[X] My Assistant

[Koekepan]

Still, I feel a need to punish those "my cyberzombie is immune to all hacking attempts" players. How would you handle this? (I'll write my own thoughts about this when I have finished the book and planned my campaign.)

Bad players for making intelligent choices based on available knowledge! Naughty, naughty, wicked players! Shame!

That said, I wouldn't try forcing them to be hackable for no sensible reason. I'd look at other qualities. For example, you got your hand razors? They're weapons, and will trigger alarms at checkpoints everywhere. Are they registered? Muscle augs beyond a certain level could count as lethal weapons as well. If you want to be a walking tank, expect that many jurisdictions will simply flat-out deny you access, and send out alarms to each other. Maybe even attempt to incarcerate you simply for trying, during which incarceration they will remove the bits they don't like you having, replace them with innocuous, weak bits, or if they're feeling nice just put in beacons which trace your every move and automatically alert every security team in the area.

You could also look at detection systems which are not obvious, but do measurements. Remember the scene in the first Ghost in the Shell movie where they measure the mass in an elevator and it doesn't match the people in the elevator? Think of that. Also think of cameras which assess people in UV, visible, IR and radio spectra. Anything which looks anomalous is an alarm and motivates a response - which can be as simple as the next door being closed with a couple of security guards requesting papers, or which could be a small army.

If you're working in a panopticon, use its capabilities to your benefit.

[DeathStrobe]

Yeah, you lost me right there. Your players are very lucky.

Are you trying to imply that Cyberzombies should have no weaknesses?

[binarywraith]

Are you trying to imply that Cyberzombies should have no weaknesses?

They already have several that have absolutely nothing to do with the Matrix. Hotgluing a wireless hotspot to their foreheads doesn't make it any better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Glyph]

Are you trying to imply that Cyberzombies should have no weaknesses?

I think he was implying that "punishing" your players for making logical choices is poor GMing. Which I would concur with. Not every single character needs to be vulnerable to every single attack or danger, all of the time. You don't have to "punish" a player for getting an armored jacket by targeting him with a sniper, or "punish" someone for taking a high Willpower by having Harlequin manabolt him. An adept using swords, revolvers, and sawed-off shotguns (or a troll with a baseball bat) is just as "invulnerable" to hacking.

Cyberzombies are physically tough and resistant to magic, and are also cutting edge in every way. A megacorporation that can afford a cyberzombie can afford a top-end cyberdeck to protect any active wireless that he has open (smartlinks, etc.). Why would they make an end-of-level-boss badass and then neglect an obvious vulnerability? The decker will have to work to get to things like his communications or smartlink, and tough luck trying to hack the cyberlimbs (a street samurai with wired reflexes but no reaction enhancers would also have one area "invulnerable" to hacking).

Player characters attempting near-full-body replacement at character creation already pay for the choice, both in opportunity cost (not enough Essence for decent initiative enhancement, or enough resources to trick out those cyberlimbs) and in the problems that come with any kind of semi-obvious 'ware.

Even if you agree wholeheartedly with the wireless bonuses, PCs attempting to minimize their wireless vulnerability are only acting like professional expediters should act. They probably take cover from fire and try to avoid LOS from enemy mages, too.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Even if you agree wholeheartedly with the wireless bonuses, PCs attempting to minimize their wireless vulnerability are only acting like professional expediters should act. They probably take cover from fire and try to avoid LOS from enemy mages, too.

Silly Talk... Everyone knows that you engage in firefights at 30 paces with an unobstructed view of each other. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[cndblank]

I have to agree.
You shouldn't punish players for playing smart and in character.

If I put 10 million nuyen in to a cyberzombie, I'm going to have military grade matrix security on the internal workings and I'm going to take EXTREME measures to make hacking as hard as possible. If I'm a cyberzombie I don't want NO one driving me.

Things like Updates can only be done with by physical connection using proprietary hardware.
And no physical connections between the internal control hardware and software and the networked comm and tac hardware and software.

My point is if you know you are going up against the best in a high security area and they will be targeting you first, then you are an idiot if you leave the backdoor unlocked, unbolted, unbobby trapped, and unwelded shut.

Certainly there is no reason for there to be any way to remote in to the zombie other than a call home security feature and a kill switch which would be waiting for a signal or lack there of.

