In this situation, you as the GM have no say. The players could just hoof it on foot if they wanted too. You just need to figure out what the NPCs do because of the player's decision.

Maybe sensible, but less fun in a roleplaying game...
(one PC get followed, the others can't do anyting about it)

I'm with Konsaki on the free commlink case.

In my games, I make them pay the full price of the upgrade in addition to whatever they paid previously for the old versions.

If you're going to penalize him for using a custom case (which would in no way be an uncommon occurrence in 2070), then he might as well just buy a Metalink and throw away the 'guts' after he upgrades.

In my opinion, the custom case thing is in no way munchkin. The pre-generated Hacker is just stupid.

It's up to you. As long as you're consistent, I don't think it matters which style you go with.

But I'm of the opinion that the basic assumption should be that the rules will be used more often than they will be and that exceptions should be, well, exceptional. For example, does an upgrade price reflect keeping the original parts? Well, if you're going to keep the original parts and sell them afterward, or recieve a discount for trading in the upgraded parts, and that stuff isn't covered in the rules, we should just assume that this kind of stuff is covered rather than applying an exception each and every time that rule is used. Or change the rules.

But like I said, so long as you're consistent, I don't think one option is better than another. I made a choice for my games and now PCs know what to expect.

(If they really wanted a discount for trading their old cyberwear, I'd start using the Negotiation rules... really roleplay the event and make it fun. Not just a player overriding the standard rules "because I said so".)

imo, it makes sense that if the 'ware is salvageable, it has a trade-in value. they wouldn't make it a standard rule that that's factored into the cost, because what if someone starts off with no cyberware, and the upgrade is from nothing to actually having 'ware?

Don't you?

Depending on the specific 'wares traded in, the 'return value' will cover, and even often exceed the costs of the surgery. If the latter happens, then the PC gets a cut on the base cost of the upgrade. Rarely does actual nuyen change into the PC's hands for their trade-ins, but their old stuff is still worth something, and it does have a market (even in canon), so some kind of arrangement is made.

Seriously though, as a GM, I don't find this kind of thing to be too taxing on either my time or my brainpower. I fail to understand those that proclaim all this to be 'too much effort'.

That is a huge misunderstanding, the hacker don't need to be less than 3m away to hack something with signal 0, there must only be another wireless device inside those 3m. Important is, that there are wireless 'relais' alle the way to the hacker.

I imagine this as working todays internet, as long as you know where you are going (IP adress), the routing to the destination is fully automatic. If there is a way through the matrix to your target, you'll get there. (there might not be, someone standing with signal strength zero on an empty parking lot can't be hacked this way ).

*Shrugs* I guess I see it differently, although virtually everywhere 'public' does have the public access automatic routers, the same isn't likely to be true while in 'privately secure' areas. (And I imagine that many of the corp owned public access routers are turned off/switched to Hidden Mode after hours in the few remaining places that aren't open 24 hours a day.) Remember that any Node running in Hidden Mode has to be actively searched for before a Decker can even try to access it.

True, like everything wireless it seems that it is a constaint battle between security and usefulness, you always have to weigh the risk of having all your guns eject their clips at the same time vs being able to cordinate your battle tactics on the fly. Still at the very least I see easily reached manual switches to turn Wireless Mode off built into every Sec Guard and Runner's commlink as well as loading up on the ICE. (After all, I'm going to assume that like any good Decker, the corps don't bother to worry about a little thing like Copy Protection and therefor the only limits to the ICE on their PANs will be the cheap commlinks they are likely stuck with.)

No, a hacker who can't trace a wireless node isn't worth the name. I just assume that's part of the hacking check, so long as the hacker himself is capable of identifying his target somehow. The only time I'd require a hacker to search his node is if he's using that as a way to track his target, like searching for someone's comlink who is somwhere in the same building, for example. But for a straightup "I disable that camera!", that's just one or two rolls.

Disabling all the cameras in the building may be more complicated, starting with finding the security node. If you were in the same room as the security terminals or the data archive though, no search necessary. Just hack away.

