(I also posted this at rpg.net...I really need help)
I really, really dig the WiFi stuff in SR4. I think it’s great and I like the kind of world/setting it makes for. So much so that I want that whole “augmented reality” to be at the very core of my campaign: muscles (street samurais) come but hackers are the most dangerous criminals out there. And the coming of a Technomancer will create events similar to the awakening of Akira (whatever the f*ck Akira was in the anime!).
Anyway…
I really like SR4 rules in general; especially the fixed target numbers…but I despise the hacking rules. I especially hate the obscene number of different rolls for the different possible actions. I also don’t like how rolls change from Stat+Skill to Skill + Programs. For me, it makes the whole thing way too complicated and confusing. I want my WiFi tech to be fast, fluid and elegant, not clunky with 12 different types of tests and what not.
I’m still trying to work my way around that problem. I don’t mind “house-ruling” the whole WiFi chapter, so any ideas are welcomed at this point.
So, yeah, I’m kind of looking for an alternative – house rules, maybe, or even a generic game I could adapt or suggestions…I’ve toyed around with the ORE system, which I truly love, but it’s a lot of work.
In the end, I think I’m looking for a game system that would have a hacker be sort of like a character in Mage (M:tA, not the new version) or something, where “spheres” would be like different types of computers operations being combined to form a dice pool of some sorts…Am I making any sense, here?
Help!
Full Version: Setting vs rules
Try this on for size:
Your dicepool is always Stat + Skill. That's Logic + Electronic Warfare, or Logic + Data Search, or whatever.
Your maximum number of hits is 1 + Program Rating, just like you were casting spells at Force + 1.
So a character who is defaulting doesn't really need a bunch of programs at high ratings, because they aren't skillful enough to use the more advanced packages anyway. So skilled professionals use PhotoShop Professional and little kids might as well use MacPaint.
Simple. Fits the fluff. Fits better with the rest of the rules. Lets people actually use the "Hacking on the Fly" rules without making Programs wasted moolah.
What do you think?
-Frank
Your dicepool is always Stat + Skill. That's Logic + Electronic Warfare, or Logic + Data Search, or whatever.
Your maximum number of hits is 1 + Program Rating, just like you were casting spells at Force + 1.
So a character who is defaulting doesn't really need a bunch of programs at high ratings, because they aren't skillful enough to use the more advanced packages anyway. So skilled professionals use PhotoShop Professional and little kids might as well use MacPaint.
Simple. Fits the fluff. Fits better with the rest of the rules. Lets people actually use the "Hacking on the Fly" rules without making Programs wasted moolah.
What do you think?
-Frank
SR4 has the simplest and most "realistic" hacking rules for a Shadowrun game yet, although without the splat-book we still don't know what the matrix itself feels like from a game mechanic perspective.
As for the skill/program granularity (the "different tests" you're complaining about), the meaningfulness of the different tests helps visualize what the hacker is actually doing rather than abstracting away the whole hacking process entirely. Additionally, it provides the feeling of "cybercombat" which is a defining element in Shadowrun's corner of the cyberpunk genre - stuff like ICE is important for setting flavor, not just an arbitrary game mechanic.
If you don't like that style of hacking - and it sounds like you don't - you could try to abstract away most of the decking rules. There are two things to watch for:
- Accomplishing something useful as a hacker takes longer than one combat round. The current rules give the hacker something to do in each combat round. Any alternate system you provide will want to give the hacker something useful to do when the game breaks down to combat rounds... unless you're trying to discourage the "just a hacker" archetype.
- As it is, being a good hacker is a notable character creating choice. It involves two skill groups and tens of thousands of nuyen worth of gear. It's a stand alone character archetype, as unique and significant as "mage" or "street samurai". The current rules aren't optimal at portraying the fact that being a good hacker is a significant investment... be careful to not abstract away any more coolness without realizing what you're doing.
