There are two concepts to do matrix rules:
Open rules, where lots of stuff is left to the GM. He can invent different mechanics and play the matrix just like the "real world" in SR, where agents are sneaking around, looking for you just like normal guards, and you can do lots of different things like "climbing" over the wall that represents the firewall.
This rule style calls for a creative GM and needs some effort on his side. The player will not be able to judge situations just by the raw "numbers" regarding nodes and commlinks, as the situation is much more complex. These rules are generally slower. If the GM wants to speed them up he can just invent shortcut rolls that summarize a whole set of actions.
A creative player with knowledge about computers might have an advantage, because he can invent creative ways to deal with problems (like editing data streams coming into a node to get admin access).
Closed rules, where the hacker has only a defined set of allowed actions and the node/IC/Agents a set of counter actions. Everything is defined. A GM does only have to make up the system topology (including matrix tricks like back doors) and the rest is set. Matrix is more like very complex chess game, which can be speed up if need be, by just rolling the dice for every test and leaving out the GM descriptions. The player is able to judge his situation very well because there is nothing to be invented by the GM or the player. This rule set needs no computer knowledge, as everything you can do is already described in the game mechanics.
At the moment SR4 has a very open rule set.
Full Version: What matrix rules do you want?
If I were playing in a long term face to face game, I think I'd prefer open rules. The downside to open ruiles though is that the player needs some time to get to know how the GM runs things so he knows how to react.
In a one shot game, or an online game, which is mostly how I game anymore, open rules like SR4's rules, can be a real problem to the players because they have only one shot to learn how the GM plays things and react accordingly.
In a one shot game, or an online game, which is mostly how I game anymore, open rules like SR4's rules, can be a real problem to the players because they have only one shot to learn how the GM plays things and react accordingly.
Closed. Then you have both. You don't really need any new rules for Open.
Bye
Thanee
Bye
Thanee
Open, just like the vehicule combat rules : you only have some specific rules and actions and everything else is roleplay.
It may be a bit longer for a hacker player to get used to, but it makes things more interesting than just a succession of rolls and don't need the GM to learn a full ruleset just for the hacker.
I like the way it is now, it just needs some deeper explanations and some examples but I'd rather see that in Unwired than tons of new rules.
It may be a bit longer for a hacker player to get used to, but it makes things more interesting than just a succession of rolls and don't need the GM to learn a full ruleset just for the hacker.
I like the way it is now, it just needs some deeper explanations and some examples but I'd rather see that in Unwired than tons of new rules.
Please note: This is not about tons of new rules. This is about open vs closed. Both can be done with minimal or with very many rules. That is not correleated.
Example of minimal closed rulset:
You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System
you can:
hack in
edit files
download files
Minimal open rule set:
You roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System most of the time, sometimes the GM wil ask you to roll something else
You can do whatever the GM allows you to do, ask him what this is
Example of minimal closed rulset:
You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System
you can:
hack in
edit files
download files
Minimal open rule set:
You roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System most of the time, sometimes the GM wil ask you to roll something else
You can do whatever the GM allows you to do, ask him what this is
I'm still in favor of open ruleset with some hints to what can be or can't be done. Something like :
You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System when trying to do something illegally on the node itself. This includes : hacking in, editing files, downloading files. This does not apply to, for example, fooling an agent because you don't act on the node directly but on the agent.
You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System when trying to do something illegally on the node itself. This includes : hacking in, editing files, downloading files. This does not apply to, for example, fooling an agent because you don't act on the node directly but on the agent.
Sorry, this example does not help me as you do not oppose open vs closed, and agents have no place in this minimal example. There are just nodes and hackers, if there were agents, the closed ruleset would have to include rules for them.
Maybe I try another way of explaining open vs closed rule sets:
closed:
there is a rule for everything you can do. if there is no rule, you can not do it. This does not mean there have to be an infinite amount of rules because you can specify that a large cluster of actions just all use the same unified rules.
open:
there are rules for some things, but for most there are only some guidelines. A player and GM have full freedom of choice, but the GM has to do all the balancing and has to make up a lot of things.
The matrix is a constructed system. The rules (should) tell you what you can or can not do. This is different to "real world" Shadworun, where your daily experience and extrapolation of technonlogy tell you what you can or can not do.
You can not have closed rules for "real world" Shadowrun, but you can for matrix. So the question is whether or not you want that, understanding what it means.
Maybe I try another way of explaining open vs closed rule sets:
closed:
there is a rule for everything you can do. if there is no rule, you can not do it. This does not mean there have to be an infinite amount of rules because you can specify that a large cluster of actions just all use the same unified rules.
open:
there are rules for some things, but for most there are only some guidelines. A player and GM have full freedom of choice, but the GM has to do all the balancing and has to make up a lot of things.
The matrix is a constructed system. The rules (should) tell you what you can or can not do. This is different to "real world" Shadworun, where your daily experience and extrapolation of technonlogy tell you what you can or can not do.
You can not have closed rules for "real world" Shadowrun, but you can for matrix. So the question is whether or not you want that, understanding what it means.
I'm already amused that so many people are voting for "closed" rules when everyone constantly whines about that same approach in SR3. 
I also think it's shaky at best to say that a closed rule system will be able to get by on very few rules. Every time a system starts down the path to "any action that is possible is covered by the rules", I see one of two things happen.
On one end of the scale, you get d20, where the system just keeps getting more and more bloated as the designers try to cover every little situation with a rule, (ech...), and on the other end, the rules are ridiculously limited in what you can do, because by definition (yours specifically, Serbitar), you can't do anything the rules don't cover. That end of the scale sees players, GMs, groups, etc. coming up with tons of extra house rules so that they can do more in the game, which then defeats the purpose of "having a rule for every action".