I honestly believe that hidden mode was put into the game just to explain why security can't just track runners by reading sources of wireless signals. The problem with this, is that wireless signals can't actually be stopped that way. Without specialized equipment (or at least line of sight) you can't really send a tightbeam transmission to your subscribed nodes and not have them intercepted. However, for the purposes of the game, I think you have to bend that particular law of physics and assume there is a way to "hide" wireless transmissions, but allow two-way communication with desired nodes, whether they are "hiding" or not. Since we have to make that assumption anyway, I don't see the point in a hidden mode. Essentially, the runners are always "hidden" from anything they want to be, and their firewalls are customized enough to understand the difference between authorized and unauthorized communication. Consequently, there's no additional action needed by anyone to turn hidden mode on or off; it's just assumed that others who want to find the node have to use hacking skills to do it.

A runner who has identified his target in some way, usually by line of sight, doesn't need a separate roll to find a hidden node, just like a street sam doesn't need a perception test to shoot someone behind cover. Assuming he knows its there, he can instantly hack into that node with his "hack in" action. However, if he doesn't know where the node is, or even if the node exists, then he's got to find the node by scanning various wireless signals using his comlink's scan programs.

This is the same, even if the node is not technically "hidden" (although no such concept really exists in my game). Say, you're tracing John Doe who is not a shadowrunner and is a perfectly legitimate and uninspiring wageslave with an unfortunate name. So long as you keep him in sight, you can "hack in" to his comlink whenever you want (by taking an action to attempt to do so), but if you decide to go get a coffee or something at Starbux Co., and then try to remotely hack-in from there, you have to use your scan program to find the node.

While this is theoretically how it works, it's never come up in my game, except when the players are trying to access the overall security Master Node. But usually their target is within line of sight.

Okay, Hacking tests are made to access other people's comlinks and devices and mess with their stuff. Computer tests are made to use your own comlinks and devices in cool ways, especially where Augmented Reality bonuses are involved.

For each Hacking action you attempt, you must use a program, so you always have a program rating involved (even if its 0). For each hit you score on your test that exceeds the program rating, divide the hits in half. For example, if you score 6 hits on a "hack in" attempt and have Exploit Rating 4, then the first 4 hits you score count for 1 hit each, but the last 2 are halved, so only count as 1 additional hit, for a total of 5. This sounds a little complicated to write down, but works pretty smoothly in game. The technique was borrowed from Serbitar, who based it on the magic rules as far as I know.

Yeah, you're right. I wrote that without a rulebook handy; but having it be a free action kind of defeats the whole point of hacking cybereyes in the first place, doesn't it? In a game, I probably would have made sure the effect DID something like taking one of the grunt's simple actions, or requiring a Computer (probably defaulted) test, or just imposing a -2 "distraction penalty" on the grunt. Just SOMETHING so no one feels like he just wasted two rolls and an opportunity to shoot the guy.

So far these rules have only been used to get information, protected files, and defeat security measures. No one's tried to hack someone's eyes yet. Maybe that's why.

Good call.

Okay, I'm very tired now and must go to bed. But I'll try to answer these real quick and if I'm unclear, let me know. Of course, everything in this post refers to my house rules.

Exploit is used for the initial "hack in" roll. Once hacked in, you can do other stuff. Sniffer is used to find remote nodes/comlinks and intercept traffic such as comcalls. Spoof is used to send commands to drones and doors and stuff. If you are hacked, generally you know about it right away (or at least when weird stuff starts happening)... track can be used to figure out who is hacking you. Stealth is largely unused in my game, but I can see using it if you needed to really hide or disguise certain files and such... but encryption might work better. Edit, Exploit, and Spoof are the most common programs used in my game.

I wanted to come up with some new programs for specialized applications for some of this stuff, like maybe an Overwatch program, but no one was interested and I got distracted on another house rules project. Like I said, I don't have a hacker in my group, just dabblers.

As it stands now, this is a Computer+Logic test. Since no program applies (I just haven't written it up yet - although I could see someone using "Stealth" or "Sniffer" for this), you halve the number of hits. However many hits you scored, add this many dice to the action you are trying to coordinate. Alternatively, roll dice for those hits and add any hits to firewall. But that assumes the hacker is doing nothing but watching for other hackers and protecting the network.

For a list of other cool stuff to do with AR, check out Serbiter's matrix house rules. Ask him for it. He's probably around somewhere...

