You can find it here.

Do I spot references to Tac-Net software, and is it past-tense? Something new called a "Pi-Tac" and something else called a "PCC?"

Nice teaser about using a Decker to keep the wireless on their side secure or semi-protected at least. Let's hope the crunch matches up to the fluff in the game information section with added tricks of the trade for this.

In-character field manual, not exactly the part why I'd buy a gear book

I hope it's just fluff. The last thing we need is something that just adds 3-4 to limits and/or dicepools for nothing.

see, here's the problem with that. if they go and make it super difficult to find and take advantage of wireless devices, what was the point in forcing us all to use wireless in the first place?

i mean, supposedly wireless bonuses were supposed to be the incentive to make us all insane enough to hook our spinal column and nervous system to the matrix, in order to provide a playground for hackers. if they make it so that deckers can't actually play in that playground, then why have stupid nonsensical wireless bonuses in the first place?

Why would the devices be difficult to find? I didn't get the impression that having a decker on your side rendered your devices invisible or immune, but rather a decker would offer a more active defense of said devices.
So devices can still be found and attacked, especially vulnerable devices lacking decent protection. Course the argument of what counts as decent may vary since a decent commlink does offer a bit.

This is the crunch point they need to focus on if they want people to risk being part of that network.

Information is power and a good decker/TM should be part overwatch monitoring and interpreting data to give the team any edge possible...

I thought the exact same thing and to be honest, I think it's to placate all the people who have been complaining about it non-stop for the past 9 months. It's a shame really. I rolled a decker because it seemed that they were actually trying to make wireless interesting. If we get forced back into babysitting tac-nets and having to plug into everything I would have rather just played an archetype that's allowed to have fun and just allowed the decking to be hand-waved like it always was.

They should have just made cyber hackable. Its the wireless to get lame bonuses thing that pisses me off. If they just said, hey new tech allows you to hack closed systems like cyber, I'd of said cool GiTS hacking.

you're the one who was hoping for additional ways to protect your group. if those additional ways don't add anything, then they're meaningless. if they do add anything, it's going to have to either be in terms of difficulty to find, or difficulty to hack.

if they do add those things, and they are actually meaningful, then we get right back to where we were before, where hackers either control the environment or pull out a gun and shoot people in combat. except that now they also probably can't do a very good job of controlling the environment because there's added protection.

if they don't do that, then we go right to the point where all these professionally paranoid individuals decide it's totally reasonable to connect their spinal column to the matrix, because hey it's not like they're in a profession where people are trying to kill them all the time or anything.

@ smash: in many places, hackers *did* have things to do. in a city, there are probably *hundreds* of cars within hacking radius, and regular cars shouldn't have enough matrix toughness to withstand a hacker that can get into megacorporate systems anyways. in a corporate facility, the corporation has conveniently painstakingly created a battlefield that is controlled through their systems to favour their own people... and which you can subvert.

the only thing they needed to do to make hacking viable in combat in most scenarios was to make it resolve quickly both in and out of the game. we don't need stupid things like wireless cyberlimbs that can be bricked for hackers to be useful in combat. we need GMs to understand that a corporate research facility is like a living fortress controlled by computers which a skilled hacker can subvert.

when you consider that cars in most editions can crash into people for more damage than a panther auto cannon can deal, and that every door in a corporate facility should be controllable by the security spider, as well as weapon turrets, lights, and various other weaponized environmental factors (control the HVAC to provide covering smoke as needed or to dump pepper spray into certain rooms, have the lights flicker in a way designed to mess with flare compensation, etc), the reason hackers had a hard time in combat isn't because they had nothing to hack...

it's that it takes a couple minutes to resolve their attack out of game, and a couple of combat rounds or more in game, that's the problem. if smashing a car into a target was as easily resolved in the matrix as firing a panther auto cannon is in regular combat, people would use it more often.

You seem to assume that there is any logic behind this concept...

That's the biggest gripe I've had with SR5's Matrix, design-wise. They imposed a bunch of really nonsensical shit on every non-decker character in order to fix a problem that wasn't a problem. If your decker has nothing to do in combat, either you have failed to make a character that can interact with the game world or your GM is failing at running Shadowrun.

For me, it's not really about that.

Deckers suffer from the 'boring toolbag' archetype that clerics in D&D fall into. In both games (except with games with TJ because he's a living paradox) you generally find that these most vital classes are usually the ones no-one wants to play. They always want to just play combat specialised characters.