That said, a hybrid is usually the best approach in my opinion. Cover the most common, most needed actions with rules that are written so as to be able to stretch to cover other situations. And have a GM, because that's why he/she is there.
I also think it's shaky at best to say that a closed rule system will be able to get by on very few rules. Every time a system starts down the path to "any action that is possible is covered by the rules", I see one of two things happen.
On one end of the scale, you get d20, where the system just keeps getting more and more bloated as the designers try to cover every little situation with a rule, (ech...), and on the other end, the rules are ridiculously limited in what you can do, because by definition (yours specifically, Serbitar), you can't do anything the rules don't cover. That end of the scale sees players, GMs, groups, etc. coming up with tons of extra house rules so that they can do more in the game, which then defeats the purpose of "having a rule for every action".
That said, a hybrid is usually the best approach in my opinion. Cover the most common, most needed actions with rules that are written so as to be able to stretch to cover other situations. And have a GM, because that's why he/she is there.
Ok, I get your point.
I'd prefer semi-open rules : some rules but everything is just derived from that. That's already how I GM the Matrix : the player tells me what he wants to do and I tell him how he can do that. After playing some games, he's able to come up with hiw own ways of doing things. And rather than just saying "I hack the node, I use spoof to reroute that, I use edit on this file" he describes the whole action, making it far more interesting for other players.
For example, I'm okay with just knowing that exploit is used to exploit breaches in the code and that you use it with hacking+exploit. I then infer that it can be used to get access to nodes, or to exploit an ICE program (the way you can exploit a game AI in some games by doing things it wasn't programmed to deal with) and I can improvise if a player asks something or wants do do something that aren't in the rules. It also limits the number of rules you have to keep in mind.
I just need to know the resistance of a rope and the DV of a falling object to deal with a player wanting to cut a rope to make something fall on an opponent's head. I don't need something stating that it can be done this or that way.
Sure, closed rules are more complete than open and so someone interested in open rules will have what he needs with complete rules, but it may lead some players to think in rule terms rather than in roleplay terms. For example, in D&D, nearly every combat move is described in a rule. This leads to combat where players tell "I use my xxx skill". In Shadowrun, there are just tables and modifiers for some action, that leads to actual description of what is done rather than just dice rolling. It's far more interesting for other players to watch roleplay than a chess game.
I'd prefer semi-open rules : some rules but everything is just derived from that. That's already how I GM the Matrix : the player tells me what he wants to do and I tell him how he can do that. After playing some games, he's able to come up with hiw own ways of doing things. And rather than just saying "I hack the node, I use spoof to reroute that, I use edit on this file" he describes the whole action, making it far more interesting for other players.
For example, I'm okay with just knowing that exploit is used to exploit breaches in the code and that you use it with hacking+exploit. I then infer that it can be used to get access to nodes, or to exploit an ICE program (the way you can exploit a game AI in some games by doing things it wasn't programmed to deal with) and I can improvise if a player asks something or wants do do something that aren't in the rules. It also limits the number of rules you have to keep in mind.
I just need to know the resistance of a rope and the DV of a falling object to deal with a player wanting to cut a rope to make something fall on an opponent's head. I don't need something stating that it can be done this or that way.
Sure, closed rules are more complete than open and so someone interested in open rules will have what he needs with complete rules, but it may lead some players to think in rule terms rather than in roleplay terms. For example, in D&D, nearly every combat move is described in a rule. This leads to combat where players tell "I use my xxx skill". In Shadowrun, there are just tables and modifiers for some action, that leads to actual description of what is done rather than just dice rolling. It's far more interesting for other players to watch roleplay than a chess game.
If I have to choose between 'very open' and 'very closed' I would prefer to run a 'very closed' system. I would prefer to play in a 'very open' system. My ideal, of course, is somewhere in between the two.
Running a very open matrix system means that I have to think a lot about how the system works, in descriptive terms, so that I can give guidance to the decker's player. He can't know ahead of time how I visualize the matrix working, because the system is very open. On one hand, this allows for some neat narration and inventive storytelling. The problem with this very open system, is that it requires me to devote a lot of thought to a part of the world that likely only one or two of my players are going to have a lot of interaction with, which is that much less thought that goes into the rest of the world.
Running a very open matrix system means that I have to think a lot about how the system works, in descriptive terms, so that I can give guidance to the decker's player. He can't know ahead of time how I visualize the matrix working, because the system is very open. On one hand, this allows for some neat narration and inventive storytelling. The problem with this very open system, is that it requires me to devote a lot of thought to a part of the world that likely only one or two of my players are going to have a lot of interaction with, which is that much less thought that goes into the rest of the world.
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Nov 10 2006, 09:48 AM) |
| I'm already amused that so many people are voting for "closed" rules when everyone constantly whines about that same approach in SR3. |
Everybody also whines about the open system in SR4, too.
And concerning your questions about whether you can make a closed system with few rules. I have such a system. Just waiting for the FAQ to appear, to edit it here and there.
You have to keep in mind that the matrix is not the real world. It is a system defined by very few protocols and actions (compared to the real world). Thus you have the unique possibility to make a closed system. You could never do that, as I wrote, in the "real world".
And, If you want, you can alsways open a closed system, but you can never close an open one (at least not without constructing a closed one in the first place out of the open).