He can't really. That's what the firewall is for.
Analyze, in my game, is mostly used to "interrogate" nodes for information. Finding files or looking up general information generally uses Browse, but trying to get information from a node that isn't designed (or instructed) to give it up is an Analyze.

It hasn't really come up in my game yet. We haven't missed it. Usually there's actual combat going on.

I don't know. None of my runners have agents. I don't see a need to bother with this. It's a cumbersome aspect of the game that's largely unnecessary.

No. That's already assumed in the firewall rating. And your defeat of these little digital demons is already assumed in the "hack in" attempt.

This is an excellent point, and I'll definitely put some thought into this.
But as it stands now it sounds like the guy defending against hacking attempt gets an extraordinary advantage over someone getting shot at or hit by a spell. Sure, they don't get to roll, but they get threshold protection which they don't get in physical combat. This is because I assume that, thanks to their firewall, they always have some measure of active full protection.
If you could just use your Body stat for example as a threshold, instead of rolling Body and having your hits reduce the enemy hits, wouldn't you say that's an extraordinary advantage?

Furthermore, and I wasn't going to mention this but since you brought it up, there's two more important restrictions: 1) a hacker can only attempt 1 AR action per turn, regardless of how many passes he normally gets in a round. The remaining passes could be used for other actions. 2) If a hacker fails to hack in, that's it. He's failed. he can't try again in the same scene. So if he fails to shut off a camera, they'll need to find another way to take out the camera. If he fails a "hack in" attempt against an NPC's comlink, that NPC is now ammune to that hacker's attempt to "hack in" for the rest of the scene. I think most hackers will use edge, though.

It depends on how much you're willing to abstract, really.

See, the way I'm picturing the situation, there's two things 3 things that could be happening here:

1) You look at my laptop, and your AR instantly pulls up information as to its dimensions, weight, model, heat signature, ambient light level, the frequencies of any signals is transmitting on, a MAD reading of any bizzare equipment installed, etc. etc. (all assuming you have the equipment to detect this stuff in the first place). As you slide your glance across the room, you see a table, and get similiar information about the table alone with manufacturing information cross-referenced with 83%+ accuracy wtih Matrix catalogs. Suddenly a cute waitress walks into your field of vision and your AR gets to work...

2) Someone with basic COMPUTER skill could probably do what you're suggesting, finding my IP address or com-frequency, but someone with HACKING skill could do much more. and because he has AR, his understanding of his matrix environment is augmented by his understanding of his physical environment in a way that an ordinary 2060 decker could never dream of.

3) Part of it just has to be accepted as a game balance issue. I really hate the fact that magic, for example, relies on line of sight. But I chalk this out into the same category. Also, I justify it based on my interpretation of AR and such (in the same way that magic bases it on interpretation of mana stuff).

4) I really don't see a hacker as "i scan for a wireless signal matching the specific traffic frequency I'm expecting, hoping I'm right, and then I hack into that and disable it hoping it's the right one." I see it more as "I hack HIM!!!" and bam, a gazillion signals heading your way looking for an exploit through your firewall.

4 options. Take your pick.

The idea that a hotshot hacker can break into a secure firewall in less than 3 seconds, but can't find a wireless signal is just... sad. How much work goes into a normal "by the book" attempt to, say, turn off a security camera? First of all, we have to have a discussion (probably prior to the run) who is hidden and what is hidden and who is subscribed to what. Later, we have to roll to find the node. We have to roll an Edit or Spoof (depending on your interpretation) to shut off the camera. We have to browse for the log files. Edit those. Every action we're taking her is an opposed test. And all of this isn't counting the fact that we probably have to deal with IC along the way. Oh yeah, and don't forget, we're going up all the system's hits while we do all this. Completely unnecessary.

What are we trying to do here? Ultimately what we want to know is "Do you disable the camera?" Do we have a skill that covers that? Yes. I'm not a big fan of setting players up to fail, purposefully having them roll dozens of times in hopes that they'll eventually fail a roll. For simple stuff, let's just find fun simple ways to resolve it and move on. Like I said, if its the mission objective to retrieve a file, or its otherwise a climactic scene than yeah, let's have a more complicated ruleset for that, but we really need a hacking equivalent of "grunt rules" especially since comlinks and wireless signals are so prevalent and important to shadowrun themes now.

