mfb
Jan 18 2007, 05:31 PM
new rigger stuff, including stuff that allows for combining rigging and decking more easily, including decking through a drone network and controlling drones across the Matrix.
a
new Matrix technique that makes validating a false account no longer an i-win button.
new operations and utilities that give deckers more realistic abilities when it comes to controlling hosts.
persona program subprocessors, which basically give your deck new abilities when you go into one of the various modes.
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| MFB: I think the 'logging' rules are imperative to the book. But alot of questions on the other stuff. You want a discussion on it here? New (or old existing) thread? Emails? One of the things I think are definitely needed to the logging rules is the +8's. Much too high of a number there. Maybe instead, use the intruding decker's Evasion rating? |
the reason i put the +8s in there so many times is, a) i wanted to give deckers a strong incentive to 'deck smart', and b) i wanted to make sure that these rules didn't break the fiction--that log tracing didn't become too easy, and make decking implausible.
that said, these have not been playtested at all. so if you think +8 might be too much, you might be correct.
Sphynx
Jan 19 2007, 03:40 PM
I think any +8 is too much. However, I think these tests should be resisted. Not a static TN, but one based on the appropriate attribute with modifiers based on softwares on both sides. After all, the Decker expects someone to trace them, that's why they don't deck from their house.....
mfb
Jan 19 2007, 05:34 PM
well, keep all the negative modifiers in mind as well. if the decker validated an administrator account, that's a -8 TN. trace IC and Track programs can provide up to -12 TN. previous logs can provide another -8 TN.
i could halve all the modifiers. i'd like to keep this fairly high-stakes, though.
Sir_Psycho
Jan 20 2007, 01:19 AM
Personally I like the extreme TN's, but that's just me, I guess.
Sphynx
Jan 20 2007, 11:45 AM
Why make it too difficult though? +8 is suppose to mean 'nearly impossible'. However, a base TN of 4 with a +8 is rougly the same as a base attribute of 6 with a rating 6 software, however at least that way you're not seeing +16 or +24 TNs. And how does a Tracer IC work into this? Wouldn't it be simpler to just access the Tracer IC log and see where it was? I'm not top-of-my-game when it comes to 3rd edition Decking though, maybe that question sounds like non-sense....
mfb
Jan 20 2007, 04:07 PM
Trace IC and Tracker programs tell you the decker's jackpoint. they don't tell you anything else, like what the decker did.
basically, if the decker does his job right, i think it should be nearly impossible to get much info. though i'm starting to think it might be too hard. base TN equal to DF could work, divide most of the penalties i've listed by 4?
that's a dramatic reduction, but the TNs are still going to be 6+ in most cases, and to get the really juicy info, you need a lot of successes.
Sphynx
Jan 20 2007, 05:32 PM
I agree. I'm just concerned that if you create it too difficult nobody will use it and it'll be reminescent of the Cyberware Surgery rules..... I think +2 and +1 should be the only things we see.
Sphynx
Jan 20 2007, 05:40 PM
Double Post.
mfb
Jan 21 2007, 09:38 PM
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| I agree. I'm just concerned that if you create it too difficult nobody will use it and it'll be reminescent of the Cyberware Surgery rules..... I think +2 and +1 should be the only things we see. |
well... the thing with the cyberware surgery rules isn't that the tests are difficult, it's that the whole process is unnecessarily complex.
one thing of concern with these rules is that they are, basically, legwork, and legwork tends to fall pretty squarely in the domain of the GM. characters often need information to proceed, and controlling the rate at which the characters can gather information is key to controlling the game. so i want to be careful to make these rules something that the GM can, with little effort, control the difficulty on. for instance, if the PCs encounter an enemy decker who logs off, and the GM wants them to have to wonder what the decker did and who he was, the GM should be able to rack up the difficulty on this test. if the GM does want the PCs to be able to get some info on the decker, he should be able to lower the difficulty.
that's why i initially made the modifiers so large. all the GM has to do to make the test hard is have the enemy decker perform a redirect datatrail operation or two. to make it easy, he just has the enemy decker validate an administrator account. +/-8 TN is an easy toggle between "possible" and "impossible".
on review, though, i don't believe it's actually necessary to make the modifiers that big. with quartered modifiers and a generally higher base TN, the GM can still easily control the difficulty of the test, with the added benefit that it doesn't look as much like railroading--saying "you want to find out who that decker was? you need 5 succs on a TN 24 test! roll 'em!" feels less railroady to players than saying "okay, 5 succs on a TN 9 test", despite the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that any reasonably-statted character will succeed at either roll.
Sphynx
Jan 22 2007, 08:01 AM
But why make rules for things that are nearly impossible? I need to review and test this a bit more obviously, but the chance has to actually be there, 5 successes TN 9 isn't just nearly impossible, it's impossible. Threshold of 3 should be a cap I think....
mfb
Jan 22 2007, 08:39 AM
they're only nearly impossible in cases where a good decker has taken extra time to cover his tracks. and even then, if the decker had some bad luck (ran up a high security tally, got into a lot of cybercombat), the TN can plunge dramatically. there is actually quite a bit more in the way of negative TN modifiers than positive modifiers.
as far as thresholds, i'm going by the pattern set by perception/assensing/etcetera.
re: general level of difficulty, this is not something that should be easy. if it were easy, then decking would be impossible to do without getting caught. it has to be harder, on average, than most other tasks because to do otherwise would make no sense within the context of the game world.
Sphynx
Jan 22 2007, 09:55 AM
Ah, I think I'm starting to understand our mis-communications. This is to get exacting data on the actual decker mostly, right? I thought we were talking about just to trace back what exactly they'd done back to the point they jacked in. I agree that investigators should be able to see what files were touched, what commands were circumvented, what nodes were travelled through, and where he logged in at. Not sure about more exacting detail though. Investigators finding this out only see what 'Neo' has done, and no idea that "Thomas A. Anderson" is "Neo".... But you're saying that with these TN's they can know who Neo is? (Trying to understand how these tracing investigations make it difficult for the decker...)
mfb
Jan 22 2007, 05:46 PM
hm. i don't think this technique would allow an investigator to connect a street name to a real name. i'd intended for it to allow an investigator to identify a decker as being one he's investigated before, though. how about this: at three successes, the investigator will find recognizable fingerprints in the decker's work. if he's ever seen those fingerprints before, he will recognize the decker ("hey, this is the same guy that stole those blueprints from Renraku last week!"). at four successes, the investigator can figure out what the invading decker's icon looked like. at five successes, the investigator can actually find out one of the decker's street names (GM determines which one, if the decker uses several). each success on the log tracing test grants a complimentary die to attempts to determine the decker's identity.
Sphynx
Jan 23 2007, 12:29 PM
Curiosity though.... what does it hurt to see that Icon/Avatar of the decker, or recognize the decker from a past experience? I'd even think most Deckers would leave some sort of calling card just to make sure they were identified correctly.....
mfb
Jan 23 2007, 10:35 PM
well, it's not all that hard to track a street name back to a meat body via street rumor. as for leaving calling cards, that's a stunt that only the really bad or really good deckers pull. and the bad ones don't pull it for very often.
it's fine and good to talk about how there's no profit in hunting down the runners who hit your company, but when they go to the trouble of actually mocking you with a calling card, there are a lot of people who will use that calling card to track you down and crap in your cheerios.
Sphynx
Jan 24 2007, 07:46 AM
I would think it'd be harder to track a street name back to a meat body than to find the street name. However, moot point. Lemme know when you're finished adjust the rules so I can take a looksee at them?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.