Nevertheless, I think it is a very interesting question and I am really looking forward to the result (though I am biasing people with my reasoning, which I originally wanted not to do . . .)
i would prefer to see a mostly closed rule system. obviously, no system will ever be perfect, but it would be nice to see a comprehensive rule set that covers most things. further rules to cover specific oddball situations can at least be extrapolated from those closed rules, as well.
also, it provides a better starting point for discussion... if hacking is all about the houserules, then it becomes nearly impossible to discuss the hacking rules with anyone who is not familiar your house rules.
plus, if you're making house rules to cover specific situations, you are ultimately building a closed system out of your open system anyways...
a closed system is also easier for a starting group, and especially to a starting GM.
that being said, much like capitalism vs. communism (or socialism if you prefer, i've heard communism described as the extreme end of socialism... which is not how my school explained it, but whatever), neither end of the scale really works quite perfectly if you take it to the absolute limit. a system that is 100% capitalism will pretty much inevitably end up with a huge divide between rich and poor, poor working conditions, and a large portion of the society being poor with a small portion being extremely rich, and a few in between, but with almost no possibility of moving from poor to rich. a communist society will almost inevitably lead to people getting lazy (why work when the state has to take care of you either way), or the government becoming a dictatorship where you essentially end up with the government owning everything and using it for their own purposes, while the people are not nearly as well off as they might be under a more capitalistic system (provided said system is, as indicated above, not full-blown, 100% capitalist).
the trick, of course, is finding that exact spot in the middle ground where you want to be. which is easier said than done.
so, again, to summarise: mostly closed system is my preference. certainly not "if the rules don't say it, you can't do it", but rather "the rules explain how to do most things clearly, and provide a good framework for extrapolation of other rules to cover specific situations if needed". the goal being to need those extra rules as little as possible while not overburdening the system with rules.
also, it provides a better starting point for discussion... if hacking is all about the houserules, then it becomes nearly impossible to discuss the hacking rules with anyone who is not familiar your house rules.
plus, if you're making house rules to cover specific situations, you are ultimately building a closed system out of your open system anyways...
a closed system is also easier for a starting group, and especially to a starting GM.
that being said, much like capitalism vs. communism (or socialism if you prefer, i've heard communism described as the extreme end of socialism... which is not how my school explained it, but whatever), neither end of the scale really works quite perfectly if you take it to the absolute limit. a system that is 100% capitalism will pretty much inevitably end up with a huge divide between rich and poor, poor working conditions, and a large portion of the society being poor with a small portion being extremely rich, and a few in between, but with almost no possibility of moving from poor to rich. a communist society will almost inevitably lead to people getting lazy (why work when the state has to take care of you either way), or the government becoming a dictatorship where you essentially end up with the government owning everything and using it for their own purposes, while the people are not nearly as well off as they might be under a more capitalistic system (provided said system is, as indicated above, not full-blown, 100% capitalist).
the trick, of course, is finding that exact spot in the middle ground where you want to be. which is easier said than done.
so, again, to summarise: mostly closed system is my preference. certainly not "if the rules don't say it, you can't do it", but rather "the rules explain how to do most things clearly, and provide a good framework for extrapolation of other rules to cover specific situations if needed". the goal being to need those extra rules as little as possible while not overburdening the system with rules.
I cannot support a two party system, that is not democracy.
Seriously why are you making us choose between VERY open and VERYclosed. It seems to me that the matrix rules shoud be set at about the "level" that the magic rules are set at but without all the loopholes that will make me smack players of mages.
I vote for FAIRLY open but KINDA closed. This is the launch of my "Modration in RPG Rules" underground movement.
Seriously why are you making us choose between VERY open and VERYclosed. It seems to me that the matrix rules shoud be set at about the "level" that the magic rules are set at but without all the loopholes that will make me smack players of mages.
I vote for FAIRLY open but KINDA closed. This is the launch of my "Modration in RPG Rules" underground movement.
Can I be the organizer for my area, OneTrik?
Closed closed closed! I need some kind of benchmark before I feel comfortable houseruling the game as open as I like. If the rules start off too open, it leaves too many unknowns about the spirit of the rules.
Borrowing Serbitar's examples:
Borrowing Serbitar's examples:
| QUOTE |
| Example of minimal closed rulset: You always roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System you can: hack in edit files download files |
From here I can understand how powerful hacking should be in the designer's mindset, and add or subtract actions as I see fit. This is a major reason why I buy rulebooks - for RULES. I already understand most of the fluff of the game world without the core book, I need to see how to play in it.
| QUOTE |
| Minimal open rule set: You roll logic+hacking vs Firewall+System most of the time, sometimes the GM wil ask you to roll something else You can do whatever the GM allows you to do, ask him what this is |
This just leaves me confused. So I can do...what now? Should the hacker have to do something else before he can do this? Do nodes even have this information or function? If I allow this, will the game be too hard or a cakewalk? I have no idea because I don't have the resources that FanPro does to play test and I don't have the experience or talent they do with building game rules.
His example is biased : the closed ruleset is just like the open one with more content...
Don't forget that if you follow the first example you can't, for example, upload a file : it's not in the list, you can't do it (according to Serbitar own's words).
Don't forget that if you follow the first example you can't, for example, upload a file : it's not in the list, you can't do it (according to Serbitar own's words).
That's also not his complete rules.
But Blade has a point. Of course, a closed ruleset would include a lot of actions, and definately all actions to allow for complete hacking runs, but it would definately not allow everything there is and you can think of.
But this is a wanted effect. Some things are not intended to be done and it is much more easy to balance a system where you have a system of X known rules.
Especially when you have a topic like computers where you can not say wheather a certain action is already part of an abstract game mechanic (for example a firewall) or wheteer it is not.