Essentially, by having two rolls, we do a couple things: 1) encourage hacking attempts against the same target (later, I want to think of rules for area-effect hacks), 2) we have two measures of the hacker's profiency: how easily they can "hack in" to any given node, and how well they are at certain specific operations. This way you can have hackers that specialize in certain areas, rather easily.

I think one roll would be too simple and wouldn't take enough stuff into account. I like the dynamics of two rolls. For example, if you fail the second roll, you can't do what you were trying to do, but you're still connected to the system, so you could still do something else. On the other hand, if you try to do what you were originally intending against a different target, then you'll have to roll both rolls over again.



Wow, that was a lot. And now I have to wake up in 3 hours.

Sure, but all of this is just abstractly assumed in the Firewall Rating. If it helps you picture it, you can call it "Hacking Defense" instead of "Firewall" but I think that would lack flavor. An unskilled runner wanting additional protection should pick up a higher rating firewall, maybe 5, or 6, or even 10. Why not? But even corps rarely have that level of protection. The GM would have to write up prices for that and I don't imagine it would be cheap, but eventually you could have a pretty secure system. Not just one that attacks hackers who are in your system, but one that never lets them in to begin with.

(I'm not saying we shouldn't have rules for IC and such, just that we don't really need them. I would find nothing but firewall defense boring, much like I find nothing but Mana Wards to be boring for astral defense. I do have rules for IC, but they are mostly for cosmetic variation rather than effectiveness and you don't need them to use this "simplified" hacking system.)

Why would you want to? Firewall is resistance against everything he tries to do so it doesn't matter if he's there or not if he can't do anything. What you should really be concerned with is what can a hacker do with that connection.

A runner has to take an AR action to stay connected - i.e., Electronic Warefare, Data search, Computer, or Hacking actions. He is limited to one AR action per turn on his first pass, and the connection lasts until he chooses to stop taking AR connections to maintain the connection or until gets out of range. Alternatively, the hacker himself can sever the connection at any time without needing to logoff, jack out, or erase logs. A glitch will also sever the connection.

Assuming he successfully hacks in, but fails what he is trying to do, the value of his connecton is less because he can't retry that action. He can try other stuff but if he just hacked in to do that one thing, he's screwed.

At the GM's call though, I'd say that failing 2 or 3 firewall actions in a row automatically severs the connection and it can't be retried.

Despite what I said about not being able to retry a failure, spending an edge point always gives you an opportunity to retry.

I also said you can use a Computer skill check to actively bolster your Firewall defense. This is supposed to represent these kind of "me vs you" stuggles.

If you want to say some magic statement that automatically gets rid of a hacker, everytime, with no need of a check, that's up to you if that sort of thing makes your games better. I don't think it would improve mine. Even then, though, I doubt you could do it before he's gone in and attempted what he was trying to do.

Do you play with those rules? Seriously, you are making your rules with the assumption that hacking is impossible, then, and I'm making my rules with the assumption that hacking is a threat in the world. There is no perfect defense against hacking, ever. Firewall 10 and an expert sysop actively monitoring it is about the best you can do if you've got nuyen to spare.

(Like I said, I have IC rules [still in development] but they're not meant to really make security more secure, just more fun and dangerous. Trace IC would probably be very common, but these are usually put on security nodes not devices and comlinks.)

Good examples. I see your point. I'm really going back and forth as I consider this issue. Even then, though, I see "Active defense" (in your use of the term) as something Security Nodes and maybe Comlinks would have, but not devices like security cameras and such.

Okay, let's play with the numbers here, comparing a street sam to shooting a thug to a hacker who tries to shutdown a camera. The street sam has 10 total dice to shoot with, plus an additional 2 for smartlink, for 12 dice. The hacker has 10 total dice to hack with, the sum of his logic plus hacking scores. We'll also assume, for statistics sake, that we always score 1 hit for every 3 dice rolled, rounded up. The Body of the Fodder and the Firewall rating of the camera is the same, 5. The body also has ballistic armor of 8 and the street sam is using an Ak-97 assault rifle in SA mode. The hacker is using his program is at rating 6. There is no one "actively monitoring" the security camera to provide bonuses to the firewall. We'll assume the Fodder has 5 Reaction.