As for the skill/program granularity (the "different tests" you're complaining about), the meaningfulness of the different tests helps visualize what the hacker is actually doing rather than abstracting away the whole hacking process entirely. Additionally, it provides the feeling of "cybercombat" which is a defining element in Shadowrun's corner of the cyberpunk genre - stuff like ICE is important for setting flavor, not just an arbitrary game mechanic.
If you don't like that style of hacking - and it sounds like you don't - you could try to abstract away most of the decking rules. There are two things to watch for:
- Accomplishing something useful as a hacker takes longer than one combat round. The current rules give the hacker something to do in each combat round. Any alternate system you provide will want to give the hacker something useful to do when the game breaks down to combat rounds... unless you're trying to discourage the "just a hacker" archetype.
- As it is, being a good hacker is a notable character creating choice. It involves two skill groups and tens of thousands of nuyen worth of gear. It's a stand alone character archetype, as unique and significant as "mage" or "street samurai". The current rules aren't optimal at portraying the fact that being a good hacker is a significant investment... be careful to not abstract away any more coolness without realizing what you're doing.
To play along with Frank's thread hijack...
Frank -
I'm getting more and more convinced that using the rules as written, but capping effective program rating at logic makes more sense.
The game was playtested with no cap on program hits... my suggestion effectively doesn't change the game mechanics at all.
Frank -
I'm getting more and more convinced that using the rules as written, but capping effective program rating at logic makes more sense.
The game was playtested with no cap on program hits... my suggestion effectively doesn't change the game mechanics at all.
Someone at rpg.net told me:
"Yeah, when I played a dec... I mean, a hacker in SR4, I hated the fact that any idiot could get the same result provided they had the right equipment. I would suggest rolling Stat+Skill+Program. Yeah, it makes big handfuls of dice. But (1) that's clearly what SR4 is about, and (2) I know from bitter, personal experience that an entire party rolling 10 to 16 dice each can ALL fail to get three hits."
Does it make any sense?
"Yeah, when I played a dec... I mean, a hacker in SR4, I hated the fact that any idiot could get the same result provided they had the right equipment. I would suggest rolling Stat+Skill+Program. Yeah, it makes big handfuls of dice. But (1) that's clearly what SR4 is about, and (2) I know from bitter, personal experience that an entire party rolling 10 to 16 dice each can ALL fail to get three hits."
Does it make any sense?
I didn't like using Skill + Program with no Attribute at first, but the system is growing on me. I'm finding hacking to be pretty fluid and easy to handle, and it doesn't leave everyone else bored.
Of course, far be it from me to say you shouldn't houserule away. I personally believe in bending, twisting and breaking a system until it suits your needs and wishes.
Of course, far be it from me to say you shouldn't houserule away. I personally believe in bending, twisting and breaking a system until it suits your needs and wishes.
It seems to me that programs take the skill out of hacking all together. Real hackers today make the program do what they want to because they know how to recode the program or what codes to exploit. So maybe go with Franks rule? It seemed logical enough.
| QUOTE (Chandon) |
| The game was playtested with no cap on program hits... |
OK, I'm going to say something that's going to sound really controvertial. But keep with me for a bit:
- I don't think the present hacking rules were playtested at all.
I know, that sounds really harsh, but here's my reasoning: there are quite obviously two distinct camps on what the dice pools of a hacker should be. On pages 111, 124, and 223, it directs you to roll Skill + Logic. On pages 223, 224, and 230 all direct you to roll Skill + Program. Ouch. In short, there were at least two schools of thought as to what Hackers were doing and playtesters never were on the same page as the authors. Heck, the playtestedrs were never on the same page as each other, and the authors weren't communicating to each other either.
In short, when different people in the design process were talking to each other about the way hacking worked, they weren't talking about the same thing and managed to agree to what hey thought te other was saying rather than to what was actually being said.