But this is a wanted effect. Some things are not intended to be done and it is much more easy to balance a system where you have a system of X known rules.
Especially when you have a topic like computers where you can not say wheather a certain action is already part of an abstract game mechanic (for example a firewall) or wheteer it is not.
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Nov 10 2006, 08:48 AM) |
| I'm already amused that so many people are voting for "closed" rules when everyone constantly whines about that same approach in SR3. |
I'm amused, in a sad way, by the description of the two options he gave and then limiting it to those two. :/ Of course I didn't vote in the poll since I consider it to be nonsense.
| QUOTE |
| I also think it's shaky at best to say that a closed rule system will be able to get by on very few rules. Every time a system starts down the path to "any action that is possible is covered by the rules", I see one of two things happen. On one end of the scale, you get d20, where the system just keeps getting more and more bloated as the designers try to cover every little situation with a rule, (ech...), and on the other end, the rules are ridiculously limited in what you can do, because by definition (yours specifically, Serbitar), you can't do anything the rules don't cover. That end of the scale sees players, GMs, groups, etc. coming up with tons of extra house rules so that they can do more in the game, which then defeats the purpose of "having a rule for every action". |
Ah-men.
| QUOTE |
| That said, a hybrid is usually the best approach in my opinion. Cover the most common, most needed actions with rules that are written so as to be able to stretch to cover other situations. And have a GM, because that's why he/she is there. |
I think that SR4 is a hybird. Unfortunately I think it is a poorly, and only partially executed hybird at this point.
I voted "open", because you put chess in the context of dice 
I like clear and simplified rules. I REALLY like the idea of skill+logic/whatever with program rating limiting successes. I DON`T like multiple agents in a rules-heavy environment. The rest of the list is very short: the encryption rules suck and devices need limited function. One needs "closed" rules, the other explicit examples. Your toaster should not come with the processing power to run an agent.
Quote dilbert "I don´t think the coffee maker acted alone".
I like clear and simplified rules. I REALLY like the idea of skill+logic/whatever with program rating limiting successes. I DON`T like multiple agents in a rules-heavy environment. The rest of the list is very short: the encryption rules suck and devices need limited function. One needs "closed" rules, the other explicit examples. Your toaster should not come with the processing power to run an agent.
Quote dilbert "I don´t think the coffee maker acted alone".
really damn close vote
Serbitar, I know you make a lot of house rules (which I like and use), but with all the polls recently It seems like you're gearing up to redesign the whole system from the ground up.
hmm, serbitar pulling a raygun on the SR4 matrix rules?
I believe Serbitar was trying to make a point, though I'm equally sure the results aren't as clear cut as he was expecting.
My intention is to find out whether there is a preferred playstyle for the matrix.
I am not gearing up to do something (as I am doing my stuff constantly, anyways).
Concerning this poll:
As I wrote in some post further up, I already have made up my mind in this discussion, but want to know what others think. I certainly do not want to make a point by an internet poll (which is not very representative, and, well, its the internet . . .), although it is, of course, hard to resist to use such a thing to make a point, when the outcome is extremely in favor of one anser.
I had the discussion (open vs closed) for some time now (actually more than half a year) with some guys on the fanpro forums, and the point came up in a discussion with synner, too. I think the answer depends very much on the way you look at the matrix and the way you play it. I for example, do not roleplay in the matrix at all. Matrix runs are just hard facts, numbers, dice rolls, and desicions. Anything else would make the average matrix run too lengthy. There is no time to roleplay how you hide from the IC, you just roll the dice and get done with it.
But others may have other plays of style. To get a rough idea of the fraction, I did the poll.
The actual reason why I started the poll just now, is a new GM our group has, who displays a very open game style, to a point where game consistency is completely irrelevant as long as it helps the plot. I had a longer disussion with him and found it interesting how this actually works, and how this is motivated.
The result as it reads now is quite clear: There is not.
There is even a slight prference for open style, as I argued a lot for closed in this thread which might have given closed some more votes than it would have deserved without the argueing.
If I wanted to make a point, though I would have elaborated on the argument, that matrix rules needs to be closed, as there is no common ground a player and a GM can extrapolatre from, because the matrix is only "virutal" in the purest meaning of the word. Only the rules tell you what the matrix is and what is possible, as you can not extrapolate from day to day experience which is the case in real world SR4.
Thus you either need to have rules for everything, or have played with a GM for a long time to know what he expects, which is kind of a meta rlue system, too . . .
The intention of the math poll was:
There are a lot of SR4 rules where polynomials are replaced by linear functions. For example the programm costs are a quite good linear interprolation of a X² function. I thought: Why not just use the X² function? This is never going to be used in a fight. Same goes for ally costs and such. Dont get me wrong: The linear intrapolation is doing well, but still somebody must have thought that the "real" thing must be to hard to calculate or it would not have been done that way.
I was curious to know whether people thought the same.
Concerning the numbers thread:
I was really just rechechking whether somebody hat a good idea for a number change for my next revision of my house rules.
The overall problem with votes and forum surveys is, that people tend to get carried away by a certain topic and not focus on the question at hand (see my numbers thread).
I am not gearing up to do something (as I am doing my stuff constantly, anyways).
Concerning this poll:
As I wrote in some post further up, I already have made up my mind in this discussion, but want to know what others think. I certainly do not want to make a point by an internet poll (which is not very representative, and, well, its the internet . . .), although it is, of course, hard to resist to use such a thing to make a point, when the outcome is extremely in favor of one anser.