Ex1. StreetSam shoots Fodder. 12 dice = 4 hits. Fodder rolls Reaction 5 and scores 2 hits, reducing StreetSam to 2 hits.
Ex2. Hacker exploits Camera. Hacker rolls 10 dice = 4 hits. The camera has rating 5 firewall so the hacker has failed.

Despite the fact that we can already see how the Camera is better protected than a decent grunt, so that we can continue with the analogy, let's assume that both the hacker and streetsam roll Edge to re-roll their failures.

Ex1. The streetsam rolls an additional 8 dice for an additional +3 hits, for a total of 5 hits.
Ex2. The hacker rolls an additional 6 dice for an additional +2 hits, for a total of 6 hits. Since he has exploit at rating 6, none of these hits are halved.

Ex1. The Fodder rolls his Body(5) + Armor(8), 13 dice total, and scores 5 hits.
Ex2. The Camera still has a Firewall 5. No roll necessary.

Ex1. The Streetsam adds his hits from Step 1B (5) to damage (6) for a total of 11. This damage is reduced by the Fodder's resistance hits (5) and so he suffers 6 points of damage.
Ex2. First of all, consider the hacker's attempts done. Until his next full turn, he can't perform another AR action. Once he gets his next turn, though, the Hacker rolls his Hacking+Logic dice, 10 dice total, and scores 3 hits. Once again, this fails against the Firewall 5, and so the hacker can't shutdown the camera. Because its another turn, we can assume he spends another Edge, adding another +2 hits.

Ex1. The Fodder has a number of boxes on his condition monitor equal to 8 + Half Body, which is 11 total. The streetsam inflicts 6 damage, reducing the condition monitor to 5 boxes left and incuring -2 worth of wound penalties on the Fodder. Not bad. This is a partial success.
Ex2. The Camera defended itself pretty well, but the hacker got in and shut it down, which is a complete success, ONLY BECAUSE HE SPENT 2 EDGE to do it. In addition, it took 2 combat turns (though not every initiative pass in those turns were exclusively used for hacking) while the streetsam's action only took 1 initiative pass.

I don't know if either of these are particular "better", they both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. But my basic conclusion is that a hacker is challenged by Firewall 4, finds Firewalls 3 and less relatively easy, and it's really hard to do anything against a Firewall 5 or Firewall 6.

We seem to be missing (or avoiding) eachother's points. My question here is "Why would you want to?" What does it add to the game? The hacker will be expelled from your system if he tries to do something and fails against your firewall, and he can't do anything to your system without challenging your firewall. He can't even analyze it. So what does it matter?

Even in the main rules as written, you can't do this. Well, you CAN, but it's a Firewall + System test against hacker's Exploit program + Hacking skill. Only if the Firewall + System achieves net hits will the connection be terminated in RAW.

Since we've already compared Exploit and Hacking against the Firewall, I really don't see any reason to do so again. Let's just assume all disconnection attempts were attempted when the hacker initially logged in. We've already challenged Hacking vs Firewall, so I don't see any reason to add more rolls after a hacker has succeeded, just in hopes that he'll eventually fail. The firewall will try to boot him off when he tries to conduct operations on your node.

Either way, under my rules, or rules in the mainbook, you can't eject a hacker before he's at least attempted to do his damage anyway, so you don't really a benefit in trying to expel him, since under my rules, you already get this benefit when he attempts to conduct operations on your machine.

Hacking is an access attempt against your node. If the hacker succeeds, he's rewarded, and he enjoys the fruits of that labor... for a few seconds. Sorry if that's not fast enough. But it's just not worth adding more conditions, more die rolls, more rules for.

Well, okay, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. I think you'll find that if you use this as your guideline, all hacking rules you ever see will prove inadequate.

I really don't know what benefits there would be to hacking individual enemies, either in my rules or RAW, as it doesn't seem worth doing to me. In both rulesets, this is a vague gray area open to interpretation, so its not fair to use examples in rating my system that fail equally, despite what rules you use.

What would you use in RAW? I find the concept of putting IC in your cyberware to be kind of dumb, personally, although I could see cyberware having its own Firewall, or at least Firewall modifiers. And if someone doesn't want a huge firewall, it's unlikely they're going to have a horde of IC.

My system was meant to be used against security and file servers. In my games, the only time hacking a comlink has been used has been to try to get information from it.