Houseruling Tac Nets, feedback welcome Options

[Ryu]

Method, I apologize if I derailed your efforts here with needless over-complication. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Dito, in my case on the side of the rules. I hope there are bits for you to salvage.

[Bodak]

For all intensive purposes.. you've just recreated the combat pool from SR3.

Was that deliberate or did you mean "for all intents and purposes"?

You want to get as much info from each node to a secure location to be processed. You then want to send back as much info as is truly useful to each node. All of it would likely cause info-overload on the character anyhow.

But each user is running their own instance of the software so it would be fine for the hub to send complete updates to each user and allow their local software to customise, filter and manage what that particular user perceives.

[Darquewing]

True, but the main argument against full updates to everyone is still security.

[Method]

Hey guys! Sorry I disappeared for a bit. Got super busy with work. I've been mulling over some of the feedback in the thread and have been thinking about ways to incorporate a few of the suggestions. I thought I'd get the ball rolling again with a few random thoughts:

I still like the idea of a single overall Network Rating that represents the immediate function of the Network. I think the easiest way to do that is just mandate that all members need to run TacNet software equal to the Network Rating. This can represent compatibility issues (as Darquewing has suggested), the overall quality of the data Members provide, and/or the effectiveness of the plan the Hub generates. Rather than keeping track of each members TacNet software rating or (god forbid) coming up with some convoluted formula, it just seems easier to say "Okay, we are going to run a level 3 TacNet, everybody needs Rating 3 software" and be done.

I also think that the Network rating makes a good cap on the number of pool dice Members can use for an individual test, because it will generally range from +1 to +4 (except with teams that have very high rating gear/software and a good leader), which I think are reasonable bonuses.

I also still like the idea of DP = total Channels. I think the pool should be a shared resource so that players have to decide collectively how the dice should be spent (which in turn promotes team planning and tactical thinking). The idea of the DP being based on [Network Rating x 3] or similar is less appealing because ultimately that moves back toward the RAW system where the bonuses are solely a function of how good your software rating is.

I agree with Ryu's suggestion that we should "qualify" what constitutes a Channel, but I'm not sure how to do that without a.) a tedious review of every potential sensory-based feed in the game, or b.) a complicated table of different modifiers for different types of channels. I agree that a single radar system feeding a TacNet provides a disproportionate amount of data, but I think it could get really complicated if we start assigning different values to different channels, or saying only X number of Channel Y add to the pool. It just seems easier to say: 1 Channel = 1 Die and here is a list of sensors that qualify...

I like the idea of a GPS being a bare minimum, since the Hub needs to know the location of a Member to make any sense of the data. It helps that they are standard in just about all relevant devices (commlinks, vehicles, drones), so don't think that should count as a channel.

As far as minimal requirements to join- the idea behind Leechers is to allow PCs without a lot of tech to still benefit from the advanced communication and data-sharing of the TacNet. I think less tech-saavy PCs should be at a slight disadvantage, because they have allocated their resources elsewhere (like lobbing fireballs or whatnot). I was toying with the idea of saying that anyone who can provide 1 visual and 1 audio channel can join the Network, but again, if the Average network rating is 2-3 it really doesn't take that much to provide the minimum number of channels. The Leecher situation should only arise in situations where you have very tech-poor PCs trying to interact with a high-rating TacNet, and in that case it seems reasonable to me that they would be at a slight disadvantage. For a low-level TacNet (1 or 2) all anybody would have to do is slap a simmodule in their commlink.

Beyond that I think I will be adopting:
-- Single Leadership test per turn to boost Network function
-- Teamwork tests for the Leadership roll (maybe the team members spend a simple action communicating with the team leader, who in turn spends a Complex action? The problem then become timing, since some members will go before the leader in the turn sequence while others will follow).
-- Hackers feeding false data are limited to the # of Channels the hacked node is contributing
-- The Hub and/or its user get chance to detect falsified data
-- Focused boosts to the network in the form of additional dice for specific test (Directed Fire, Indirect Fire, Coordinated Ambush, etc).

So, I'm not sure where that leaves us in terms of coming to a consensus, but maybe it will spark some more conversation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)


[edit]Another random thought: what to you guys think about allowing Leechers to spend a Simple Action "manually" feeding data into the Network? Maybe roll Computer+Logic or something and hits are equivalent to channels for that turn allowing them the full benefits of the Network?

[Ryu]

I still like the idea of a single overall Network Rating that represents the immediate function of the Network. I think the easiest way to do that is just mandate that all members need to run TacNet software equal to the Network Rating. This can represent compatibility issues (as Darquewing has suggested), the overall quality of the data Members provide, and/or the effectiveness of the plan the Hub generates. Rather than keeping track of each members TacNet software rating or (god forbid) coming up with some convoluted formula, it just seems easier to say "Okay, we are going to run a level 3 TacNet, everybody needs Rating 3 software" and be done.

One level of software: Agreed.

