Alternate Hacking Systems, Post your own! Options

[Ascalaphus]

Much, much, much too long and intricate.

I thought the idea was to come up with something that's different to what currently exists, and different in it's use ??
I've not seen discussion and testing - just individuals putting their view forward.

I've been working on it, but writing up a solid system is pretty hard. I was getting quite a ways when the Spycraft idea landed, and it turned around a lot of my ideas.

My objective is a Matrix writeup of about 15 pages, including fluff, core rules and gear. More than that and it's just bloated.

[Teulisch]

part of the problem i have with the current matrix rules is the layout. its much too scattered about, so you have to know what your looking for in order to find it. the way the art breaks up parts of the matrix section in the old main book dosent help (dont have sr4a yet). really, the problem is one of clear technical writing. Although i would love to see someone do a pictograph for matrix rules like the instructions in a new computer or printer.

[Draco18s]

part of the problem i have with the current matrix rules is the layout. its much too scattered about, so you have to know what your looking for in order to find it. the way the art breaks up parts of the matrix section in the old main book dosent help (dont have sr4a yet). really, the problem is one of clear technical writing. Although i would love to see someone do a pictograph for matrix rules like the instructions in a new computer or printer.

I think it'd look something like this.

[Draco18s]

But I'll consider it. Might make it "number of agents in use" rather than full signal. Agents don't grant that much of a benefit to attacking a system, so having traces get a +1 bonus isn't that big of a deal, where as +6 (for having the possibility of 6 Agents) is kind of suck.

*For comparison, a rating 6 system beats a rating 4 hacker in 3 hacking rounds, or about 72 seconds.

Looking into this I need to decide how long it should take a trace to complete between an evenly matched Attacker and Defender, and if it should take less time or more, when the system would win outright (eg. if the system has a 3 dice advantage over the hacker and a lead of 6,* it will take 4 rounds to "on average win outright," so how many rounds should it take a trace to complete?)

*Hacker has hardware/skills of 4, system has hardware/skills of 6

[Ascalaphus]

What I'm currently having difficulties with is Stealth; how to handle the system detecting your intrusion?

Right now I'm thinking something along these lines:
- Every actor in a system has an Authority rating
- The system knows how much Authority everyone should have
- If you have more Authority than you should, you're an enemy
- You can pretend to have less Authority than you really have, to avoid detection

- Every action requires a minimum Authority to pull off
- If you do something you shouldn't have enough Authority for, the system flags you as an enemy
- You can pretend a) it wasn't you, or b) it didn't happen

I'm having trouble putting this into an elegant rule though.

[Draco18s]

Right now I'm thinking something along these lines:
- Every actor in a system has an Authority rating
- The system knows how much Authority everyone should have

I personally have trouble understanding how that works, really. Would need to hear the fluff on it.

[Ascalaphus]

I personally have trouble understanding how that works, really. Would need to hear the fluff on it.

Authority is like Lead, but I wanted to set up the system so that it works for 3+ way struggles too.

Authority abstractly represents how much access you have in the system, to both hardware and software resources and targets. High Authority means you can access more.

One program in the system, called Master Control Program, has a Friend List with on it how much Authority people are allowed to have. For example, the Admin is allowed to have Authority 10, the MCP 9, the Spiders 7, the CEO 8, the Wageslaves 2 and nobody else should have Authority.

If you hack into the system, you try to gain enough Authority to access whatever you came to get. If the MCP notices you have more Authority than you should (more than 0, in this example), it classifies you as Foe.

[Draco18s]

But how does it know that you AREN'T the admin?

[Ascalaphus]

But how does it know that you AREN'T the admin?

Well, it can't be sure of course. The MCP has a Friend List; if you're not on the list, you're not a Friend. However, if you hack the Friend List, the MCP will believe you're a Friend.

Of course, that's not supposed to be easy. It's comparable to winning the dramatic conflict in Spycraft terms, or installing an effective rootkit.

[Rand]

Of course, if you get enough Authority you should be able to put yourself on the friends list. Conversely, if you enter the node with a certain Authority gained from an authorized users access*, then it should believe you are that user until you do something that would make it think otherwise.