---
That being on the table, it still doesn't actually matter for most PCs. That is, most Hackers begin play with a Logic of 5 and buy it up to 6 as soon as they can. Furthermore, most players begin with a Rating 6 program in everything and a Commlink with a Response of 5 that they will upgrade to a 6 as soon as they can. In short, most Hackers begin play with a dicepool of Skill + 5 and a few adventures down the line they have a dicepool of Skill + 6. And there are good solid reasons to spend your Karma and
in this manner regardless, so you're going to see both those numbers hit 6 at about the same time no matter what you do and the dicepool will move along just fine to the same value no matter what you think the rules mean.But... if the dicepool is set by the program rating instead of the Logic attribute, our Hacker friend has very little to move on up t from there. Sure, in the short campaign it doesn't much matter, but in the long campaign the character will eventually get a Cerebral Booster, but they aren't getting a Rating 7 Response Commlink until Unwired comes out. More importantly, starting Skillgrops are capped at 4 and Agents are capped at 4 as well. Agents have Attributes and Skills equal to their rating, so a Rating 4 Agent with a Rating 6 Attack Program is just as scary as any character for quite some time if the dicepool is Skill + Program.
So again, having a dicepool being set by the program and the skill causes problems. Not immediately obvious problems, but problems nonetheless.
Heck, there was a time when your spellcasting pool was set by the spell's Force. That got dropped because it was bad. Not in the immediately obvious sense that characters were getting screwed or exalted on chargen, but that a long campaign spun slowly out of control. And that's what we're looking at for Program based dicepools for Hackers - it's not part of the character and it's the lion's share of the dice pool. In the long run, that's bad, mmmK?
-Frank
Frank -
Yea, or you could just do it my way and eventually allow higher rating programs.
As for SR4 playtesting - well, I'm pretty sure that someone generated some starting characters. At least once. The whole game system is mathematically really weird - especially when you start considering character advancement. It really makes me wonder if advanced characters were playtested at all. The interaction between the stat caps and magic (all of magic, from spirits to the attribute itself) is especially odd.
Yea, or you could just do it my way and eventually allow higher rating programs.
As for SR4 playtesting - well, I'm pretty sure that someone generated some starting characters. At least once. The whole game system is mathematically really weird - especially when you start considering character advancement. It really makes me wonder if advanced characters were playtested at all. The interaction between the stat caps and magic (all of magic, from spirits to the attribute itself) is especially odd.
I´m in Franks camp on reasoning and solution. You´ll still have the same number of tests of course, but you´ll seldom have to look up the exact mechanic.
I'm also on Frank's side on this debate. It makes much more sense and falls in line with everything else in the book. To have one section that throws the general rules to the wind seems a little too wacked out.
Possible by the base rules - Hacking a node for admin access in one action. This will frequently take edge, and even then it's not a sure thing, but it's possible. By Frank's rules, it's strictly not possible. I consider that a loss.
for one, if the precedence for the change is force rating of spells capping it, then using edge would bypass that cap.
| QUOTE (furst) |
| Someone at rpg.net told me: "Yeah, when I played a dec... I mean, a hacker in SR4, I hated the fact that any idiot could get the same result provided they had the right equipment. I would suggest rolling Stat+Skill+Program. Yeah, it makes big handfuls of dice. But (1) that's clearly what SR4 is about, and (2) I know from bitter, personal experience that an entire party rolling 10 to 16 dice each can ALL fail to get three hits." Does it make any sense? |
...dice ar fickle things
Once had a player in an SR3 campaign I was running roll a large number of dice (somewhere in the 20s) and not get a single success against a TN of 5.
...then In a recent session KK 4.3 rolled 5 hits on only 5 dice.
But should hacking into a admin account in one action be a common thing? Someone using edge could do it, as the hits when using edge wouldn't be limited, correct? Or am I not understanding something with edge. And with rule of six, that could increase the amount of dice thrown, if one is very lucky. Hacking into an admin account in one turn should be an amazing turn of luck, something that just not everyone can do, and even then, not very often, but isn't that why runners get paid the big bucks?
