House Rules : Programs not replacing attributes Options

[TheeGravedigger]

So, there's the issue in our game that we have too many technically skilled players at the table and the hacking rules rub them the wrong way.

The house rule we came up with is Programs provide a 2x cap for hacking tests, which are now Skill+AA

So to browse, it's Logic+Data Search capped At 2x browse program rating.

Also, the skill determines the number of usages in the extended tests. It's rating+1 rolls on them in our system.
So, when Data Searching with a skill of 3, you make a maximum of 4 rolls.

Thoughts?

[Makki]

that's not a house rule. that's an Optional Rule from Unwired, which works fine for hackers, but sucks for TMs

[Yerameyahu]

There are also drawbacks for non-technos. For example, there's very little reason to get programs above rating 3-4, so hackers will save even more money.

As for limited extended tests, it unreasonably hurts low-skill users/agents. Googling isn't something that I should autofail if I don't have a Professional-level skill.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There are also drawbacks for non-technos. For example, there's very little reason to get programs above rating 3-4, so hackers will save even more money.

As for limited extended tests, it unreasonably hurts low-skill users/agents. Googling isn't something that I should autofail if I don't have a Professional-level skill.

Googling for Sensitive information, on the other hand.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[JonathanC]

How exactly does this hurt Technomancers? They're already going to have high mental attributes. If you're worried about Threading being pointless, well...maybe have high program ratings add extra dice? Say, anything above 6?

[UmaroVI]

It's more that it creates the One True Technomancer, and if you aren't that technomancer, you cry yourself to sleep at night - that technomancer being a lightly-cybered Logic stream technomancer with very minimal CFs, who is better than "normal" technos under the default ruleset while every other type of techno is dramatically worse.

[JonathanC]

It's more that it creates the One True Technomancer, and if you aren't that technomancer, you cry yourself to sleep at night - that technomancer being a lightly-cybered Logic stream technomancer with very minimal CFs, who is better than "normal" technos under the default ruleset while every other type of techno is dramatically worse.

True, but the alternative is a system in which Logic, the attribute linked to hacking and computer skills, is of absolutely no use to Hackers.

[TheeGravedigger]

I need to reread unwired, I didn't remember that was an optional rule in there.

The main thing reason for that rule is that knowing what terms to search with is a skill, as is the logical extension of the search parameters, using your logic.

[TheeGravedigger]

Assuming a data search of 1 and an average logic, say 3, that's 8 dice to get 1 hit. Allow buying of hits, you're fine for basic information.

[UmaroVI]

Things that are "Public Knowledge" (the lowest possible category) are actually Threshold 6. SR4A p230. So you get to roll 8 dice, then 7 dice, and need 6 total hits - not very good odds.

[bibliophile20]

I've been playing with something similar to this rule for about six months, and it's been working well in our game; for the issue of technomancers, I went with Stream Attribute + Skill, capped by Complex Form rating, which also makes thematic sense as well (some technomancers view their abilities as being "good with code" and therefore use Logic, while others see themselves as asking electronics nicely for favors and therefore use Charisma, etc and so forth)

[Warlordtheft]

I need to reread unwired, I didn't remember that was an optional rule in there.

The main thing reason for that rule is that knowing what terms to search with is a skill, as is the logical extension of the search parameters, using your logic.

I used it for a while but went back dropped it in my new campaign. The advantage is it makes sense, and your mental attributes a factor (for hackers). For Technos it worked fairly similarly. The problem being that it resulted in the highest program rating always winning (BTW-the optional rule limits hits to the rating of the program). Technos had an easy time of it since they could just thread up their stealth programs, blow a point of edge and then not be touchable by anything but a mil grade firewall+analyze. There were also some loopholes in the rules sets (such as NPC in published adventures) not being design with that in mind.

[Irion]

First of all, it really depends.

If you generate with BP, yes this houseroule will hurt TMs. (Because with BP they will probably get 10 Progs at raiting 5 or 6 to start with)
If you generate with Karma, it might even be better for TMs. (Because they can't afford a raiting higher 3 or 4)
And beeing limited to 4 dice means you still might use a pool of 12... (Instead of beeing limited to a pool of 7 to 10...)

[Nath]

Same here. I planned on testing at some point a system where dice pool is Skill+Attribute, while program rating work a bit like melee Reach.

My first idea was to give the side with the highest program rating (or Firewall if no program is specified) +1 modifier per net rating. But except for glitches, that actually wouldn't have been very different from simply adding program rating as a modifier to each side. My second idea was to give only the hacking side a negative modifier if its program rating was below the target one. That way, there would be no gain from using a Rating 6 nova-hot latest zero-day vulnerability against a Rating 1 system that haven't seen a security patch for years, while using Rating 1 old techniques against a Rating 6 up-to-date firewall would be difficult even for a skilled hacker.

The next problem was that Browse, Command, Edit and Scan rating no longer had a meaning, since they're never opposed to a hacking program. For Browse and San, maybe consider data storage or bandwith somehow "defend" themselves with a Rating showing how complex they are. For Command an Edit, no idea.

[Yerameyahu]

I know we've had this exact conversation before, but I swear JonathanC was actually *there* for it. One problem is that the very first thing you did was suggest a new rule to compensate for *this* rule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) So you're adding programs back in again.

The idea that Logic 'should' be required for using hacking programs is an opinion, that's all. It's important not to take the position that low-Logic hackers are 'cheating' or something. It's also important to realize that this Optional Rule has significant repercussions that you have to deal with (but I'm not saying it's impossible to do so).