I'm not saying that Decker's can't shoot guns, what my position has always been is that it's good that you don't always have to. The bricking mechanic is actually pretty useful outside of combat as well.

There's only so many files you can download or doors you can open before you start to wish that you'd just rolled a mage or a sam. This will become particularly so if a book just gives sadistic DMs the tools to make decking impossible because "Datz de realismz".

Meh.

I have to admit that I was more likely to buy Run and Gun before I saw the first preview, and each one makes me want to buy it less and less. Then again, if the next preview is just an article explaining that the Line Developer finally realized that firearms customization is idiotic in a system that's not already internally mechanically consistent, maybe I'll pick it up. But I doubt it. Instead, I'll see belt fed, full auto Rain Forest Carbines and Crocket EBRs.

If they're sloppy enough to let me, I know I'll have mine when Gencon rolls around.

Entertaining that I love both Concepts - Clerics in DnD and Hackers in SR4A. They are often some of the most interesting characters, and there is never a lack of any one wanting to play them at our tables. Probably because they are not boring, and both have a massive amount of things that they can contribute to the party. *shrug*

I never had the issue you describe of me being bored with hacking, ever. And I do tend to shoot people in combat (yes, even as a Hacker), because, you know, that is what you do IN COMBAT. But you know what... it was not all the time. Because there was often OTHER things that kept me busy, and none of it dealt with hacking the opposition Street Sam's 'Ware.

Yeah, it's odd that I somehow play both myself, on those rare occasions I get to play instead of GMing either game.

perhaps you're opening and/or closing the wrong doors.

for example, if those doors happen to contain an untrained piasma, the door gets a lot more interesting

but seriously, i don't think that places willing to invest in armed guards and drones with automatic weapons are going to be shy about investing in defensive measures stronger than doors.

they're going to have more "pro-active" security systems. security systems which are vulnerable to hacking, if you can get into their system. stuff like automated turrets, knockout gas chambers, electrified floors, etc. now, a lot of it will be relatively non-lethal; for obvious reasons, you don't want to build an incineration chamber that might incinerate that prized researcher you just spent 200,000 nuyen hiring a shadowrunner team to extract for you, for example. (obviously, the consequences of falling victim to their less lethal defence systems are not necessarily going to be less lethal for shadowrunners; once they've captured you, you better hope you have more value to them alive than you do dead. unless you're a technomancer, in which case you may wish to invest in a cyanide capsule). their systems may very well even have external requirements to enable them, although they should still be something the spider can control (otherwise you've got a dog-brain controlling it, and that's just never a good thing). so, for example, they may not be able to activate unless there's an alarm, no matter how much you hack them (on the other hand, triggering an alarm is generally not a hard thing to do).

but seriously, there should be a lot more to the corporate facility than just doors and cameras. they hired a black-ops team comprised of people who are generally unsuitable for corporate employment because they didn't want to get caught doing it themselves, there's got to be some crazy security setup otherwise they would just hire a bunch of thugs to kick in the front door or even use corporate assets if they're confident they won't get caught.

I dunno, TJ. While there certainly can be "interesting" Clerics and Hackers, they seem to be much more the exception rather than the rule. Or maybe we just have different valuations of what is "interesting"?

One big problem with Clerics and Hackers both is their "aesthetics", for lack of a better term. It's not like playing a tough as nails Fighter/Street Sam, or a silent but deadly Rogue/Infiltrator, or a magically incendiary Wizard/Magician. Clerics and Hackers are seen as Support Roles, the sort of characters designed pretty must just to offer Utility to a team. While "Warrior" types are akin to Infantry, "Rogue" types are akin to Cavalry, and "Mage" types are akin to Artillery, "Support" types are akin to Supply Wagons - absolutely vital, but entirely unglamorous.

There's also the problem of weak thematic typing. Clerics feel like a less in-your-face version of Paladins - they both have divine magic, an anti-undead emphasis, blunt weapons, and healing powers, but everything about Paladins evokes the theme of zealous holy warriors while everything about Clerics feels... like a watered down Paladin, or generic Utility mage?

At the same time, Hackers kind of just feel like the more abstract version of Riggers and Cyberized Sammies - they all share a heavy reliance on gear and technology, but instead of commanding a miniature robot army or turning their bodies into literal killing machines, Hackers go in for the awe-inspiring power to... collect data files... tamper with security cameras... open doors... and even play some Dwarf Fortress engage in thrilling Icon vs. Icon "cybercombat"!