I've tryed the original hacking rules, and they just taste bad being different from everything else, they work fine, just it seems wrong, Frank's spell-like use of programs has worked well for us, but it can be limiting when lady luck is on your side, but, I make allowances for net hits, speed things up, or let them be a little quieter while in the system, or mabye the spider had to use the restroom at a crucial point, something like that.
-bryce
I've tryed the original hacking rules, and they just taste bad being different from everything else, they work fine, just it seems wrong, Frank's spell-like use of programs has worked well for us, but it can be limiting when lady luck is on your side, but, I make allowances for net hits, speed things up, or let them be a little quieter while in the system, or mabye the spider had to use the restroom at a crucial point, something like that.
-bryce
In order to make it fall in linwe with everything else, logics dictates the hacker should roll Logic+Skill+Program rating. Such improvements by technology isn't unheard of (medkits, vision enhancement, etc.)
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Try this on for size: Your dicepool is always Stat + Skill. That's Logic + Electronic Warfare, or Logic + Data Search, or whatever. Your maximum number of hits is 1 + Program Rating, just like you were casting spells at Force + 1. So a character who is defaulting doesn't really need a bunch of programs at high ratings, because they aren't skillful enough to use the more advanced packages anyway. So skilled professionals use PhotoShop Professional and little kids might as well use MacPaint. Simple. Fits the fluff. Fits better with the rest of the rules. Lets people actually use the "Hacking on the Fly" rules without making Programs wasted moolah. What do you think? -Frank |
This is exactly what we've been using since our campaign began about a year ago...
I also use skill caps of skill + 1 (with the possibility of buying a quality to increase it to skill x 2), so it all fits...granted, unless we go above 6 rating programs, the cap for hacking will always be 7 total hits...but really, who needs more than 7 total hits???
Personally I am with Frank on this. If one were to use program ratings I could see it adding to a degree but not to the same degree as innate ability, and hard won knowledge. I cannot subscribe to the camp of the hacker with the most money wins. It flies in the face of everything the archetype is about, and it flies in the face of the whole genre. The little guy with a little natural talent, a lot of skill, and a set of cajones will always defeat the soulless wageslave working for the man 
. Well it makes for a better story in my mind.
. Well it makes for a better story in my mind.
| QUOTE (deek) |
| ...the cap for hacking will always be 7 total hits...but really, who needs more than 7 total hits??? |
Umm... anyone who is attempting a task with a threshold higher than 7. It also throws off the expected time to complete an extended test, because - although the chance of a single test having more than a couple successes is pretty low - the expected number of successes on a capped extended test is notably lower than the expected number on an uncapped test.
The other thing I really don't like about the "capped at program rating" mechanic is that it means that at least 1/3rd of the range of available program ratings is strictly useless - why have rating range from 1 to 6 if you're going to make 1 and 2 completely unusable? The stock mechanic has completely different properties for low program ratings.
Basically, hacking & programs is a completely different mechanic than spellcasting & force, and in order to cleanly unify the mechanics you'd have to do a lot more than just saying they're unified and running with it. I mean, Spells have overcasting, and their effects change as force increases - program ratings have nothing similar.
Frank - I know you're a big fan of unified mechanics, and when designing a system it's a good thing to shoot for, but you can't just arbitrarily retrofit a mechanic onto a system in the name of unification and expect it to work right.
It's really only a problem if the players get twinky during chargen and take Logic 1 Trolls and try to play off being awesome hackers. The rules are fine if you don't have players that try to abuse them. Program + skill is plenty good.
Hacking isn't that hard. Once you understand the rules it makes things pretty simple. I found a few time saving tips to be helpful when playing a hacker (and briefly running for one).
1. Gloss over matrix perception tests. Same as you don't roll to notice a guard walking down the hallway. Have them roll some dice when you need and tell them what you think is important if they get enough successes.
