really have a solution to present. Though, the soultions persented (OP), seem to be rather detrimental to the hacker, rather than making the mechanic line up with the rest of them.

The only possible other solution that even comes to mind (though, I don't think it is a good solution) is to allow the hacker to replace a program rating with an attribute. Thus you would use either Attribute + Skill (as other skills) or Program + Skill (as written). This would be to say that if you're using a program, you are using it to replace your innate ability (attribute). This would be like using a calculator as opposed to figuring out a solution. Your skill is 'Solving Complex Equations" but you add either your calculator rating oryour Logic. If you're using a calculator, you don't have to do much thinking (as noted by kids these days not know how to do math becuase they use calculators for everything (my brother teaches HS Math)).

I dunno if this post is helpful at all, so take it as you will.

[Malachi]

I've been considering this rule, as its always cumbersome to tell my hacker, "Well, do a Hacking + Exploit test, which is really Hacking + Logic, limited by your Exploit program." Its just always a mouthful...I think I may just start saying use your Exploit program and let him figure out the rest himself...if that doesn't work, we may be switching to rolls limited by Logic.

Limiting hits by Logic also has the nice side-effect of not nerfing the crap out of TM's. When Program rating is part of your DP, Threading is super-duper powerful. When Program (or CF) rating simply limits hits, a TM will rarely ever Thread, driving them more to simply be "Sprite masters."

[kombofink]

When Program (or CF) rating simply limits hits, a TM will rarely ever Thread, driving them more to simply be "Sprite masters."

thanks, Malachi.
This makes sense. It is also the only good off-spring from the skill+program mechanics, IMO.

Hmmm
But, couldn't they just use threading on the skill? Supposing that I wanted to go with att + skill, limited by one of the methods from my original post. I know that this does not ring true to the feeling (threading your own skill), but threading is basically just a boost mechanics anyway... or what?

[Malachi]

Hmmm
But, couldn't they just use threading on the skill? Supposing that I wanted to go with att + skill, limited by one of the methods from my original post. I know that this does not ring true to the feeling (threading your own skill), but threading is basically just a boost mechanics anyway... or what?

Yeah, that would produce the same mechanical result, even though it "feels" a little strange. You would need to specify some sort of limit because the original rules for threading apply to only a single CF, whereas threading up a "skill" would have much more broad (and powerful) use. Given the somewhat "mystical" nature of the TM's abilities, it could be explained (fluff-wise) a few different ways.

[Heath Robinson]

Attribute + Skill + Program (Average of the ratings that compose the opposed DP)

Has the benefit of saving the GM some time rolling dice. It's no better or worse than the Medkit adding its Rating to your First Aid DP.

[Jaid]

Attribute + Skill + Program (Average of the ratings that compose the opposed DP)

Has the benefit of saving the GM some time rolling dice. It's no better or worse than the Medkit adding its Rating to your First Aid DP.

you'd have to modify all the thresholds and such. they're not designed to handle dice pools of the size you're proposing.

another one i've seen is to just use skill + attribute, remove program ratings entirely, increase the cost of a commlink by multiplying it by it's own response, and just giving a penalty to a test if you don't have the program loaded. technomancers were able to thread for +1 die, iirc, and if program (or any other) rating was ever required you would use the response of the commlink iirc. which kinda made sense, because not often will you see people running a program of a lesser rating than their response anyways...

[edit] i can't recall who to give credit for this idea, though... [/edit]