Borrr-ing!

...yet, ever so necessary.

Don't get me wrong - Utility roles often are quite powerful, and properly employed can give a team the edge necessary to go from being just "good" to being truly great. But they're not "sexy", so to speak. No one lies awake at night fantasizing about disarming a Data Bomb or expertly taking out a pair of Black IC, no matter how mission critical. Other, more in-your-face archetypes pretty much sell themselves. Hackers? Eh... not so much.

Let's be honest here - people play Shadowrun because they want to roleplay a badass of some description. Hackers can do a lot of extremely useful things, but none of them really make you feel amazing when you do them.

Yeah, you did a great job hacking the enemy team's commlinks and leading them into an ambush, but it's the Street Sam who feels like king of the world when an unsuspecting mook turns a corner face-first into the barrel of his shotgun, not you.

Sure, you got the vital intel which let the team realize their Johnson was trying to screw them over, but it's the Face who feels like the smoothest of operators as they cut a deal with the Johnson's opposition, taking care of the rat bastard and fattening your wallet at the same time.

Okay, so you saved the entire team's bacon by opening those sealed blast doors when the drek hit the fan, but it's the Shaman who felt like a primordial god holding the line by hurling lightning bolts and summoning beastial spirits of nature while you were slumped against the wall drooling with your head wired into a data terminal.

Hackers have value - but they're sorely lacking in style.

~Umi

Really, though, that's a problem of player perception.

Clerics, for example, are absolute powerhouses in D&D if played right. They've got the armor/hp/attack bonus to hang with the fighters, a ton of buffs available to them, and a pretty decent selection of summoning spells to make up for less than stellar direct damage. Not to mention healing. Players just see the role they'd push a cleric into if someone else was playing it, and think it is uninteresting. Want to see your party respect your contribution to the team? Stop healing for a fight or two.

Same goes for deckers. The common image of them is the guy who spends every run in his computer chair at home, remotely hacking stuff. That is a pretty poor way to build a character, and I blame it soundly on years of GM's handwaving decking. Put a few karma into something that isn't "Neckbearded shut-in-fu", and you get a perfectly workable character that can spend time hacking things on-site while still having things to do when the shit hits the fan. If decking isn't being essential to your runs in some way, then the GM is sorely shorting you on major parts of the game, as much so as if magic was cut completely and we just played Cyberpunk 2020.

Not to mention a character who can walk down to Stuffer Shack for a pack of Nerps without being mugged and given an delightful selection of new holes by the local gangers is a bit of a better idea, plausibility wise.

I don't disagree with any of that, it's just that no matter how much we dress up how awesome decking apparently is, they are generally (and that's not to say ALWAYS to avoid all the powerful anecdotes that are sure to follow) rarely played archetypes and the great thing was, if you didn't have one you could just a) hire one to do the boring stuff and b) the GM didn't have to pretend they had any idea how decking actually worked.

Yes every facility can be like a game of 'Prince of Persia' but at the end of the day it all just boils down to "Oh, here's something the decker needs to do. Who wants pizza?" It would eventually get done and everyone else would have fun fly kicking red samurai while the decker hid in the next room looking for something to do. Now, you may ask "Why is fly kicking red Samurai more fun than turning off electrified pits?" The answer to that is human nature. We all like violence, even simulated violence, which is why we play Shadowrun and not My little Pony-Run. It's as simple as that.

One of the writers posted a thread on Dumpshock a while ago that showed a video of Ghost in the Shell where a hacker hacked some guys eyes to fool him into thinking he had the upper hand. That was awesome, that was suddenly something that a hacker could do tactically rather just shoot ineffectively. That's where the game was heading and now it is starting to look like that Run&Gun is going to roll that back to placate the whingers. That's really disappointing.

My problem is that a well designed game takes into account things like player perceptions.

People come into games with pre-existing notions, and they may have false expectations and might make unrealistic assumptions. But part of the job of a game designer is being aware of those player perceptions, and designing the game in such a way as to make sure they don't succeed in leading players astray.

If you have a character class, or a piece of gear, or an ability or skill that has great mechanic potential, but which is unpopular with the player base, you're supposed to figure out why. If the numbers suggest it should be a popular pick, but no one plays it, you have to ask yourself what's stopping people from choosing it? If this thing is so great mechanically, why don't more people play?