I had the discussion (open vs closed) for some time now (actually more than half a year) with some guys on the fanpro forums, and the point came up in a discussion with synner, too. I think the answer depends very much on the way you look at the matrix and the way you play it. I for example, do not roleplay in the matrix at all. Matrix runs are just hard facts, numbers, dice rolls, and desicions. Anything else would make the average matrix run too lengthy. There is no time to roleplay how you hide from the IC, you just roll the dice and get done with it.
But others may have other plays of style. To get a rough idea of the fraction, I did the poll.
The actual reason why I started the poll just now, is a new GM our group has, who displays a very open game style, to a point where game consistency is completely irrelevant as long as it helps the plot. I had a longer disussion with him and found it interesting how this actually works, and how this is motivated.
The result as it reads now is quite clear: There is not.
There is even a slight prference for open style, as I argued a lot for closed in this thread which might have given closed some more votes than it would have deserved without the argueing.
If I wanted to make a point, though I would have elaborated on the argument, that matrix rules needs to be closed, as there is no common ground a player and a GM can extrapolatre from, because the matrix is only "virutal" in the purest meaning of the word. Only the rules tell you what the matrix is and what is possible, as you can not extrapolate from day to day experience which is the case in real world SR4.
Thus you either need to have rules for everything, or have played with a GM for a long time to know what he expects, which is kind of a meta rlue system, too . . .
The intention of the math poll was:
There are a lot of SR4 rules where polynomials are replaced by linear functions. For example the programm costs are a quite good linear interprolation of a X² function. I thought: Why not just use the X² function? This is never going to be used in a fight. Same goes for ally costs and such. Dont get me wrong: The linear intrapolation is doing well, but still somebody must have thought that the "real" thing must be to hard to calculate or it would not have been done that way.
I was curious to know whether people thought the same.
Concerning the numbers thread:
I was really just rechechking whether somebody hat a good idea for a number change for my next revision of my house rules.
The overall problem with votes and forum surveys is, that people tend to get carried away by a certain topic and not focus on the question at hand (see my numbers thread).
| QUOTE (Serbitar @ Nov 12 2006, 09:35 PM) |
| I had the discussion (open vs closed) for some time now (actually more than half a year) with some guys on the fanpro forums, and the point came up in a discussion with synner, too. I think the answer depends very much on the way you look at the matrix and the way you play it. |
As anyone who remembers the original Idiot's Guide to the Matrix threads (for SR3) will tell you, I play a mix of both. Even in SR3, where every operation was mapped out, there was leeway for roleplaying—as any of the IGTTM walkthroughs will show. Things don't need to be strictly one or the other, open or closed, there is a middle ground. What I question about this poll is the absence of that middle ground option. Right now the votes are about equally divided, but I have absolutely no doubt that the vote would be different if people had been given a choice of "a mostly open Matrix system with some closed/detailed mechanics and rules sets which can easily be extrapolated from."
I grant you that SR4 BBB presents a rather open system (though I believe the forthcoming FAQ will clarify intentions and hence help make it more "closed"), Unwired is bound to present further options and details that will make it a more "closed" model (though not a closed model by the standards of option 2).
| QUOTE |
| If I wanted to make a point, though I would have elaborated on the argument, that matrix rules needs to be closed, as there is no common ground a player and a GM can extrapolatre from, because the matrix is only "virutal" in the purest meaning of the word. Only the rules tell you what the matrix is and what is possible, as you can not extrapolate from day to day experience which is the case in real world SR4. |
Which begs the question: Do you make "Astral runs" mechanical too? If you run an astral intrusion with all the bells and whistles (ie. spirits, watchers, wards, astral visibility, Domains, background count, etc) it can be just as complicated and convoluted as a short Matrix run, and all the comments you've just made apply equally to the "virtual" astral realm. Do you not roleplay the Astral at all? Are Astral jaunts just hard facts, numbers, dice rolls, and decisions? And if not why privilege the magician in detriment of the hacker or technomancer?
| QUOTE (Synner @ Nov 12 2006, 10:15 PM) |
| Are Astral jaunts just hard facts, numbers, dice rolls, and decisions? And if not why privilege the magician in detriment of the hacker or technomancer? |
Not to really argue any specific way, but the difference would be that the Astral (and Magic) have been shown to, in general, work the way the observer thinks it will work. It's based on belief. The Matrix, on the oher hand, is at it's core a feat of engineering, and works on specific programmed rules. Technomancers seem to suggest that something more is going on there, now, but similarities aside, hallucinations don't work the same as computers do. That knd of justification might explain why a more mechanical hacking system is preferable.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp @ Nov 12 2006, 10:38 PM) |
| Not to really argue any specific way, but the difference would be that the Astral (and Magic) have been shown to, in general, work the way the observer thinks it will work. It's based on belief. |
The way the Astral is described as working in the setting in no way dictates the depth or variety of mechanics associated with spirits, wards, or any of the elements I mentioned above—and the existing Astral rules and mechanics, if applied fully, can make an astral intrusion just as complicated as a Matrix run so your argument is ungrounded.
That being the case, why should the in-game nature of the Matrix dictate that specific rules are needed to do everything? As with any SR4 system the goal is that once you know the base mechanic and options available, you should be able to extrapolate what might be needed in a similar case. Granted, SR4 BBB is lacking in examples of Matrix use, but we're planning on addressing that soon and they only clarify the rules that are already there.
One of the reasons the Matrix in SR3 slowed play to a crawl (even using the quick reference list at the back of Matrix) was simply because every single operation meant a specific roll and required looking up given the sheer volume and variety (sure you could memorize the common ones) and didn't require extrapolation. It was such that even properly logging on and finding the address to deck was so much of a timewaster most GMs skipped it and started with hacking the target SAN.
