Wireless bonus rules suck., Lets write the tacnet rules they should have used. Options

[Neurosis]

I was going to make "This thread, only better" basically. Better as in clearly establishing mission parameters and design goals up front. Maybe I still will. Anyway:

Design Goal:

* Give deckers/hackers "hacking" action options in combat that can have just as meaningful an effect on an enemy combatant as shooting them with a gun or hitting them with a spell, and can be used on any enemy combatant that is at all reliant on technology.

Without the up-front agreement to that design goal, I don't see a productive discussion happening. Because some people just hate wireless bonuses, but other people also hate the idea of hackers being able to "hack" other characters in combat with the same effectiveness as firing an Ares Predator, casting a lightning bolt, casting control thoughts, casting trid phantasm, and so on. I will gladly discuss alternatives to meet the above design goal with people who hate wireless bonuses (not that such a discussion will result in anything official), but people in the latter group have no place in this discussion, and I'm not willing to let them in the doors, so to speak. People who hate wireless bonuses might be entirely reasonable people, but as far as I'm concerned, people who hate the idea of a hacker "hacking" a group of characters via their tacnet as efficiently as a mage can cast chaotic world cannot be reasoned with. They are not interested in playing the Shadowrun I love. They want to play MagicRun with some samurai tacked on.

I am very interested in "the tacnet rules they should have used", especially if those rules allow you as a hacker to compromise a TacNet, create false images and AROs, erase yourself from someone's vision or shut down their eyes entirely, etcetera. But before we can discuss "the tacnet rules they should have used" we (and by we I actually mean you in this case) need to come to a consensus on design goals.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I was going to make "This thread, only better" basically. Better as in clearly establishing mission parameters and design goals up front. Maybe I still will. Anyway:

Design Goal:

* Give deckers/hackers "hacking" action options in combat that can have just as meaningful an effect on an enemy combatant as shooting them with a gun or hitting them with a spell, and can be used on any enemy combatant that is at all reliant on technology.

Problem is - I can turn off my wireless, run dark, and the Decker is completely unable to affect me in combat in the way that the above design goal was implemented. The fact that the current online bonuses are haphazard and mostly unnecessary makes it even worse. Now, they the bonuses had been thought out better, and actually made some sense, this topic would never have exploded as it did. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Shadow Knight]

I want the bonuses to be good enough that not running one would be silly. Reliable enough that people trust what they say. Yet hackable enough that good deckers can hack them and wreak havoc. I want deckers to be able to defend them. The Bonuses should be easy for the GM to flip to disads when a tacnet is compromised. A tacnet should not be a GM book keeping nightmare.

[Shadow Knight]

So nothing?

[Lurker37]

As I see it, the biggest failure of the design goal is that it only gives the decker something to do if the opposition has cyberware. The decker is still SOL in a plotline where the main threat is an insect spirit hive, a street gang, a NAN tribe that eschews cyberware, vampires, paranormal critters...

Not every run is against a corporate installation.

The second biggest problem I can see is that the setting makes it very clear that there are hostile deckers that are not only able to do the same to PCs, but would be actively encouraged to do so by their superiors. So while the benefit to a PC decker is situational, the threat to PCs with cyberware is constant.

It seems to me that the goal should have been something that gave a decker more options regardless of the type of opposition, without making cyberware a less optimal choice for players.

I can only think of a couple of options here, but each has drawbacks:

1) There are no wireless bonuses, but a good decker can provide equivalent benefits by sourcing feeds from the matrix that current wireless bonuses assume the devices can locate, interpret and incorporate on their own.
Main issues: Passive buff role (cf D&D Bards), only applies if a member of your team uses cyberware (which sucks if you have a mage, and adept, a technomancer and a high-essence face).

2) In a world where built in obsolescence is a product feature, have plenty of abandonware still around that is functional, so that even the have-nots can scavenge a couple of secondhand turrets, most corners have cameras( even if the networks are not always monitored), and even the sewers have decommissioned-but-not-deconstructed 'vermin control measures'. Give the GMs lots and lots of suggestions to ensure that no matter where a fight goes down, there is always, always something in the environment that a decker can turn to their advantage.
Main issue: More work for the GM, requires more imagination/suspension of disbelief in some environments.