I also think that the Network rating makes a good cap on the number of pool dice Members can use for an individual test, because it will generally range from +1 to +4 (except with teams that have very high rating gear/software and a good leader), which I think are reasonable bonuses.

I also still like the idea of DP = total Channels. I think the pool should be a shared resource so that players have to decide collectively how the dice should be spent (which in turn promotes team planning and tactical thinking). The idea of the DP being based on [Network Rating x 3] or similar is less appealing because ultimately that moves back toward the RAW system where the bonuses are solely a function of how good your software rating is.

I agree with Ryu's suggestion that we should "qualify" what constitutes a Channel, but I'm not sure how to do that without a.) a tedious review of every potential sensory-based feed in the game, or b.) a complicated table of different modifiers for different types of channels. I agree that a single radar system feeding a TacNet provides a disproportionate amount of data, but I think it could get really complicated if we start assigning different values to different channels, or saying only X number of Channel Y add to the pool. It just seems easier to say: 1 Channel = 1 Die and here is a list of sensors that qualify...

- If you base the number of dice on the number of channels, you reward owning sensor gear. While the shopping list grows longer, you still only need money.
- Each sensor feed is only useable once. Not logical.
- My thinking is that once you know exactly where a target is and what it is doing, more info does not really help. At that point you just need the processing power (brain or CPU) to create a plan. And a way to communicate it.

I like the idea of a GPS being a bare minimum, since the Hub needs to know the location of a Member to make any sense of the data. It helps that they are standard in just about all relevant devices (commlinks, vehicles, drones), so don't think that should count as a channel.

What about a "GPS+4 of the following:..." rule? (SimModuleRig: Great idea!)

As far as minimal requirements to join- the idea behind Leechers is to allow PCs without a lot of tech to still benefit from the advanced communication and data-sharing of the TacNet. I think less tech-saavy PCs should be at a slight disadvantage, because they have allocated their resources elsewhere (like lobbing fireballs or whatnot). I was toying with the idea of saying that anyone who can provide 1 visual and 1 audio channel can join the Network, but again, if the Average network rating is 2-3 it really doesn't take that much to provide the minimum number of channels. The Leecher situation should only arise in situations where you have very tech-poor PCs trying to interact with a high-rating TacNet, and in that case it seems reasonable to me that they would be at a slight disadvantage. For a low-level TacNet (1 or 2) all anybody would have to do is slap a simmodule in their commlink.

Down "another rabbit hole", I would like to have a Tactics rule that works without TacNet.

Beyond that I think I will be adopting:
-- Single Leadership test per turn to boost Network function
-- Teamwork tests for the Leadership roll (maybe the team members spend a simple action communicating with the team leader, who in turn spends a Complex action? The problem then become timing, since some members will go before the leader in the turn sequence while others will follow).
-- Hackers feeding false data are limited to the # of Channels the hacked node is contributing
-- The Hub and/or its user get chance to detect falsified data
-- Focused boosts to the network in the form of additional dice for specific test (Directed Fire, Indirect Fire, Coordinated Ambush, etc).

So, I'm not sure where that leaves us in terms of coming to a consensus, but maybe it will spark some more conversation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

- Given that formulating a plan takes only a Complex Action, I´m not a fan of allowing Teamwork tests. Let the other players communicate their ideas however it is allowed at your table, the leader makes the roll.
- Hackers could also feed false commands to members. How do we handle that? You want to attack, but the TacNet suggests "GET DOWN!".

[KCKitsune]

There is one way to run the "useless" sensors... Don't use them. Only sensors that modify/transmit vision (eye gear/'Ware, Radar, Ultrasound) or hearing are counted. The only exception to this would be Orientation system and MAYBE Olfactory Booster (and this a big maybe).

A Biomonitor is nice, but it doesn't help you shoot people in the face better... it only let's you know that Jack or Jill got shot and you may want to get over there to save their sorry ass because they owe you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 5 and damn it, you WANT that soycafe after this 'Run.

[Yerameyahu]

Do you mean simrig? Sim Module is the widget that interprets simsense *to* the user; definitely useful for all situations, but the way you mention it confused me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KCKitsune]

Do you mean simrig? Sim Module is the widget that interprets simsense *to* the user; definitely useful for all situations, but the way you mention it confused me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm certain he was talking about a SIMRig.

[Yerameyahu]

Cool. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I only ask because people will try any crazy thing! And the rules dealing with DNI/simsense can be confusing.

[Ryu]

If we create a list of potential channels, and everyone ticks off what is present, the dp calculation is easy:

"Acceptable Channel List Suggestion":
- Camera
-- Lowlight
-- Thermo
- Cyberware Scanner (for Threat Assessment)
- Microphone/Cyberear (any type)
- Motion Sensor (basically a camera delivering pre-processed data)
- Radar (any type)
- Olfactory Sensor
- Radio Signal Scanner
- Sonar

So a fully equipped member would provide 10 channels, standard samurai 4 (cybereyes/ears). The way to get many dice into the system would be using more bodies (read: drones). I would like to prevent sillyness by limiting the draw per user/turn to 10 dice or something. Thoughts?

