I was discussing the real world. There is no PRC in SR...

However, if a hacker in SR goes off-line and goes to dinner, you can't do anything to him without sending someone there. He can choose when and where to attack and, coming through a series of intermediaries, is very difficult to track if he's clever. (Though still much easier then the real world).

And if he's hacking via AR, the worst you are going to do is throw him offline via cybercombat. So he sends out for pizza and pulls the next commlink out of his hackerstack and goes back to work.

If you hack his commlink he pulls out the batteries and goes to the next one in his hackerstack, and goes back to work. Though typically you won't ever get that far, as he'll have an agent upstream looking for traces that will tear down his connection before you can get there.

It's pretty risk free, until someone shows up to shoot him in the face.

You are mixing rebuttals. You are rebuking

Well, I think his point was

A) Today you cannot do anything about a hacker if he is operating out of a number of countries you really cannot do anything about, that often start with R and/or end in A.

B) An operator in china in SR can use the hackastack and achieve total invincibility unless you physically go there and shoot him in the face.

neither of these are particularly intresting as a game mechanic.

Yeah, modern malware is based around exploiting unpatched vulnerabilities in systems. The things you describe (except MITM attacks and zero day exploits) are using a known, unpatched flaw in the system to gain some sort of advantage. I kinda agree with you in some ways, but I do think that the majority of 'hack attacks' are out of the question.

However, the most common attack vectors today are through user based attacks (soliciting a user to visit a hostile website or open a hostile attachment), or discovery of unpatched systems via autorooters or whatever.

Lets take autorooters and other similar things first. These are agents, uploaded to a node which they run from autonomously and report compromised systems back to the program owner. They just got banned to fix the agent smith problem. So that precludes the second attack vector. That and leaving unpatched systems on the net is definitely user error ;P

The really intresting thing is that with fast flux networks launching DDOS attacks, we really do have agent smith *in action* *right now* toasting hosts. And frankly no-one does anything about it. Check out what happened to project blue.

The second attack vector is the described user error which frank ascribes things to.

Leaving things unpatched is probably a problem, that I would ascribe to user error. I agree that not all attacks currently used follow those methodologies but the overwhelming majority do. All of the attacks detailed on the honeynet site currently in papers for the last year fall into one of my two concepts.

Now back to the man in the middle attacks! Well, actually, authentication 101 prevents that unless the end points are compromised, something I agree happens all the time. And this is the most deliciously wicked attack out there. But it is still 'hacker haxors your banks website, you visit and get tasty malware' And you're right, on zero day exploits might produce some of this stuff before the patches get onto it.

But really without autorooters and other agents to speed the process, I'm not sure how. So on the balance I can see how one could right 'hacking is due to user error' because in the vast majority of cases out there today right now it is.

Our security guy told me that 80% of compromised systems we see are are due to the user going to a compromised site and the browser automatically downloading and installing malware. It's not the the users are doing anything wrong, or the the machines or applications are unpatched; it's that applications are being manipulated in unexpected ways.

And we did have 47 rookited systems that were, as far as we know, completely patched, running current AV and otherwise identical to the other 7000 some hosts we have. But they were totally owned and we really have no idea how, or why just them.

The quote I have posted from Richard Bejtlich several times point out how computer and network security is an ugly problem and it's not getting any better.

I often think people fail to realize the scope of the threat. It isn;t some kid in his backyard doing it for fame and glory, it's organized crime doing it because it's a billion(+) dollar a year industry in terms of pure profit, and thats not counting the cost to society. Okay it is a chump change compared to drugs, but really.

Drive by downloads usually exploit a vulnerability in the browser package of some description of the other. http://www.honeynet.org/papers/mws/KYE-Mal...Web_Servers.htm goes over it in some detail.

Redjack, you posits 'reasonable' security measures, but almost 40% of users have not taken the steps of installing 'important' security updates.

So infecting peoples computers by drive by download and auto rooters is a cool discussion of current network security, which I think is fascinating, but it isn't very interesting gameplay.

Edit: Redjack -> I both agree with you and disagree. I don't think anything we've discussed goes far enough to remove the validity of the point frank makes with 'it requires user error' Modern hacking techniques deploy vast automated techniques to do stuff.

This *is* agent smith, its *not* some guy busting out the console and thrashing into the system. Every attack we have discussed (aside from possibily MITM attacks, while I am aware of the theory I don't know of a serious wide spread attack, or a single high profile case using this) is an automated agent based attack that features low or no interaction.

While I disagree with the way frank has put it, I do think the point is valid that modern hacking blows goats as gameplay for an RPG.

I find the whole "cybercombat" thing to be like disco; it was a dumb idea at the time it was created by TRON and Mr Manual Typewriter and it hasn't grown better as it decomposes in it's well earned grave. I'd rather use a more abstract system for hacking systems that is based on the idea that you methodically work to compromise the system step by step. Plus airgaps so you have to actually show up in person to hack.

I enjoy playing SR and I'll use whatever house rules the poor bastard GM wants to use, but what I want to run is really more a futuristic spy game, so magic, elves, etc are all distractions to that.