Now can you stay on a war footing 24 by 7? No, not without serious consequences.
Are you going to be slower than some one directly connected to tac link yes.
Would you have to work hard to not standout from the rest of humanity. No.
Hell you might need to be running a program that makes it look you have the normal number of RIFD and are watching the game wirelessly while texting your fake sin's grandmother (she is old fashion)

Is there a way around it (Sub induction darts with built in comlinks, using a beetle drone to run a fiber optic link while you were on standby, Trojan viruses in the smartgun batteries.)
Oh yes. Where there is a will there is a way, but it will take planning and extra time.

Flip side this is the Cyberzombie and the Street Samuria's thing.
One of the many sacrifices they make to play with the pros.

You just need to make sure that the Cyberzombie is put in situations where pure combat is NOT the solution often enough to give the other more rounded PC the chance to shine.

A shadowrun has plenty of opportunities to split the team up and force people to work outside their comfort zones because the Face has to handle a "situation" (at least for the non combat part of a run).

If you need a little back, the image of a cyberzombie changing diapers or trying to warm a bottle because screaming toddlers would bring the neighbors calling brings a smile to my lips.

Looks like I've been completely wrong. I thought bodyware, especially cyberlimbs, are controlled by a device attached to your brain. As far as I can see, cyberlimbs have no wireless bonuses at all, which indicates that they are connected to the nerve endings of the original limb.

From a roleplaying point of view, this is particularly interesting. It should be a unique experience when you install new hardware. You'd have to learn to use it from scratch, learn how to open that hidden compartment and how to slide those hand razors.

Still, I feel a need to punish those "my cyberzombie is immune to all hacking attempts" players. How would you handle this? (I'll write my own thoughts about this when I have finished the book and planned my campaign.)

[qis]

Surely real cyberzombies have a lot of drawbacks, especially the astral signature and enormous costs. But what about heavily augmented street samurais? Should they be immune to certain forms of attacks just by making a few decisions during character creation? I'd rather see a character turn off his wireless at strategically important moments than simply not caring about it at all with minimal drawbacks.

I'm new to GMing, not new to the game though. During our last runs (using SR4) all the matrix stuff was handled by NPCs. It looks like it's about to change with SR5, since now people can understand the matrix rules without risking their sanity. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Looks like the word "punishment" is being frowned upon. Please keep in mind that the form of the punishment was not specified. I usually tell the players what can happen if they choose to venture into the powergamer land. I tell them what drawbacks will come with those fancy immunities.

To me, the Shadowrun universe is a very hostile environment that actively tries to kill you in all possible ways. This is why I think about possible ways to make the lives of the characters miserable. Usually, when realistic and well presented, players perceive it as a challenge and have fun.

[Redjack]

To me, the Shadowrun universe is a very hostile environment that actively tries to kill you in all possible ways. This is why I think about possible ways to make the lives of the characters miserable. Usually, when realistic and well presented, players perceive it as a challenge and have fun.

This.

[Glyph]

There is a difference between challenging characters, and going out of your way to target them simply because you disaprove of legitimate, logical, in-game choices to limit obvious vulnerabilities. Besides, SR5 already penalizes heavily augmented characters for leaving wireless off! They lose a +2 dice bonus from their smartlink, they can't combine their wired reflexes and their reaction enhancers - heavily augmented street samurai actually pay the most, compared to other types of characters.

I'm glad he does talk to players about their characters before the start of play, though. That is the time where GMs should address where their campaign differs from the basic rules, and get everyone on the same page.

[Koekepan]

Surely real cyberzombies have a lot of drawbacks, especially the astral signature and enormous costs. But what about heavily augmented street samurais? Should they be immune to certain forms of attacks just by making a few decisions during character creation? I'd rather see a character turn off his wireless at strategically important moments than simply not caring about it at all with minimal drawbacks.

That seems consistent with people making their plans then going silent for the actual job. Although why a guy whose job is breaking things and killing people should care about the Matrix except for publishing pictures of him with the severed heads of his enemies is a bit opaque to me.

Looks like the word "punishment" is being frowned upon. Please keep in mind that the form of the punishment was not specified. I usually tell the players what can happen if they choose to venture into the powergamer land. I tell them what drawbacks will come with those fancy immunities.

When you speak of punishment, it suggests that you are making choices, not in the interests of unbiased game mastering, but in the interests of enforcing some view of proper play. To put it crudely, you're not creating a level playing field and letting the dice fall where they may but instead penalising players because you simply don't agree with their choices regardless of how well justified those choices might be.

To me, the Shadowrun universe is a very hostile environment that actively tries to kill you in all possible ways. This is why I think about possible ways to make the lives of the characters miserable. Usually, when realistic and well presented, players perceive it as a challenge and have fun.