While in SR4 the Matrix will continue to require rolls for most operations, if you're expecting Unwired to go the way of SR3's Matrix you are going to be disappointed. As I've said before, our goal with the SR4 Matrix is a moderately open system with a common underlying mechanic which grounds a few detailed core mechanics and option sets that in turn can be extrapolated to the vast majority of game situations that might arise. I'll concede that the Matrix section of the BBB isn't sufficient for most people but that doesn't mean the advanced rules should present a "closed" system.
I voted closed.
The GM / Players can always opt to simply rules / streamline / adlib / 'open' the rules.
'Closed' rules take more balance / thought in general.
If Open rules are presented, and the group wants more 'closed' rules. THen it falls to the GM/Players to create the rules and depending on skill level may or may not work well.
Much like learning a car. Learn a manual and figuring out how to drive an automatic is not that hard. Learn an Automatic and odds are the transmission is going to be on the ground before you get 3 blocks....
If the rules are 'closed'. It is much easier for Novice GMs to 'open' them up and streamline.
If the rules are 'open', a novice GM will have a much harder time making detailed rules for when it is important.
For myself it all depends.
If a small group (or even single player), I will play the rules out all its worth if the 'focus' is a hacker.
If the sammy just wants to do some quick research on what type of SMG she wants to order, then I make it a simple roll.
If it is 'vital' then it generally will get played out in detail.
If it is 'fluff' it is a simple look at skills and go with what I feel they would get.
If it is 'helpful' but not 'vital', then it will be a single simple roll on what ever skill/attribute best fits the desired result.
The GM / Players can always opt to simply rules / streamline / adlib / 'open' the rules.
'Closed' rules take more balance / thought in general.
If Open rules are presented, and the group wants more 'closed' rules. THen it falls to the GM/Players to create the rules and depending on skill level may or may not work well.
Much like learning a car. Learn a manual and figuring out how to drive an automatic is not that hard. Learn an Automatic and odds are the transmission is going to be on the ground before you get 3 blocks....
If the rules are 'closed'. It is much easier for Novice GMs to 'open' them up and streamline.
If the rules are 'open', a novice GM will have a much harder time making detailed rules for when it is important.
For myself it all depends.
If a small group (or even single player), I will play the rules out all its worth if the 'focus' is a hacker.
If the sammy just wants to do some quick research on what type of SMG she wants to order, then I make it a simple roll.
If it is 'vital' then it generally will get played out in detail.
If it is 'fluff' it is a simple look at skills and go with what I feel they would get.
If it is 'helpful' but not 'vital', then it will be a single simple roll on what ever skill/attribute best fits the desired result.
| QUOTE (laughingowl @ Nov 12 2006, 11:49 PM) |
| If it is 'vital' then it generally will get played out in detail. If it is 'fluff' it is a simple look at skills and go with what I feel they would get. If it is 'helpful' but not 'vital', then it will be a single simple roll on what ever skill/attribute best fits the desired result. |
You'd be correct if this were true. It isn't. I challenge you to streamline the SR3 Matrix rules—without reducing them completely to one roll quick resolution mechanics which disregard 95% of the choices presented in SR3 and Matrix (as MrJLBB does and which is far simpler than anything SR4 proposes).
A closed system forces a Newbie GM and players to learn all the new rules—which would be plenty if the intent is to cover all possible operations and options—to fully comprehend their balance and only then be able to streamline them without breaking said balance. It creates an entry level barrier the vast majority of players simply aren't willing to put effort into overcoming—and leads us right back to where we were with SR3 (where every single thing in the Matrix was mapped out and most people chose not to play a decker).
For the record: I was one of the few GMs I know who (role)played the SR3 Matrix regularly, included it in almost all my game sessions and even took the time to dismistify it for people (here and elsewhere) and show them how to play it with minimal hassle. The fact that I was comfortable with the Matrix rules, by no means undermines the basic fact that the (necessary) variety and complexity of the closed Matrix rule set was the single biggest reason player character deckers were a rare breed.
IMHO A semi-closed system, on the other hand —one where (to use your own terms), 'vital' operations are mapped out in detail, 'fluff' operations are easy to eyeball and extrapolate, and 'helpful' but not 'vital' operations are not mapped out in detail but grouped around the same mechanics as the 'vital' ones—allows Novice GMs enough leeway "to 'open' them up and streamline."
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||
Things don't need to be strictly one or the other, open or closed, there is a middle ground. What I question about this poll is the absence of that middle ground option. Right now the votes are about equally divided, but I have absolutely no doubt that the vote would be different if people had been given a choice of "a mostly open Matrix system with some closed/detailed mechanics and rules sets which can easily be extrapolated from."
|
This is very true. The middle ground is almost always the best choice in everything. Extremes are seldom either practical or even wanted.
But knowing this, a poll that gives the middle ground as a choice, will always get this answer: That the middle ground is best.
You mention a "mostly middle, but tending to one side" answer. But when there is only two extremes, the one that tend to the one side will give the one extreme answer, while the one tending to the other side will geive the other anser. There is simply no other choice . . .
| QUOTE |
Which begs the question: Do you make "Astral runs" mechanical too? If you run an astral intrusion with all the bells and whistles (ie. spirits, watchers, wards, astral visibility, Domains, background count, etc) it can be just as complicated and convoluted as a short Matrix run, and all the comments you've just made apply equally to the "virtual" astral realm. Do you not roleplay the Astral at all? Are Astral jaunts just hard facts, numbers, dice rolls, and decisions? And if not why privilege the magician in detriment of the hacker or technomancer? |
This is a good point. Astral space is somwhere in the middle between matrix and real space.