If a certain mechanic gives a player a lot of power, but they don't feel powerful using it, that's a problem. This concept is called "Hidden Power", and it's something you want to try to limit in your games if you don't want people just glossing over whatever choices suffer from the greatest amounts of Hidden Power.

Imagine a movie hero throwing a punch, or shooting a gun, or setting off an explosion. Which feels more impactful to the viewer - a realistic sound effect, or a larger than life one? A world class boxer throwing a high power punch in reality doesn't make a very interesting sound, but take an untrained actor and add in a powerful booming burst like some angry deity slamming their car door and it just feels powerful, despite being the demonstrably inferior punch in every way.

A huge factor in what drives someone to choose one option over another is how those options feel. When you make one choice numerically superior but emotionally inferior to another, you doom the first choice to being ignored by all but the most efficiency minded number-crunchers and min-maxers, while the second, less efficient/effective/optimal choice sees soaring popularity.

Even when there isn't an actual disparity, a perceived disparity can ruin player enjoyment. Even if Hackers are technically powerful, if they don't feel powerful people won't enjoy playing them.

Hence why people complain about Hackers. They've always had "things to do in combat", but it never really felt like it. They've always been mechanically robust, but they've always seemed weak and limited. They've always brought a unique set of abilities to the table, but they've never made the average player want those abilities.

People want to play a Street Sam, because More Dakka™ is frelling cool. People want to play a sneak-thief bastard, because flipping out as a katana-wielding ninja or popping heads with a high-powered sniper rifle is just immensely satisfying. People want to play a master of arcane magics because dropping more lightning than Zeus tripping over a Tesla Coil is fragging sweet.

But people don't want to play Hackers, because all of their Power is Hidden from the player, and only those who dig far enough down to find, recognize, and appreciate it will ever bother choosing a Hacker over any other immediately more pleasurable option available to them.

~Umi

There are just too many players who like to trick out their gear to abandon firearm mods...myself included, so I can't complain

What I can complain about, though, is that they're trying to tease a gear porn book with...no gear.

I suspect Run & Gun won't alter the way Deckers currently provide matrix support to their team: which is through slaving devices to their (limited capacity for slaving) cyber-deck. There might be something that enhances how many devices they can slave through a plugin or software package, but I doubt they will drastically change much matrix wise in Run & Gun.

Tac-Net wise? I'd expect Leadership bonuses. Your PCC (Personnel Communications Console?) or whatever a Pi-Tac is may provide bonus dice and/or limit increases for making Leadership and/or teamwork tests, along possibly allowing teamwork from character not near each thanks to the wonders of AR. It's not flat bonus dice like the Tac-Nets of old, but it could prove useful for the team Face/Leader, especially with the Direct and Rally leadership actions.

Now, this probably makes me the minority, but pretty much all of our 4E deckers were also riggers, and vice versa. The rigger couldn't go against a dedicated decker for more than a few rounds, and vice versa, but it really cuts down on the ol' downtime when the decker is running a hound or scout micro-flyer.

Now, this probably makes me the minority, but pretty much all of our 4E deckers were also riggers, and vice versa. The rigger couldn't go against a dedicated decker for more than a few rounds, and vice versa, but it really cuts down on the ol' downtime when the decker is running a hound or scout micro-flyer.

Double post.

So, in other words, deckers, and deckers alone, must invest in something outside their area of expertise just to be a workable character? The pure face works, the pure rigger works, the pure mage works, the pure combat monster works (it's not a great idea, but it works), and so on, but the pure decker doesn't?

Thanks for highlighting the problem. You've also highlighted that the things that COULD make decking work before were not systemic; if you has a less-than-stellar GM, you were screwed. That's a seriously flawed design.

While I understand your point the face is far worse off than the decker. Leadership etc is useful in a fight but it does far less than what the decker has done for multiple editions. The face needs a gun and he now needs 2 skill groups worth of specialty skills just like the decker.

The face is sitting in the area of 6 skills, 3 attributes as Minimum Investment; that's pretty well on par with everyone else (the Sam actually gets of a little light on this analysis; the Technomancer unsurprisingly is completely fucked). A Face who invests in combat can do more with a gun (weapon skill + Agility, as well as Reaction; these are all extra for them), sure, but they do not have to make this investment. Focusing on Leadership does enable them to make a pretty substantial contribution to any fight.