See, that's the problem. Characters miserable? Fine, but why? Because they were stupid and made bad decisions? That's obvious, and should flow naturally from a dispassionate assessment of the situation. Because they were intelligent and made a reasonable cost and benefit analysis of the options at their disposal? That most people would call not merely unreasonable, but petty.

[Redjack]

Looks like the word "punishment" is being frowned upon. Please keep in mind that the form of the punishment was not specified. I usually tell the players what can happen if they choose to venture into the powergamer land. I tell them what drawbacks will come with those fancy immunities.

To me, the Shadowrun universe is a very hostile environment that actively tries to kill you in all possible ways. This is why I think about possible ways to make the lives of the characters miserable. Usually, when realistic and well presented, players perceive it as a challenge and have fun.

See, that's the problem. Characters miserable? Fine, but why? Because they were stupid and made bad decisions? That's obvious, and should flow naturally from a dispassionate assessment of the situation. Because they were intelligent and made a reasonable cost and benefit analysis of the options at their disposal? That most people would call not merely unreasonable, but petty.

You misunderstand a dystopian world. His end result is a dystopian world where the characters are continually challenged, always the underdogs, in order that the players have a fun and rewarding experience.

[qis]

@Koekepan: You have a point. If my players want to play gods who are never challenged or never challenged outside of their field of expertise - I'll let them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Currently I'm planning a solo adventure for a friend who will play an assassin, starting as an inexperienced character. The most exciting part is to make sure that he has multiple ways to handle all kinds of threats: digital, astral and mundane. Sadly, I fear that he'll have to hire NPCs (sometimes).

[Glyph]

You misunderstand a dystopian world. His end result is a dystopian world where the characters are continually challenged, always the underdogs, in order that the players have a fun and rewarding experience.

There is nothing wrong with a tough, gritty future, but it should still consist of the GM being fair and letting the dice fall where they may, even if the world is unfair. For example - the Sensitive System flaw. If the GM singles out the character with that flaw to get abducted and forcibly implanted with cyber, he's being a dick. If everyone is in danger of being abducted and forcibly implanted with cyber, and the character with that flaw is just as likely (or unlikely) to be victimized as everyone else, then the GM is being fair, even if the character with that flaw does have that happen to him, and suffers more because of his flaw.

Maybe he runs it that way, and is just guilty of choosing the wrong words to make himself understood. But when someone talks about "punishing" players, or making them pay for their "fancy immunities", it sounds less like an evenhanded GM running a uniformly dystopian world, and more like a GM singling players out for vindictive treatment because they made an intelligent choice. Shadowrunners are professional criminals. They should be very careful about when, and if, they go wireless. Honestly, it's the people who do go wireless that you need to occasionally target with a matrix attack, or they will be getting those bonuses for nothing. People who turn the wireless off suffer degraded performance and impaired communications - they don't need random shit happening to them for no reason, on top of the quantifiable and meaningful penalties they already suffer.

[Redjack]

You misunderstand a dystopian world. His end result is a dystopian world where the characters are continually challenged, always the underdogs, in order that the players have a fun and rewarding experience.

There is nothing wrong with a tough, gritty future, but it should still consist of the GM being fair-

I'm not sure what about my point led you to believe I suggested otherwise...?

[Koekepan]

@Koekepan: You have a point. If my players want to play gods who are never challenged or never challenged outside of their field of expertise - I'll let them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This rather misses the point.

Let's say I'm making a character, a standard 400 point character as per SR4A. This is an experienced, seasoned person with a reasonable notion of likely threats, challenges and weaknesses in the game world. Wouldn't such a person make intelligent choices concerning this dangerous way of life? Wouldn't risk mitigation be a reasonable, plausible part of that?

After all, if you can't mitigate risks, you're likely to turn into ghoul munchies sooner rather than later.

[Glyph]

There is nothing wrong with a tough, gritty future, but it should still consist of the GM being fair-I'm not sure what about my point led you to believe I suggested otherwise...?

You were defending qis' GMing style, and apparently took exception to Koekepan stating that characters should not be punished for making intelligent, rational decisions.

I have no problem with "Oh, you turned off your wireless? Remember that your smartlinks don't give you +2 to hit any more, and you can't communicate with your ninja guy inside the compound - no OOC knowledge if something happens to him - and you will need a simple action, not a free action, if you need to activate your suit's oxygen supply." Even if the ninja guy gets caught and they don't know right away, even if they take some damage from defensive tear gas because they couldn't get their internal air supply turned on instantly, even if they miss a shot they might have made with two more dice. Conversely, if they do have their wireless enabled, there is always a chance that the street samurai might get his wired reflexes bricked, or the rigger might have his targeting display suddenly filled with troll-on-elf BDSM porn, or their handgun might eject its clip.