Neither of these are great ideas, but hopefully they illustrate the sort of thing I'm talking about - an option that is always available no matter who you're teamed with and what sort of opposition you are up against.

[RHat]

As I see it, the biggest failure of the design goal is that it only gives the decker something to do if the opposition has cyberware.

This is not true. In order to be hacker-immune, the enemy in question would have to eschew ALL tech or go completely EM-dark. Para-critters would be an issue for this, but as for the rest (insects might have some of the flesh or hybrid forms using gear, for example)... It is true that the hacker's contribution gets less substantive as the enemy gets less tech-sophisticated, but that's an issue that will ALWAYS exist for options that involve the hacker doing things TO the enemy, which is part of the design goal Neurosis outlined.

And deckers actually on site with the security response would be rare.

[cndblank]

I'd like to know what the SOP is for SWAT and Corporate High Threat Response teams.
What gear and tactics do they use to keep from having their cyberware or gear hacked?
I figure it would be close to military SOP.

[cndblank]

Also 30 seconds of Jamming will keep most hackers from functioning unless they jack in to a hardline.
And even then they are not going to be hacking any of the enemies cyberware or gear.

[Blade]

My modest proposal, for a simple system:

- We assume that as soon as there's a connection, the hacker can exploit it (no matter if it's supposed to be one way only, or if it's only supposed to broadcast one kind of signal and stuff like that, there's always a security hole somewhere)
- Each character decides for a set of basic rules for the most common use cases (like "I have a connection to share my sensor feeds with my team" or "my dermal plating has no external connection") and chooses a "paranoia" rating for the rest, from 0 (completely open) to 6 (completely closed).
- Every time the character wants to do something that would require an external connection (sharing the data from one of his sensor (from the cyber-eyes to the biomonitor), letting one of his teammate control his cyberarm or his injector, etc), if that's not part of this preset list he rolls a dice. If the result is more than the paranoia rating, it's possible. If it's lower, he can't do it unless he lowers his paranoia rating (simple action, due to the need for a secure validation mechanism that can't be done in an auto action).
- Likewise, when someone wants to hack a piece of ware from that character, he finds a reason why it could have a connection, then do the same test to check if the connection is indeed open or not.

I'd also add that a hacker's combat actions could be done on the environment rather than on the characters: switching the lights on or off, getting the maintenance drone in the way of the opposition, opening and closing doors, etc.

[RHat]

I'd also add that a hacker's combat actions could be done on the environment rather than on the characters: switching the lights on or off, getting the maintenance drone in the way of the opposition, opening and closing doors, etc.

The existing system covers for a lot of that, if you're clever - like bricking a lock so that you can't be followed.

[Shadow Knight]

That is what I like about the tacnet idea. You could be buffing your team when the opposition has nothing to hack. Making your team work more efficiently instead of debuffing the enemy tacnet.

can a simsense rig allow others to see what you see astrally? because that would be something cool a magic character can contribute to the tacnet allowing the leader to coordinate the magic resources. A tacnet should be able to be its own self contained network and operate regardless of whether there is a matrix to connect to.

[Psikerlord]

I like the wireless bonus rules, I'm very glad they were introduced. They are just a way of getting a player to make a meaningful choice about more bonus at the risk of that gear being hacked. Deckers have plenty they can do anyway even without these wireless bonuses, but it's nice to try and encourage more options/risks for all concerned.

As for tacnet rules, doubtless they will appear in a splatbook soon. In the meantime PCs can have an informal tacnet anyway with their commlinks and other bits and pieces linked, and the DM can make on the spot rulings about what bonuses/penalties might flow from that.

[Shadow Knight]

I like the wireless bonus rules, I'm very glad they were introduced. They are just a way of getting a player to make a meaningful choice about more bonus at the risk of that gear being hacked. Deckers have plenty they can do anyway even without these wireless bonuses, but it's nice to try and encourage more options/risks for all concerned.