2. Print out the programs on index cards. Have the player put the programs currently running in front of him and the rest on the stack. He left out Analyze, stealth, armor, etc? Too bad!! It cuts down on "of course THAT program is running.
3. Subscribe all/most devices in a pyramid pattern to other devices controlled by one master device. Make the master hard to hack or impossible without being in a certain room. Make them send spoofed commands instead of just hacking an admin account and giving commands. It's more realistic that way IMHO. Plus it limits your rolls down to spoof and cybercombat when you get detected.
4. The GM should know his system ahead of time.
Hacking isn't that hard. Once you understand the rules it makes things pretty simple. I found a few time saving tips to be helpful when playing a hacker (and briefly running for one).
1. Gloss over matrix perception tests. Same as you don't roll to notice a guard walking down the hallway. Have them roll some dice when you need and tell them what you think is important if they get enough successes.
2. Print out the programs on index cards. Have the player put the programs currently running in front of him and the rest on the stack. He left out Analyze, stealth, armor, etc? Too bad!! It cuts down on "of course THAT program is running.
3. Subscribe all/most devices in a pyramid pattern to other devices controlled by one master device. Make the master hard to hack or impossible without being in a certain room. Make them send spoofed commands instead of just hacking an admin account and giving commands. It's more realistic that way IMHO. Plus it limits your rolls down to spoof and cybercombat when you get detected.
4. The GM should know his system ahead of time.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) | ||
OK, I'm going to say something that's going to sound really controvertial. But keep with me for a bit:
|
That's really what bugs me - that whole other set of mechanics for hacking. I think I'll go with the skill + logic + program. It makes for bigger pools, but what the hell!
Thanks for your help, guys! I've been playing SR since the first edition but I am only now switching to 4th. Wish me luck!
Luck!
| QUOTE (furst) | ||||
That's really what bugs me - that whole other set of mechanics for hacking. I think I'll go with the skill + logic + program. It makes for bigger pools, but what the hell! Thanks for your help, guys! I've been playing SR since the first edition but I am only now switching to 4th. Wish me luck! |
The main problem with this mechanism is when a hacker rolls against a set threshold rather than an opposed test. Beating a firewal of 5 isn't that hard if you roll 15 die...I would suggest you adjust the difficulty to 1.5 times the normal difficulty to compensate for the increased dice pool.
I agree, you should increase the threshold if your going to add logic to every pool.
Hackers are allready wicked effective without nerfing the limitations the rules provided. There have been about 5 threads bemoaning the fact since I've come back to dumpshock. the think that i never hear mentioned is that this can make playing a hacker boring. You only need 3 complex actions (1 turn/ 3 seconds)to gain admin access to any system that can be built from the book. After that you might never need to make a test.
Where's the fun in that?
I don't think that unified rules are nesecary at all. In fact the idea the hacking/spellcasting/shooting are not governed by the same mechanics adds flavor to the game for me. You roll skill + program because you are one with the machine. I've never understood from a roleplay perspective why logic would be used at all.
I have a vague idea that modern day hackers write scripts and modify programs to do a specific task while they're making their attempt to penetrate a system. But if I understand correctly that might take hours or days of prep ahead of time. In shadowrun you modify your programs on the fly and your mind runs the scripts as you work so I'd suggest that Frank's rules are backwords and that successes ought to be capped by logic instead of the program rating.
I do agree regardless that the successes achieved should be capped in some way. I also agree with Frank's point that there isn't much space for a hacker character to advance when a starting hacker starts with rating 5 everything. I wish that the availability of hardware and programs had been higher by about 100% across the board.
Hackers are allready wicked effective without nerfing the limitations the rules provided. There have been about 5 threads bemoaning the fact since I've come back to dumpshock. the think that i never hear mentioned is that this can make playing a hacker boring. You only need 3 complex actions (1 turn/ 3 seconds)to gain admin access to any system that can be built from the book. After that you might never need to make a test.