I do have a problem with the GM going "Oh, you're turning your wireless off, huh, you powergaming munchkins? Well, I'll make sure you pay for your fancy immunities!" It's one thing to run a tough and gritty, challenging, but impersonal game, and it's another thing to deliberately target the characters for no reason other than because professional criminals took some sensible precautions.

[Fatum]

I'm with Glyph on this one: qis seems to be going after his players simply for doing the most reasonable thing that the characters have all the reasons to be doing anyway, if they're professionals and have survived long enough to become them.

[DeathStrobe]

I'm with Glyph on this one: qis seems to be going after his players simply for doing the most reasonable thing that the characters have all the reasons to be doing anyway, if they're professionals and have survived long enough to become them.

I don't know. What happens if you're mage starts to mind control guards to kill themselves? Are there consequences for the mage? Is the mage just playing smart?

[Fatum]

I don't know. What happens if you're mage

Dunno, if I'm a mage I think playing pnp will not be as attractive.

Otherwise, a mage killing guards with mind control should face the same consequences as one killing them with stunballs (which is much more drain-effective) or in any other way.

[Glyph]

I don't know. What happens if you're mage starts to mind control guards to kill themselves? Are there consequences for the mage? Is the mage just playing smart?

I am not 100% sure how SR5 works, but I assume the mage has to expend an action to cast the spell, then spend another action giving an order (if the latter is a free action, then maybe both in one initiative pass), then the guard uses his next available action to carry out the order. Assuming success despite any visibility penalties, wards, or counterspelling, then the guard will presumably kill himself (or try to). Not much different than lightning bolting him, other than taking a bit longer.

Consequences? Other than making an attempt at spellcasting that may or may not work, and soaking Drain, only the usual consequences, whatever they may be, for killing corporate personnel. In some campaigns, runners might be expected to have a low body count, or mental manipulation spells might be seen as repugnant. In either case, the runners might have to deal with a hit to their reputation, or be likelier to be targeted by the corporation for revenge. Hopefully, this would have been made clear to the players beforehand.

If the tactic is too easy/successful, the GM should, ideally, either adapt to the tactic (and have the corporations do likewise - it's not like magic hasn't been around long enough for people to have countermeasures against it), or have an OOC discussion where the tactic is banned for PC (and GM!) use in the future. I don't have a problem with games where guards tend to be behind wards, where spirits patrol the grounds and attack when they spot unauthorized magic use, or where the guards are spread out and placed where they are hard to see. I also don't have a problem with the GM banning something because he does not know how to challenge/deal with it (although I would appreciate a chance to change my character's stats accordingly - being allowed to replace control thoughts with another spell, for example).

I do have a problem with a GM who, rather than having logical reactions and consequences, simply sets out to punish the character by having completely unrelated bad things happening to him (snipers, etc. - note that this would be acceptable if the game were one of the aforementioned ones where mind control spells are considered repugnant, and might elicit such a reaction).

[qis]

@Glyph: Putting up a sniper to protect corp security is no different than giving them a mage. Forcing a player to replace his favorite spell is also punishment - I'd hate it. Still I think that you misunderstand me to some degree. English is my third language and it's difficult to be precise. Sorry.

After a few days of thought I came to the following conclusions:

• Wireless bonuses are much heavier, than I expected. Turning wireless off is well handled by the rules.
• If you're smart, there is always another person out there who is smarter. I, for once, love being outsmarted - you learn from it!
• There can be situations when hacking a player who does not want to be hacked is necessary. Story-wise or for fun (player-fun, not GM-fun).

These are the scenarios that I could think of. Please correct me if I'm wrong (that wouldn't be a surprise):

• The character has set his cyberware PAN range to 1m and uses his commlink/deck as a proxy. Are there even rules for that? I'd allow it because it's a cool solution, but that would make the commlink/deck also a host. An enemy decker would hack this host and then hack the cyberware behind it.
• The character has disabled wireless in his cyberware but uses his commlink/deck for communication. Perfectly fine and covered by the rules. An attacker would hack the icon and throw in a Psychotropic IC that makes the character want to enable his wireless. (Not sure if possible and the rules behind it - will investigate.)
• The character has gone completely wireless. Informing the player about all negative consequences provided by the rules should be enough. If it's really important to hack the player story-wise, then I'd try to capture him with non-lethal force making it possible but difficult to win the battle.