Especially @Darquewing: Am I missing feeds such a system would love to have?

[Ryu]

I´ve been playing around with a few ideas yesterday, but so far they don´t really work. Anyway.


There should IMO be at least three components:
1- the tactical software should be able to make some use of a lone users sensor data.
2- networking the tactical software creates a tacnet, which should be better
3- even without tacnet, a leader should be able to do "something"

And I would be happy if the teamwork aspect would be part of the rules.



Keeping Method´s base, there is a pool and a maximum draw per test to play with. In order to fulfill 1+3, I would differentiate between a personal tactics pool and a team tactics pool:

1- Having a tacsoft provides a personal tactics pool (combat pool) of (rating/turn), you can draw 2 dice for any appropiate test.
2- Running a tacnet provides (Hub Rating *2) team tactics pool, which the team members have to share.
3- A leader can roll a Leadership test to add hits*3 to the team tactics pool, and increases the maximum draw by Tactics skill/2 (round up).

Thoughts? Too many dice, too few?
What about having more sensor channels than the minimum, for those who care? Is a general modifier for especially good/spotty sensor coverage, assigned by the GM, enough?

[Ryu]

Example for last weeks idea: Goons with rating 4 across the board running a rating 2 TacNet, each member running TacSoft 2.

1- each user has personal tatics support worth 2 dice/turn, and can use both for one test.
2- The TacNet provides 4 dice that the squad has to share.
3- The squad leader rolls Leadership+CHA dice [dp 8], increasing the squad tactics pool by about (2 2/3 *3) 8 dice, and increasing the maximum dice draw per test to 4.

Result: The squad has about 12 dice/turn to share, each member has 2 personal tactics dice/turn, and up to 4 of those dice total can be used for any test.

[Method]

Hey Ryu: sorry I have been scarce. I'm on a Trauma rotation so work has been killer (quite literally).

I like the example you posted. Not all that more complex and the DP seem reasonable. Do I understand correctly: the individual dice are generated per turn but the group pool is generated per pass? Also have you run the numbers with higher and lower end skill/gear combos? Just glancing at it, it seems like an elite squad with a skilled leader would gain quite an edge.

[Ryu]

Yeah, you said work is plenty. All good.

Hey Ryu: sorry I have been scarce. I'm on a Trauma rotation so work has been killer (quite literally).

I like the example you posted. Not all that more complex and the DP seem reasonable. Do I understand correctly: the individual dice are generated per turn but the group pool is generated per pass? Also have you run the numbers with higher and lower end skill/gear combos? Just glancing at it, it seems like an elite squad with a skilled leader would gain quite an edge.

I was thinking about having both pools generated per turn, I`ll have to think about using different timeframes. If we move to dice/pass, there are some shenanigans if the group has different numbers of IPs - everyone can draw dice on the first pass, only some can draw dice on the 4th. Granting 20 dice total for 5 runners and 3 drones on the first IP, then 20 dice for 1 razorboy on the 4th does not sound good.

High end:
TacNet 4, Captain of Doom leader (Tactics 7 / Leadership 6 / Cha 6):
1- each user has personal tatics support worth 4 dice/turn, and can use two for any test.
2- The TacNet provides 8 dice that the squad has to share.
3- The squad leader rolls Leadership+CHA dice [dp 12], increasing the squad tactics pool by about 12 dice, and increasing the maximum dice draw per test to 6.

Result: The squad has about 20 dice/turn to share, each member has 4 personal tactics dice/turn, and up to 6 of those dice total can be used for any test.



Low End:
TacNet 1, Captain fresh from the academy (Tactics 3, Leadership 2, Cha 4):
1- each user has personal tatics support worth 1 dice/turn
2- The TacNet provides 2 dice that the squad has to share.
3- The squad leader rolls Leadership+CHA dice [dp 6], increasing the squad tactics pool by about 6 dice, and increasing the maximum dice draw per test to 3.

Result: The squad has about 8 dice/turn to share, each member has 1 personal tactics die/turn, and up to 3 of those dice total can be used for any test.



I see the TacSoft rating as a measure of analytical strength. Low-rated TacNets need a good leader to make use of. It would be easy to shift the values - more dice total, less dice for leadership hits, more for having a TacNet.

Prediction: Many groups will have their face as their leader, and get their hands on a TacSoft 4. If the face has tactics 5 (16 karma), they are looking at about 20 dice/turn and a max. draw of 5 per test.

Hopefully enough to make a difference by augmenting four tests important for the whole group, but not another generic equipment-based +rating to all tests.



Next aspect: Group dynamics and agreeing on tactics. At the time of the leadership test, the group should have a short talk about the tactics of the situation before the leader chooses a plan and rolls the dice. The Leadership/Tactics parts of the character are figured into the rules, but do not form a consensus at the table.