As for tacnet rules, doubtless they will appear in a splatbook soon. In the meantime PCs can have an informal tacnet anyway with their commlinks and other bits and pieces linked, and the DM can make on the spot rulings about what bonuses/penalties might flow from that.

then why are you posting here? Go to the other threads on the wireless bonuses and why they suck. This is not the topic for that discussion. this is the topic for coming up with tacnet rules.

[cndblank]

"We assume that as soon as there's a connection, the hacker can exploit it (no matter if it's supposed to be one way only, or if it's only supposed to broadcast one kind of signal and stuff like that, there's always a security hole somewhere)"

Umm, No. At least on the fly during combat.

Yes there are always security holes somewhere, no you can't find it in 20 seconds while being shot at.
Lets give the GM a few things to make the decker/technomancer work for it.

[Shadow Knight]

I agree.

I think Tacnets should be versatile. They should also provide overwatch. Giving the leader better info to base his tactics on. Give the Decker small unit tactics and they can be a back up/alt tactician.

Have a second decker and they can hack the opposition Tacnet and feed it's data into your tacnet. Giving you even better data.

How would you handle
Perception

Indirect Fire

Defense

tactical maneuvering(IE flanking etc.)

How different sensor systems feed into the tacnet.

How do riggers and drones feed into and recieve info from the tacnet.

how do the Street samurai pick up and give info to the net?

How do your magical types feed in info and pull out info?



Hacking a tacnet

Deckers defending their tacnet

Deckers attacking a tacnet

What can be done with a compromised tacnet

Anything I have not thought of?

I was hoping to get some of this filled in. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) any thoughts?

[Falconer]

Shadow most likely because I don't like making up house rules til I've had a chance to play with the existent rules and figure out what is good/bad/ugly. I've only seen a glimpse of the rulebook a few times on friends pads.


But here is what I'd focus on.

The rules for tacnets in unwired are more or less a slapdash affair as well. It basically comes down to GM discretion for a lot of poorly worded bits & mechanics. What exactly qualifies for drones is ambiguous for example. Even the list of 'benefits' gives a big list of them... then tells the GM to pick the ones he thinks are apt. While the powergamers take this to mean any and all of them (causing another source of argument).


Rather than a generic monster bonus.

Replace the 'matrix bonuses' with more meaningful line item tacnet bonuses I'd say. Don't make tacnets some monstrous add on... but tightly integrate them into the core rules.


Give a reason why these devices are operating and talking to the group. Give the decker/face/somenoe a prime role in operating it. Example: if sensors are subsctibed (and their icon shows up in the matrix) they could be used to mark a target giving a dice bonus due to the enhanced target lock-on. Same goes for things like the smartguns... without a net... they give accuracy bonus... with access to the net they give their dice bonus as well.


Another idea is to have the tacnet have a 'pool' of dice. It's operator controls. By doing some actions he can add more dice. By doing others he can hand-out one time dice bonuses to other players/members of the group. You could similarly assign a point value to subscribing devices for these kinds of actions.

EG: subscribing the internal air tank allows tacnet members to look-up the air status of that member (he should know his own status without this! stupid matrix bonus rules!). it could also give say a minor 1 point bonus towards group coordination or situational awareness.


An example of different kinds of pools I can think of. offensive (smartguns, etc.), sensors (perception, surprise..), group status (health monitors, cyberware status, etc.). That's probably a good first cut. Offensive pool is pretty straight forward hand it out on offense. Sensors... again mostly for perception type stuff. Group status... help with things like first-aid tests. Like the last one not all of them need be or should be combat related.


A good example... UWB radar... you'd need to subscribe it to a tacnet in order to give others it's targetting bonuses through walls and the like.

Another problem which crops up... now exactly does a decker interact with an enemy tacnet or enhance the operation of his own? (Half the assumption i make is that there will be two primary characters operating this... the decker, and the face. since if the hacker needs things to do in combat, so should the face and i'm not sold on the 'leadership' skill).

[quentra]

I'm still thinking of something that's more interesting than a flat DP bonus, and more creative than just 'send each other AROs'. Give me some time!