The most important difference from the matrix is, that, just like real space, you can not make "closed" rules at all.
Ill try to give an example: Everything that is in the matrix is just an illusion, just there to visualize things that are happening arround you and things that you are doing. In astral space (and in the real world) things are really there.
When you are, for example, editing a file this may be visualized as a your icon taking a pen, taking a parchement froma desk and writing stuff into it. But this is just visualisation. In fact, you are just editing a file. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else does not exist and carries absolutely no information.
When you do something in the real world, everything ales does carry information. It makes a difference wheather you write with a pen or use a keyboard. The amount of variables is (almost) infinate, while the amount of viarables int he amtrix is very finite (namely the information you get by the data stram, while 90% of the information is just visual representation and counts 0).
In roleplaying rules you try to break certain actions down into party that you have a dice mechanic for (for example shootin: the shot, evasion, damage resistance) by generalizing/neglecting a lot of variables. This is true for real space and for astral space. But not for the matrix. You can look at the code, it is finite and it is simple and goverend by protocols. When somebody is making a matrix attack, you can assume that the rules negelect nothing, they represent the code attack to 100%, in case where in the real world, you are neglecting wind, properteis of the gun, the bullet and so on.
An ideal rule system, would have a rule for everything, but also cover everything that is possible. In the real world, and in astral space, this is not possible, as rules can never hope to get close to cover everything. INt he matrix, thoug covering everything is is impossible for a practical rule system, too, it is doable to a point.
So to answer your question: No, astral runs are done in full complexity, as they are far to complex to do by just calling actions and rolling dice.
By the way, maybe I missphrased roleplaying for "character explained actions" like "i go over there and sneak arround this thing and try to find that".
In the matrix I would say:
I hack nto the node, search for the file, edit it, fake an account, save the account, log out. Everything is an action that can be linked to a dice roll, and this explanation is enough, you do not need more.
In astral space I would have to sneak into a building, get feedback from the GM about the outline of the building, look where to hide best, and then roll for the first time. Of course you could also leave out the GM feedback and just roll for stealth. But you are losing information this way, while in the matrix, the dice rolls are all there is.
I hope I somehow could transport what I wanted to say.
| QUOTE (Synner @ Nov 12 2006, 06:04 PM) |
| One of the reasons the Matrix in SR3 slowed play to a crawl (even using the quick reference list at the back of Matrix) was simply because every single operation meant a specific roll and required looking up given the sheer volume and variety (sure you could memorize the common ones) and didn't require extrapolation. It was such that even properly logging on and finding the address to deck was so much of a timewaster most GMs skipped it and started with hacking the target SAN. |
But my point would be, that the extrapolation is already in the rules and done for you.
The problem with SR3 matrix was, that the focus was mach too granular. Actions where broken down into subactions that should never have been broken down. (Like, for example, loggin on to an RTG)
| QUOTE |
As I've said before, our goal with the SR4 Matrix is a moderately open system with a common underlying mechanic which grounds a few detailed core mechanics and option sets that in turn can be extrapolated to the vast majority of game situations that might arise. I'll concede that the Matrix section of the BBB isn't sufficient for most people but that doesn't mean the advanced rules should present a "closed" system. |
Again, a very good point. But there is no reason why this extrapolation should not already be done for you.
The only difference between an open system with good unified rules and a close system is the list of action which are allowed. If the rules are clear, unified and consistent, everybody should already know what to roll.
@Discussion between Laughingowl and Synner:
Do not forget complexity. Very complex closed rules are very hard to open, without destroying the balance of the. But the other point is: Open rules do not have this amount of balancing at all. Open rules are intrinsically unbalanced, at least compared to a balanced set of closed rules of the same complexity.
My Idea is to lower complexity to the point where every choice (whoo matrix 3) is determing a roll. If there is no choice between two rolls, they should be summed up as one roll.
For example hacking into nodes protected by subscription list. You have to matrix percept for an ID goind to the node first, then spoof it, then hack in. There is no choice between that, so just make hacking into a subscription listed node a dice modifer. Rembember (reading my post one above this) , you can just define that you are neglecting nothing and the test represents the matrix world to 100%. You can not do this whith the real world.
Once you are at this level, you can make a mostly closed rules that are easy to handle unified and consistent.
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| I'm already amused that so many people are voting for "closed" rules when everyone constantly whines about that same approach in SR3. I also think it's shaky at best to say that a closed rule system will be able to get by on very few rules. Every time a system starts down the path to "any action that is possible is covered by the rules", I see one of two things happen. On one end of the scale, you get d20, where the system just keeps getting more and more bloated as the designers try to cover every little situation with a rule, (ech...), and on the other end, the rules are ridiculously limited in what you can do, because by definition (yours specifically, Serbitar), you can't do anything the rules don't cover. That end of the scale sees players, GMs, groups, etc. coming up with tons of extra house rules so that they can do more in the game, which then defeats the purpose of "having a rule for every action". That said, a hybrid is usually the best approach in my opinion. Cover the most common, most needed actions with rules that are written so as to be able to stretch to cover other situations. And have a GM, because that's why he/she is there. |
To be fair I keep saying that the matrix system is the only part I liked better about SR3
Well obvously anything can be taken 'to far to extreme'.
Rolemaster is NOT for everyone
That being said until taken to 'extreme' I would still say I would rather more comlex/detailed rules, then simplfied rules.