How you got that can be a fun encounter using the rest of the team.

[Ascalaphus]

Of course, if you get enough Authority you should be able to put yourself on the friends list. Conversely, if you enter the node with a certain Authority gained from an authorized users access*, then it should believe you are that user until you do something that would make it think otherwise.

How you got that can be a fun encounter using the rest of the team.

That's the general idea, yes.

[hobgoblin]

sounds like basically recreating the account levels to me...

[Draco18s]

sounds like basically recreating the account levels to me...

It does, which is why I'm not sure about it.

My system doesn't have a "log in with a legit account" clause yet, but I'm thinking that that would start the player with bonus Authority Points and get to do so much before the system starts fighting back.

Afterall, knowing who's a legit admin and Black Bagging their account info should give you System Control outright.

[Ascalaphus]

I know, it's still a bit "heavy", but at least it's not as annoyingly vague as Account Levels. The problem with those was that there was really no description of what exactly they could and couldn't, or how you could take permanent control of a device.

In my system, logging in as someone on the Friend List (such as the Admin) immediately starts you off at the Authority level they're supposed to have.

[hobgoblin]

i think the problem is that if one went with detailed access levels, there would be a group of players that would not use the rules as they where to "heavy".

but now, there is a different group that do not use them, as they are to "vague".

[Wandering One]

The account levels were also allowed to be left vague because on a simple device, admin would give you godlike abilities, where as on another device, admin might be locked down to a few specific actions (like not creating new accounts or removing existing, shutting down/turning on IC, etc), and you'd need a specific accessID to do the heavy security work on the item.

[Rand]

I think that WO has it right here: generally speaking the different administration levels have much in common, but in practice one in node A could be quite different from one in node B in what it can do/allows. So long as, when you (the GM) design the node, you dictate what each level does in that node, it doesn't truly matter what you call it. The original problem/idea wasn't access levels anyway, but the "seperate world" situation for hackers.

I truly don't think there is an easy fix to this problem, not if you plan on keeping any level of "realism" in your game. It is just up to the GM to do the best they can to incorporate it to the level their players want and not let it bog down the game - but that can be said of any single element in any RPG. An astral mage can really cause things to bog down, and the mundanes and adepts (usually) don't have any chance of interacting with them there. At least with hacking, the others with the right equipment (which isn't expensive) can go VR too. (Not that they can do much to help without the proper skills, but they can be there....)

[Draco18s]

The original problem/idea wasn't access levels anyway, but the "seperate world" situation for hackers.

Among other issues. But I think I've managed to address them quite well. On at least a close-to-even match up (between a hacker and a system) the entire thing is resolved in as few as 3 rolls on each side (depending on what the hacker needs to do).

As an added benefit, the GM can design how a system responds to a hack. So rather than "it calls in meat security," it can only do that under certain conditions (a certain level of threat, eg. Lead is less than Firewall, meaning that the hacker has attempted to compromise the system AND the system is losing, or it can call in IC--grants bonus to the system--or activate a trace--grants a bonus to calling in security, or...).

[hobgoblin]

a system level script?

or maybe the tally optional rule from unwired? Basically the same system that SR3 used (and first showed up in VR2.0).

or scratch that, i see the tally system suggested in unwired is much more simplified then the one in SR3.

the system in SR3 was that as the tally for the hacker built up, various countermeasures where brought into effect, such as IC or alarm levels.

[Draco18s]

a system level script?

This, more than anything. Of course, the scripts would be simple enough that the GM could make them up on the fly. There are really only 5 Defender-Only options (most with prereqs) and 3 Anyone options (one of which is a +0 mod, no advantage, "just go" option). So its not like there are too many choices, but you could have systems that never initiate Traces or some that will try to load more and more IC.

I admit its a little scarcer than I'd like, but it's a solid starting point that contains a minimum of 3 possible options for both sides at any given moment that should be balanced against each other (things that have better long-term advantages have a DP penalty rather than a DP bonus, for example).

[Draco18s]

At last! I offer up my own attempt at a revision to the rules.