[CrystalBlue]

Arrggg....I want to ask legitimate questions, but I think I should just avoid Dumpshock for the new few months until this stuff cools down.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm still thinking of something that's more interesting than a flat DP bonus, and more creative than just 'send each other AROs'. Give me some time!

No... go kick your muse and produce (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[phlapjack77]

I'm still thinking of something that's more interesting than a flat DP bonus, and more creative than just 'send each other AROs'. Give me some time!

Just make sure your ideas don't fall into the "D&D4 bonuses that are pure gamist crap" category (I'm looking at you, Leadership skill!)

[Werewindlefr]

Another idea is to have the tacnet have a 'pool' of dice. It's operator controls. By doing some actions he can add more dice. By doing others he can hand-out one time dice bonuses to other players/members of the group. You could similarly assign a point value to subscribing devices for these kinds of actions.

This gives me an idea. How about: There's a common pool for the TacNet. Each device subscribed to a TacNet (provided they can be subscribed, so batons don't contribute but smartlinks do) brings 1 extra die to that pool. This pool refreshes every combat turn. Whenever they choose to, characters can withdraw one or two dice from that pool for a single action or reaction (never more than two dice).

This makes TacNets useful while keeping them abstract and relatively simple, and encourages the subscription of more devices (although this would require a list of devices that can contribute to a TacNet).
This also makes limits more relevant, by increasing the potential dice pool by 2.


Your opinion?

[cryptoknight]

This makes TacNets useful while keeping them abstract and relatively simple, and encourages the subscription of more devices (although this would require a list of devices that can contribute to a TacNet).
This also makes limits more relevant, by increasing the potential dice pool by 2.

This sounds good... then hacking the tacnet is more about severing connections to it rather than bricking devices (which I abhor). The hacker disconnects your cybereyes from it reducing the pool by 4. The player Hacker tries to reconnect but the enemy hacker is throwing up White Noise or other interference, then they can duke it out.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This sounds good... then hacking the tacnet is more about severing connections to it rather than bricking devices (which I abhor). The hacker disconnects your cybereyes from it reducing the pool by 4. The player Hacker tries to reconnect but the enemy hacker is throwing up White Noise or other interference, then they can duke it out.

Yeah, Bricking Devices is terribad. And the arguments that the devs/freelancers have used still do not stand up, as the Slang Terminology [for that word] in the Book [yes, right there in the booik itself] describes actual destruction of the device as what it means. What a horrible mess this is.

[quentra]

I've got a few thoughts bouncing around, nothing concrete yet, but I figured I'd share some of what I've thought of so far.

First, I like the whole temporarily disabling devices thing. Hacking gear and 'ware is all good and fine. However, having separate bonuses for every action a hacker might take is fiddly and annoying, and I prefer simplicity.

Secondly, tacnets are cool, but not a solution to the entire issue. Flat DP bonuses are sort of boring. Not that they aren't useful or anything, but they are boring.

Having said that, the wireless bonuses should give you a benefit to an action. Since actions, in game, take dice, bonus DP is probably somewhat necessary, but hacking a tacnet and knocking off DP bonuses should provide a distinct and clear advantage - if it doesn't, and you're only taking off a hit or so, then people will use tacnets for additional support, but not be entirely inconvenienced when you hack it.

What tacnets should do, in my opinion, is not so much provide a DP bonus, but provide better wireless security, something beyond 'slave everything to the decker and hope he doesn't sell you out in the process.'

I haven't quite figured out exactly how to do that, but hopefully this'll provide some food for thought.

[Werewindlefr]

My proposal for the TacNet isn't a straight bonus to dice, it's a shared dicepool that adds a layer of team-based resource management. I'm also thinking of making the maximum dice withdrawal 2 for character with an external TacNet client (so, someone with an external commlink) and 3 for an internal one (a TacNet client running on an implanted commlink), to give an extra bonus to cyberware-oriented sammies.

I don't link bricking either, but I do think more vulnerability than just "severing connection to the TacNet" is a good thing - so I could add this: if a hacker gets marks on the TacNet or on a device, he can use a "Control Device" action to lower the limit for any action involving that device by 2. So for instance, hacking cybereyes this way would lower the limit for perception and shooting rolls by 2.