Where's the fun in that?
I don't think that unified rules are nesecary at all. In fact the idea the hacking/spellcasting/shooting are not governed by the same mechanics adds flavor to the game for me. You roll skill + program because you are one with the machine. I've never understood from a roleplay perspective why logic would be used at all.
I have a vague idea that modern day hackers write scripts and modify programs to do a specific task while they're making their attempt to penetrate a system. But if I understand correctly that might take hours or days of prep ahead of time. In shadowrun you modify your programs on the fly and your mind runs the scripts as you work so I'd suggest that Frank's rules are backwords and that successes ought to be capped by logic instead of the program rating.
I do agree regardless that the successes achieved should be capped in some way. I also agree with Frank's point that there isn't much space for a hacker character to advance when a starting hacker starts with rating 5 everything. I wish that the availability of hardware and programs had been higher by about 100% across the board.
I wouldn't use Logic for EVERY matrix action if i were going to start adding an attribute to matrix rolls. I'd probably split it between Logic and Intuition, and it'd generally be pretty easy to decide which to use. Logic for probing, Intuition for hacking on the fly. Intuition for Perception. Logic for cybercombat, Intuition for cybercombat defense (personally, I wouldn't add the Attack program to the attack roll, since it already defines the base DV, and I wouldn't use Response for defense. I don't like that every Commlink stat except Signal is used to defend against matrix attacks).
Hmm. I might start doing this with my group.
Hmm. I might start doing this with my group.
This is what I use:
This returns the comupter system to the core mechanic: Attribute + Skill +/- Device. All character based rolls use this. Agents may use the Pilot + Program mechanic.
Free Actions
* Alter / Swap Icon (pg 211)
* Changed Linked Device (pg 135)
* Detect Wireless Node (pg 225) - Logic + Electronic Warfare /Scan
* Jacking Out (pg 220)
* Speak Text or Phrase (pg 136)
* Terminate Data Transfer (pg 219)
Simple Actions
* Call/Dismiss Sprite (pg 235)
* Deactivate Program or Agent (pg 228)
* Decrypt with key (pg 225)
* Issue Command (pg 221)
* Log Off (pg 220)
* Observe in Detail (pg 217) - Inituition + Computer /Analyze
* Transfer Data (pg 219)
Complex Actions
* Attack (pg 230) - Inituition + Cybercombat /Attack
* Compile Sprite (pg 234) - Resonance + Compiling
* Control Device (pg 220) - Inituition + Device Skill /Command
* Crash Program/OS (pg 223) - Logic + Hacking /Attack
* Data Search (pg 219) - Inituition + Data Search /Browse
* Decrypt (without key) (pg 225) - Logic + Hacking /Decrypt
* Detect Hidden Node (pg 225) - Inituition + Electronic Warfare /Scan
* Disarm Data Bomb (pg 224) - Logic + Hacking /Defuse
* Edit (pg 218) - Logic + Computer /Edit
* Intercept Traffic (pg 223) - Inituition + Hacking /Sniffer
* Intercept Wireless Signal (pg 225) - Inituition + Electronics Warfare /Sniffer
* Jam Signal (pg 225) - Logic + Electronics Warfare /Jammer
* Log On (pg 220)
* Reboot (pg 221) - System + Response
* Reboot Technomancer (pg 221) - Logic + Willpower
* Redirect Trace (pg 224) - Inituition + Hacking /Spoof
* Repair Icon (pg 219) - Logic + Computer /Medic
* Run Program or Agent (pg 227)
* Shut Down a Sprite (pg 236) - Resonance + Decompiling
* Spoof Command (pg 224) - Inituition + Hacking /Spoof
* Track User (pg 219) - Inituition + Computer /Track
Intuition is used in tests requiring reaction or cunning. GM can request that Logic be used instead if it makes more sense in the circumstances.
I changed more of the matrix system. Check it out on my web site if you want more (garrowolf.net).