I will stand by that as a rule, it is easier to 'simply' existing rules, then it is to create more complex rules (from simple rules).
Now rules (whether simple of complex) can be poorly written / explained / thought out.
(note for matrix for the below)
SR3 rules were detailed and only modertate to poor thought out.
SR4 rules are simplified and poorly thought out / written / explained.
Neither one is very consitant with the rest of the rules. So both require learning 'new' rules.
A 'closed' system shouldnt require the GM (or players) to learn new rules. They should provide how to apply existing rules to the situation.
'Hacking' should be resolved exactly like unarmed combat, social test, etc. The 'rules' should be the same. How those rules 'apply' are the only new things that have to be learned.
Now the 'ideal' system would be a 'detailed' (far better then 'closed' termonlogy wise) system, built from a simple core. (combat SR3 + was it M&M or CC).
The 'core' a few simple actions:
Hack
Attack
Sneak
Runaway
Confuse
The 'Advanced' rules:
Brute Force Hack: instead of a normal hack, do ...... the results will be the same as per a normal but in addition .......
Sublte Hack: Instead of a normal hack, do ....... the results will be the same as per a normal hack but in addition ........
Rolemaster is NOT for everyone
That being said until taken to 'extreme' I would still say I would rather more comlex/detailed rules, then simplfied rules.
I will stand by that as a rule, it is easier to 'simply' existing rules, then it is to create more complex rules (from simple rules).
Now rules (whether simple of complex) can be poorly written / explained / thought out.
(note for matrix for the below)
SR3 rules were detailed and only modertate to poor thought out.
SR4 rules are simplified and poorly thought out / written / explained.
Neither one is very consitant with the rest of the rules. So both require learning 'new' rules.
A 'closed' system shouldnt require the GM (or players) to learn new rules. They should provide how to apply existing rules to the situation.
'Hacking' should be resolved exactly like unarmed combat, social test, etc. The 'rules' should be the same. How those rules 'apply' are the only new things that have to be learned.
Now the 'ideal' system would be a 'detailed' (far better then 'closed' termonlogy wise) system, built from a simple core. (combat SR3 + was it M&M or CC).
The 'core' a few simple actions:
Hack
Attack
Sneak
Runaway
Confuse
The 'Advanced' rules:
Brute Force Hack: instead of a normal hack, do ...... the results will be the same as per a normal but in addition .......
Sublte Hack: Instead of a normal hack, do ....... the results will be the same as per a normal hack but in addition ........
Thats about that what I had in mind.
It is interesting though, that the votes seem to change with the general view of the last poster.
It is interesting though, that the votes seem to change with the general view of the last poster.
I'd have liked a page or two of "Quick and Dirty Decking", with a list of what you could do and what it'd take.
For example,
Override a Maglock
An opposed test with Hacking + Command vs Maglock Rating *2, requiring 1 net hit for the Hacker to open the lock, 1 net hit for the lock to trigger an alarm, nothing happens on a tie.
Shut Down a Camera or other Device
An opposed test with Hacking + Command vs Device Rating *2, requiring 1 net success for teh Hacker to shut the item down, 1 net hit for the device to trigger an alarm, nothing happens on a tie. (Note that this will leave the device off, which may well be noticed by the central security officer)
Search for Hidden Devices
Opposed test of Electronic Warfare + Sniffer vs Device Rating *2, requiring 1 net success for the hacker to detect the hidden system. (Cameras, electric eye, etc) Hacker doesn't get to know if he won thsi test, mind you! "COast is clear, gang." *step* *alarm* ... "Dreekkkk!"
Spoof a Camera
Make it look like you aren't there, looping a short burst of footage to let you get past. This can only be faked for a short time, so act quick! Hacking + Edit vs Device Rating *2, with the net successes being the number of rounds of "Invisibility" the Hacker generates. If the device wins, it sets off an alarm.
Find the Paydata
An Opposed Test of Data Search + Browse vs Firewall *2, with 1 net success needed to find the file, 1 net success from the Firewall to trigger an alarm, and a tie resulting in "Still searching".
And so on.
Just a list of, say, twenty, maybe thirty common actions that can be handled on the fly via AR, make life simpler.
For example,
Override a Maglock
An opposed test with Hacking + Command vs Maglock Rating *2, requiring 1 net hit for the Hacker to open the lock, 1 net hit for the lock to trigger an alarm, nothing happens on a tie.
Shut Down a Camera or other Device
An opposed test with Hacking + Command vs Device Rating *2, requiring 1 net success for teh Hacker to shut the item down, 1 net hit for the device to trigger an alarm, nothing happens on a tie. (Note that this will leave the device off, which may well be noticed by the central security officer)
Search for Hidden Devices
Opposed test of Electronic Warfare + Sniffer vs Device Rating *2, requiring 1 net success for the hacker to detect the hidden system. (Cameras, electric eye, etc) Hacker doesn't get to know if he won thsi test, mind you! "COast is clear, gang." *step* *alarm* ... "Dreekkkk!"
Spoof a Camera
Make it look like you aren't there, looping a short burst of footage to let you get past. This can only be faked for a short time, so act quick! Hacking + Edit vs Device Rating *2, with the net successes being the number of rounds of "Invisibility" the Hacker generates. If the device wins, it sets off an alarm.
Find the Paydata
An Opposed Test of Data Search + Browse vs Firewall *2, with 1 net success needed to find the file, 1 net success from the Firewall to trigger an alarm, and a tie resulting in "Still searching".
And so on.
Just a list of, say, twenty, maybe thirty common actions that can be handled on the fly via AR, make life simpler.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.