The proposed limit on Extended tests feels like a serious mistake. Program hit-capping isn't a major problem, if you don't care about the only programs worth having being Rating 2-4. The Extended test limitation, on the other hand, is just crippling for anyone who's not Pro or above. Together, both of these rules significantly discourage non-expert hackers from even trying. This may be what you want, but the baseline concept of SR4 seems to be that anyone can and should do a little bit of Matrix. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm sure we could dig up the old threads, I thought we came up with some decent ideas about how to make Logic matter for hacking, without crushing the lowbies or ignoring high-rating programs.

[Warlordtheft]

The next problem was that Browse, Command, Edit and Scan rating no longer had a meaning, since they're never opposed to a hacking program. For Browse and San, maybe consider data storage or bandwith somehow "defend" themselves with a Rating showing how complex they are. For Command an Edit, no idea.

That was also my problem, I started thinking things through and felt like I was going to have to rwrite most of the hacking rules.

@Yerameyahoo:Yeah I remember that thread (it was a 12 pager or something), anyway one of the things brought up was that logic does matter when scratch building programs.

[JonathanC]

That was also my problem, I started thinking things through and felt like I was going to have to rwrite most of the hacking rules.

@Yerameyahoo:Yeah I remember that thread (it was a 12 pager or something), anyway one of the things brought up was that logic does matter when scratch building programs.

Who cares about building programs from scratch? It takes forever to do, and there's no real benefit to going through the trouble. The silliest thing about this is that Data Search, Computer, and Hacking (under RAW) have absolutely no reason to have linked attributes, because you never roll them with their attributes.

Even if we assume that the current system is completely fair and logical, it makes no sense for those skills to have linked attributes.


As for the older thread....I don't recall it very well. FWIW, I use the existing rules, but I still think they're kind of silly and disadvantage Hackers. Anybody with Skillwires and enough money is a replacement for a Hacker.

[TheeGravedigger]

I looked through Unwired, and I can't find that rule. Can you give me a page reference?

[Yerameyahu]

There's no reason for them *not* to have linked attributes, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It doesn't hurt anyone. Plus, there are things that affect Logic-linked skills that affect Matrix stuff (presumably on purpose).

JonathanC: not a 'replacement for a hacker', they *are* a hacker. Are you racist against script-kiddies? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[JonathanC]

There's no reason for them *not* to have linked attributes, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well, there's the fact that they aren't linked to anything. Your logic has no effect whatsoever on your ability to hack in Shadowrun. None whatsoever. You could (and by the rules, SHOULD) be a Logic 1 Hacker and do just as well as a Logic 6 hacker using the same tools.

I understand the concept of script kiddies and all, but shouldn't there be *some* benefit to actually being smart?

Plus, there are things that affect Logic-linked skills that affect Matrix stuff (presumably on purpose).

Errata could simply call out those skills instead. I'm not demanding a re-write or anything, I'm just saying that it's pointless to call these skills "Logic skills" when Logic doesn't do anything for them. Unless I'm missing something, smart Hackers are actually at a mechanical disadvantage versus dumb hackers because they've wasted valuable BP on something that has no bearing on their ability to hack. A dumb hacker can more easily cap their Hacking skill, or simply throw those points into hacking Qualities.

It didn't bother me before, but now that I think about it, this really bugs me. The best hackers in Shadowrun are complete morons.

[Yerameyahu]

I can tell it's a very emotional issue, but that's precisely the problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If you read the book, it explains why Logic does not affect hacking. This position is only different from yours, not worse. It's important to take a deep breath.

High-Logic individual get a huge range of skills that use Logic, including coding and patching for hackers, yes. If the coding rules suck, fix the coding rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Having them 'pseudo-linked' to Logic doesn't hurt anyone, and why would you break something that already works, then fix it with Errata? Errata means 'errors'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It's a classless system, so no one is just 'a hacker'. A high-Logic hacker is good at a wide range of things the script kiddie isn't, while both might be equally good at 'hacking'.

So, after all that, I fully understand that some people still want hackers to use their Logic in real-time. That's fine, people should play the game how they like. However, it's just important to make sure the rules changes are good changes; taken alone, program-as-hit-caps is not a great change… and the extended test limit is just ruinous.

[TheeGravedigger]

Programs x2 as Dice Caps, for the attribute + Skill, rather than as hit caps, that's what we're looking at. With regards to things that add dice, we're adding those after the cap.

Means to get full use out of a rating 4 program, you need either 5 logic and a 3 skill, or 4 logic and 4 skill, etc. If you've got 6 logic and 4 skill, you buy a rank 5 program.

Basically the idea is that you're somewhat handicapped by the limitations of the program.
If a hacker is using a rating 2 deck he scavenged after his rating 5 deck was sabotage/trashed, he's still a decent hacker, just limited by the tools he's using.

Also now thinking perhaps the program adds some bonus dice, representing the shortcuts and tools inherent in the program. But that's mostly because of the weird logic of the tables.

As for the extended test rule, that came about because it didn't seem logical that without skill you could get the same results as someone who invested in the skill, even if it just meant you took longer.

[UmaroVI]

Well, that's an interesting variant that manages to catapault Logic technomancers way, way ahead of everyone else, make mundane hackers (and adept hackers especially) weep in sorrow, and makes non-Logic technomancers cut themselves to make the hurting stop.

[Yerameyahu]

The whole point of Extended tests is that taking longer *is* the different result, though. Especially if you're using the Diminishing Pool rules only when appropriate.

But I did misunderstand about the hit caps vs. DP caps. That's a whole different thing, so at least it encourages high-rating programs. I think it has its own drawbacks, but different ones. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[phlapjack77]

Just to throw this out there: here are some alternate rules (VERY alternate) written up by Frank Trollman. Haven't had a chance to use them myself, so buyer beware...

Alternate Matrix rules

It's an interesting read, even if you don't use the changes.