This returns the comupter system to the core mechanic: Attribute + Skill +/- Device. All character based rolls use this. Agents may use the Pilot + Program mechanic.
Free Actions
* Alter / Swap Icon (pg 211)
* Changed Linked Device (pg 135)
* Detect Wireless Node (pg 225) - Logic + Electronic Warfare /Scan
* Jacking Out (pg 220)
* Speak Text or Phrase (pg 136)
* Terminate Data Transfer (pg 219)
Simple Actions
* Call/Dismiss Sprite (pg 235)
* Deactivate Program or Agent (pg 228)
* Decrypt with key (pg 225)
* Issue Command (pg 221)
* Log Off (pg 220)
* Observe in Detail (pg 217) - Inituition + Computer /Analyze
* Transfer Data (pg 219)
Complex Actions
* Attack (pg 230) - Inituition + Cybercombat /Attack
* Compile Sprite (pg 234) - Resonance + Compiling
* Control Device (pg 220) - Inituition + Device Skill /Command
* Crash Program/OS (pg 223) - Logic + Hacking /Attack
* Data Search (pg 219) - Inituition + Data Search /Browse
* Decrypt (without key) (pg 225) - Logic + Hacking /Decrypt
* Detect Hidden Node (pg 225) - Inituition + Electronic Warfare /Scan
* Disarm Data Bomb (pg 224) - Logic + Hacking /Defuse
* Edit (pg 218) - Logic + Computer /Edit
* Intercept Traffic (pg 223) - Inituition + Hacking /Sniffer
* Intercept Wireless Signal (pg 225) - Inituition + Electronics Warfare /Sniffer
* Jam Signal (pg 225) - Logic + Electronics Warfare /Jammer
* Log On (pg 220)
* Reboot (pg 221) - System + Response
* Reboot Technomancer (pg 221) - Logic + Willpower
* Redirect Trace (pg 224) - Inituition + Hacking /Spoof
* Repair Icon (pg 219) - Logic + Computer /Medic
* Run Program or Agent (pg 227)
* Shut Down a Sprite (pg 236) - Resonance + Decompiling
* Spoof Command (pg 224) - Inituition + Hacking /Spoof
* Track User (pg 219) - Inituition + Computer /Track
Intuition is used in tests requiring reaction or cunning. GM can request that Logic be used instead if it makes more sense in the circumstances.
I changed more of the matrix system. Check it out on my web site if you want more (garrowolf.net).
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Dec 5 2006, 02:56 PM) |
| OK, I'm going to say something that's going to sound really controvertial. But keep with me for a bit:
|
/signed
As soon as the offical FAQ is out, I will present my 1.0 SGM rules. They are like SGM 0.9, with the addition that I am contradicting RAW on a couple of occasions and re-write certain rules.
The basic sceleton looks like this:
Everytime you do something that is allowed by your current account rights roll:
Logic+Computer (Data Search, Electronic Warfare) with the appropriate program restricting the maximum number of hits.
Everytime you do something that is not allowed by your current access rights always roll:
Logic+Hacking vs System+Firewall , with the appropriate program restricting your maximum hits.
This includes every hacking action, like Decrypting, Hacking In, Spoofing your Data Trailand so on. There are no exceptions. Matrix combat is just like it was.
In addition, I am enforcing the "one diceroll for every desicion" policy. So subscribing a node to another node does not force the hacker to make additional test for getting the IDs of connected nods, spoofing them, then hacking in and so on, but simply adds to the threshold for hacking in.
Furthermore, I completely decoupled the Node Attributes. Response only tells you how many programms you can run (you can run Response programs without penalty, so Response of 1 makes sense), System only tells you the highest programm rating and Firewall gives you protection from hacks. this makes for example Credsticks possible with Response 1, System 6, Firewall 6 and Signal 1.
And some other stuff, which includes answers to all the questions asked in Bulls FAQ, using these guidelines.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.