Are you kidding? A Face adept can use his super persuasiveness to magically command enemies to throw their weapons on the ground, or throw themselves over a cliff, or literally anything else they can fit into a five word command.

You can build a pure utility face, never touch a gun or weapon at all, and still be a fucking badass.

~Umi

Well, yes, but I find it helpful in these discussions to be talking about ALL Faces, not just Adept Faces.

And focusing on decking in 4e allowed deckers to make a pretty substantial contribution to any fight outside the bizarre where no tech is involved in a cyberpunk world.

Bar in the Barrens, enemy has nothing wireless because they have no motivation to do so. What do?

Or, to put it another way, it did not systemically do anything in that vein, and thus barring the combination of creative players and cooperative GMs, or GMs specifically lacing things in for you, there were not things for hackers to be doing in a fight. This is a problem, because the system needs to work BEFORE we get to the question of how good the GM is or how creative the player is.

Non-adept faces? That's just crazy talk.

In all seriousness, though, we're talking pure builds. If you're building a pure Face, you really only have two realistic options: Adept powers, or Cyberware. (Well, technically I guess you could hybridize with a cyber-adept face as well...) If you want to be a pure Face, you can still be a badass because there are Adept powers that let you do amazing things even in combat.

In constrast, the problem with Hackers is that there's not much of a way for a pure Decker to be a badass. Maybe if there was some cool Adept power that let them do something more exciting than eject some ammo or turn off some lights, or if there was some amazing cyber-implant that let them hack normally non-hackable objects like cyberlimbs at close range, or really anything that gave you more functionality beyond the basic, uninteresting options Hackers have available to them, it'd be far less of a problem.

~Umi

If the GM allows limitless munchkin-ism, a face can just tell that Wildcat team to drop their weapons. Meanwhile, an equally unchecked hacker can hack a few dozen drones on a rainy afternoon and use them whenever he pleases. Munchkin vs. munchkin is just more dead vs. much more dead

I still advocate introducing a "Hack-Gun" device, some MacGuffin powered point-and-shoot dealie which lets you roll Hacking against an otherwise unhackable electronic device at close range with direct line of sight, and if you win you get to make the device perform a single action of some sort.

The most basic option might simply be a disable or a reboot, where a device gets turned off for a short while (say something like a Combat Turn?). So you Disable a street Sam's cyberarm and it goes limp, possibly even making them drop their gun, and they can't use that limb until it reboots. Or you Disable their leg and cripple their movement speed, impeding Running and Climbing and Swimming, and possibly even making them fall prone and unable to stand until it reboots. Or disable their cybereyes and render them blind for a turn or two.

Another option might be to take control of a device temporarily, albeit probably for an even shorter space of time, akin to a single IP or just a single action. You could Override a cyberarm and make it punch the owner in the face, or make it fire a gun at a target of your choice, or even just make it throw a switch or press a button or perform some other useful mundane task - great for manipulating systems that require physical access which you don't have, but that your enemy does.

Or you could Override some cybereyes and create a digital "illusion" for a brief period, where the enemy's vision glitches out and suddenly they see four targets instead of one, or none at all, or an ally where they thought an enemy was just a second ago. Or you could Override some cyberears to create false sounds, ranging from mysterious thumps luring the enemy in the wrong direction, to fabricating radio commands from their allies, to blaring maximum volume music or noise directly into their brain, causing them to suffer distraction and pain modifiers.

Those are all useful things for a Hacker to do both in and out of combat that also make them feel pretty badass.

~Umi

Munchkinism? I beg your pardon?

You are aware I'm talking about a specific Adept Power, yes? Commanding Voice? You aren't just jumping to conclusions and assuming that I think basic Social tests are able to force people to do anything and everything, yeah?