During encounters with hostile NPCs you often have grunts, officers and sometimes legends among them. You know what you're up against when you see a corporate troll with visible cyberware, full body armor and a light machine gun in his hand. You also know what you're up against, when you know this high security facility has a decker and your well protected hardware bricks. Do your legwork and you'll known in advance what to expect.

PS: Thanks to this discussion I learned to be more sensitive about how players perceive challanges and arbitrary GM decisions. It helps to discuss those issues in advance.

[Warlordtheft]

In combat in Shadowrun, only you propose your team communicating with radios or iPhones. While your opposition is using state of the art communication and surveillance gear your team will be relying solely on their sniper and squelching the mic on a radio to pass information. Your opposition using drones, tacnets and continual communication will thwart your attempts.

In which case your OPFOR using its SOTA gear breaks your encryption (if there is any) and broad casts it and records the information, or just jams your radio frequency (so about all you can do at this point is try and yell above the gunfire). Meanwhile OPFOR's tacnet software has calculated your probable positions and a drone with a grenade launcher loitering on the battlefield is about to ruin your day.

[Warlordtheft]

If the tactic is too easy/successful, the GM should, ideally, either adapt to the tactic (and have the corporations do likewise - it's not like magic hasn't been around long enough for people to have countermeasures against it), or have an OOC discussion where the tactic is banned for PC (and GM!) use in the future. I don't have a problem with games where guards tend to be behind wards, where spirits patrol the grounds and attack when they spot unauthorized magic use, or where the guards are spread out and placed where they are hard to see. I also don't have a problem with the GM banning something because he does not know how to challenge/deal with it (although I would appreciate a chance to change my character's stats accordingly - being allowed to replace control thoughts with another spell, for example).

If the runners continually use the same tactics, it will be like leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. They will then be vulnerable to be tracked down and killed/taken prisoner/reprogrammed.

Also, mages in 4th ed are OP compared with the other archetypes/roles, in 5th the drain codes are much more balanced.

[Warlordtheft]

[*]The character has set his cyberware PAN range to 1m and uses his commlink/deck as a proxy. Are there even rules for that?

Yes, it is call slaving, and you correctly identify the cost/benefit of it.

[*]The character has disabled wireless in his cyberware but uses his commlink/deck for communication. Perfectly fine and covered by the rules. An attacker would hack the icon and throw in a Psychotropic IC that makes the character want to enable his wireless. (Not sure if possible and the rules behind it - will investigate.)

Yes, it is possible. But at that point, why not make him so completely remorseful that he turns himself in to the nearest security guard.....remeber, Horizon is your friend and they want to help you with your anti-social tendencies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

During encounters with hostile NPCs you often have grunts, officers and sometimes legends among them. You know what you're up against when you see a corporate troll with visible cyberware, full body armor and a light machine gun in his hand. You also know what you're up against, when you know this high security facility has a decker and your well protected hardware bricks. Do your legwork and you'll known in advance what to expect.

PS: Thanks to this discussion I learned to be more sensitive about how players perceive challanges and arbitrary GM decisions. It helps to discuss those issues in advance.

This..sometimes I get frustrated when players don't do proper legwork. It gets messy, and leads to a botched run. I usually have the objective, what the security setup is, how alert security is, and what vulnerabilities there are securitywise all mapped out. Then I leave it up to the players to figure thing out.

[cndblank]

It is true that the GM's job is to "punish" the PC with consequences to their actions in such a way that everyone has fun.

Part of the problem is the GM is not only the players' eyes and ear but also the keeper of their pregame memories, world experiences, and final arbitrator of what is making the "smart" play based on the available information.


Players should be rewarded for playing smart but need to understand that the fun usually doesn't get going until some thing goes wrong.
Also making a mistake "in character" as a PC is what put's the role in roleplaying.

A good background with "advantages" and "disadvantages" that map out between the GM and player what misadventures the player wants the PC to have really helps.


It sounds like you are talking to your players which is half the battle of running a good game.


Certainly you can make the case that someone who is totally off the grid will actually stand out more in some situations which helps to balance it out.

If any thing there are plenty who believe that SR5 want too far with wireless bonuses.

It is not so much the bonuses which where changed for good reason as the fact that they erased a lot of common counter measures and stretched suspension of disbelieve by forcing certain bonuses which don't make sense. If nothing else with enough time and nuyen you should be able to come up with a hard wired alternative to the wireless bonuses.

And I'm only suggesting that the best would have tactics to limit the damage of combat "hacking".