~Umi

most of the problem comes down to hacking speed.

if you could hack a car in a single IP and send it flying into your enemies, hacking would be fine.

if you could hack an elevator to travel at unsafe speeds and slam that HTRT all over the place in a single IP, hacking would be fine.

if you could hack a security door to slam shut and crush the cyberzombie that is chasing you in a single IP, hacking would be fine.


like i said, it's not a problem of what hacking can accomplish that's the problem, it's how fast it can be accomplished that is the problem. at least, most of the time anyways. if you're in the middle of the wilderness you might have some problems finding useful hacking actions.

thus, most of the power in hacking at present comes from ridiculous levels of preparation. a hacker with batman's ability to know exactly what will be needed in advance would be awesome, because everything that needs hacking would have been prepared in advance and so by the time you need it, it takes a single action to set the plan in motion. meanwhile, regular hackers are stuck because it takes them several IPs at least to set any hacking plan in motion, not to mention taking several rolls to accomplish something.

if it took a single action to close a door on someone, it would be a viable attack that is competitive with pulling out an assault rifle. it isn't that fast though, so it isn't comparable... it's like spending 2 rounds assembling an assault rifle that can only fire a single burst.

fix that, and you fix hacking.

Even if I'd also like to see other, flashier options as well, I still quite agree. Making the things you can already do with Hacking quicker makes them much more attractive, and makes you feel like choosing to hack is just as worthwhile as choosing to shoot or cast spells or anything else.

~Umi

While I love the idea of quick hacking, I know that other people hate the idea of their precious gear being able to be hacked. One of the things that helps make people feel "safe" is how slow hacking is.

But if you implement rules that a PC can use to make it so that they don't need to fear being hacked, then so can NPCs. Then we get back to the problem, that nothing is hackable, because its "too dangerous" to allow hackers to have so much control.

I think its stupid. I honestly think a hacker should be on par with a mage. And archetypes that specifically use technology should be vulnerable to being hacked (I'm talking about Street Sams and Riggers). Then we get to the problem of everyone being adepts, because they can't be hacked. I'd personally lean towards making Street Sams stronger than adepts then, which to be fair, with most wireless boni Street Sams will have a slight advantage over a pure adept. But then we get into weirdness with cybered adepts who can pick and choose which is better; ware or adept powers. The only way I could see to make that work is to make all adept powers cost less PP then the equivalent ware eats essence. However, then we get into the problem that adepts will be able to get stronger faster then Street Sams. Then we'll have to make ware cheaper. But then we also run in to the problem that Street Sams have a hard limit on how much ware they can install, while adepts can pretty much keep initiated forever to have all the powers they could ever want. So we'd make higher grade ware cheaper, but then we get back to the problem that then adepts would want to take the ware that is the best essence to adept power mix.

Anyway, I think the solution is to ban adepts from taking ware. That's how we can fix hacking. But that has nothing to do with my point.

The point is that saying quicker hacking is nice, but there will be a lot of push back by archetypes that fear being hacked, namely street sams and riggers. And this will make it look like magic is the better option, since they can't be hacked.

A face is against a drone?

Yeah, we can come up with situations where a persons gimmick doesn't work. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. IMO the deckers gimmick even in 4e was more potent then the faces. Still I;m fine with more direct hacks like in 5e or even expanded, but I just don't pretend the hacker is the only one with this problem.

well, the car example isn't really a major concern most of the time. simple fact is, right this very moment if the best car thief in the world decided to steal your car, you probably couldn't stop them with any realistic chance of success. but most likely, you don't have the best car thief in the world, or anyone even remotely close to it, after your car. in fact, odds are pretty good that nobody is planning on stealing your car right now. the same is true of most of your possessions... the people with the skills to rapidly and successfully steal your car, probably don't really want your car, and would only ever grab it if they were pushed into an uncomfortable situation where they need a car, any car, right now, and yours is available.

so really, consumer electronics would be fine. and now we come to corporate security.

now, like i said, there is a very strong incentive to have your defences controlled by a spider. you don't want it controlled by a dog-brain, and you don't want it controlled by mechanical triggers (getting tazed is not going to be good for your employee's morale, even if it *is* installed to protect them, and even if it is their own fault for stepping on the wrong tile), and you want to have it coordinated together and with your conventional security team and the drones, and sharing information between all of them.

and because the security team can't readily be physically connected with cables all the time, you need wireless connectivity for that.

so, having a security system that is matrix enabled with security software to protect it from hackers makes sense for corporations, because they're likely enough to be targeted that the expense calls for it. it doesn't make sense for civilians, because they're not generally a target for corporate espionage (except for high value corporate employees, who will likely be placed behind a security system similar in many ways to that around the corporate facility, assuming it isn't just part of the facility in the first place).

even if the corporate security system was completely separate from the mobile portions (guards and drones) and you just had a person in charge of coordinating them with the physical facility defences (which won't work as well generally speaking), that just means you need to get a tap into the system somewhere and you can still challenge for control... and you need to have wires running to every camera, every door, every aspect of the security system, so once a team is in and installs a wireless data tap, you're just as vulnerable anyways (possibly moreso, because if you blocked off your security system from external access that means your security hackers also have a harder time getting in, assuming you even have them since you theoretically don't need them.

This is ostensibly the problem with hacking as it is set up at the moment. People are saying they hate it because of realism/consistency/logic(supposed)/etc when in fact I think it's more about "I want +2 from my smartlink but i don't want to have to worry about it".

I think what was supposed to be what balanced hacking was that NPCs use it because X, Shadowrunners probably won't because of Y. The rationale wasn't meant to be applicable to both groups and since we are only ever playing one side, we probably don't really need to know or care about why NPCs tend to leave it on.

Unfortunately, it seems that some players not only want to know why they are leaving it on they apparently NEED to know why. Just being told they do wasn't enough and perhaps this was a shortcoming of the edition, but as we're talking about what motivates people in 60 years, I tend to think that anything but broad justification is setting yourself up for that justification to be broken. 'Convenience' should probably be reason enough.

I may be jumping the gun with this preview, I'm hoping the writers haven't rolled over to more or less make bricking an impossible endeavour, but it feels like the direction it's heading in.

Difference being that being in a bar in the Barrens is one of the basic situations of the game; the other is a "white room" concept. The non-functionality in one demonstrates the systemic problem; the non-functionality in the other is basically a contortion to FORCE non-functionality (as your unstated, but obvious assumptions involve there being no one else around, the Face being unable to attempt to impersonate a person the drone ISN'T supposed to shoot to confuse the Pilot, and so on and so forth).

actually, i have no problem with *most* stuff being wireless by default. like i said, the average person isn't worried about a shadowrunner hacking their car, or their commlink, or their prized collection of selfies taken all around the world, or your MMO accounts. they probably don't even have to worry about a garden variety criminal hacker doing that, in fact, just like most people don't really expect to have a burglar break into their house or to get shot by an assassin (if that was a common concern, bodyguards and security systems would be a lot more common; just look at situations in the real world where those things are common occurrences, and you'll find that security systems and body guards are used).

the problem comes with stuff that is exclusively designed for military and similar organizations. when something is intended for an exclusive group of customers that primarily includes black ops and similar, security flaws are not nearly as likely to be ranked lower than convenience.

so, for example, cybereyes being designed to work with wireless is fine. a military version should likely exist that doesn't need wireless to function, but standard cybereyes that you can get installed in a mall booth would reasonably have security as secondary to convenience (not to mention installing the extra hardware for the non-wireless fully functional version may very well cost more essence and money). in contrast, stuff like wireless reflexes, which are only needed if you expect to be put into a situation where you will see combat regularly, should be designed with security being the primary concern, and taking precedence over convenience. if you get into enough combat situations that wired reflexes is more cost effective than combat drugs, you get into enough fights that you don't want the thing that's letting you dodge bullets and actually not get stomped by the enemy force with double or triple the number of soldiers to be vulnerable to a hacker. or, for that matter, someone with a 1200 nuyen jammer.

I think the biggest problem with wireless is that rather than giving the hacker cool (if nonsensical) things to do, it is likely to make the hacker the babysitter for the rest of the group, instead. Just like the mage with his counterspelling, he needs to protect the others from an attack vector they have little or no defense against.

I don't think every archetype should be equally effective in combat. Hackers and faces should get most of their spotlight time during the legwork and preparation stages of the run. Personally, I think they should lower the bar for being part-face or part-hacker, reducing them to one or two essential skills that, like gymnastics or infiltration, are skills that most runners should have to some degree. I think a lot of the problems arise from trying to make hackers and faces into character "classes". Stuff like bricking cyberware, or using leadership in combat, seem a bit contrived to me.

Don't think anyone's arguing that; specifically, I don't think the element I've emphasized is part of anyone's argument.

I don't know.. When Mungo the Troll yells at someone to 'Get Lost!', a surprising number of people-including security forces do find themselves compelled to do just that.

And I will be clear, he is NOT an adept of any sort that I have been able to assense, so even Social tests may have their place.

Or maybe it's just being a Troll named Mungo, you be the judge.

Mungo is legend. I'd put getting told to 'Get Lost!' by him on a level almost as high as getting told to 'Get Lost!' by Lofwyr.

~Umi