Frank likes the cybercombat stuff. So his rules are based on the idea that you have to engage in it to hack. Furthermore, to have meaning it needs to have a threat to the hacker all the time that is much more immediate then the remote chance someday someone will show up at his house and shoot him in the face.

There are many ways that the Matrix could be envisioned. Lots of them are inherently unstable when exposed to enterprising player characters. And lots of them are not. But if you try to bite off more than you can chew and try to support more than one sci-fi conceptualization, you end up with a mess. A mess which is in almost every case unstable.

Here are some other conceptualizations that I think cold be made into a perfectly workable set of rules which for whatever reason I chose to not go with:

Agent Smith Wars
Matrix tasks are automatable. They are in fact virtually completely automated. Actually starting a hack on something doesn't require you to be hooked into the Matrix at all. You pretty muc just press the GO button and move on with your life. What does take effort is setting a hack up in the first place. Systems can pretty much shut anythig off they feel like, so even having hundreds of thousands of Agents doesn't let you hack into something unless you already have a key. Indeed, it is assumed that any Matrix Specialist worth a damn has got hundreds of thousands of Agents at his fingertips. But to actually get that to accomplish anything, the Hacker has to have a flaw in the security of whatever operating systém is in use, and those are both secret and constantly being fixed.

So the players in this system actually go about their day collecting super secret ways to compromise specific operating systems. They might discover or reasearch a weakness in Ichi user interface or an encryption flaw in Deva. These loopholes will allow a player to plan and launch an attack on a system which runs a specific operating systém. And then you roll dice against the firewall to see if the adapting security code can successfully shut you out, and in any case at the end of the day the logs will go to security spiders who will likely as not close the loophole and all the world's Orb systems will become immune the next time they update. What you're essentially risking every time you use your hacking is the chance that the World Recording Industry Army will track you down and shoot you in the face after the run, and the near certainty that whatever trick it was that you just used will be compromised and useless in the extremely near future.

I decided to not go with such a setup because hackers really only used their datajacks between runs while attempting to craft loophole cards. It pretty much felt like 2007 hacking, not „Shadowrun“ hacking. Also, keeping track of loophole cards was kind of a pain in the ass. And the hacker did almost all his actual work during the legwork phase – no cybercombat actually took place during the action phase.

The Prize in the Game
Encryption is basically completely impregnable. While a maglock can be bypassed with a rocket launcher, a computer passcode is something which can only be cracked with a few million years. As a result, all „hacking“ is an extension of social hacking. You can't possibly break into a main frame via the internets, but you get people to give you a valid temporary code by successfully impersonating a new employee or an external contractor.

In such a setup, successfully „hacking“ anything is the entire mission. You need to sneak into the right area and Control Thoughts some wageslave into making you a valid account before you can get into the systém. You need real-time video of someone touching the keypad to activate a door before you can activate it yourself. And you'll need to get the work badge of an off-duty security guard from his house before you can even be offered the opportunity to punch such a code in.

I decided not to go this route because it made hacking both too important and too useless. Also, even formulating a plan to use your computer skills requires such a deep understanding of the systém by the player that you essentially don't even need the computer skill any more. The Matrix Specialist sort of vanishes as an archetype altogether and every single character ends up contributing to hacking.

Tempting Fate
Connecting yourself directly to the Matrix puts you head and sholders above lesser men. The information at your disposal allows you to easily accomplish tasks that would make the unconnected man weep. But with great powers comes heat vision, and being connected to the Matrix in such a way also leaves you horribly vulnerable. The signal pumped constantly into and out of your brain augments your plans, your balance, your evaluation of the truthfulness of people talking, and your assessment of colas – but it also can easily be compromised with static or turned up to a brain splitting 11.

Players get a substantial bonus all the time while they are hooked into the Matrix. Their perceptions of people across the negotiating table are compared to libraries of truthful and deceiptful people automatically. Their running physiology is automatically monitored and improvements suggested. Blah blah blah. And the higher res the signal you are getting, the bigger a bonus you receive. And the more dangerous it is for you.

I chose not to go this route because it involved changing the underlying assumptions about how many dice people rolled on everything and I was writing new Matrix rules not a whole new Shadowrun.

-Frank

Concering agents: I consider allowing agents for legal tasks, based on the notion that all agent tricks are not creative and therefore known by up-to-date software. Still working on the how. There is the idea of limiting available software to rating 3 and having the rest be a setup problem for the hacker, with degrading ratings (SOTA without cost, but needing skill)

Concerning network security: Have decryption not be an extended test. Say that a comlink with access to brain processing power is well able to decrypt real-time. If encryption is limited in ratings, even high-sec systems can be broken into. Working on that too, but looks promising.

How do I steal a car under these rules?

If the car is on the PAN of someone, you decrypt network traffic (should be EW), create a backdoor (Hacking) and run Master Control (Hacking).

If the car is just sitting there, you have a couple of options:

• Add it to your own PAN and drive it around.
• Send a fake command to the Autopilot to drive itself to some arbitrary Point A.

You have a couple of options to do that. You can either crash the system by repeatedly hitting it with Denial and then forge a connection with it while it is rebooting; or you can attempt to get a Jedi Trick or Backdoor to grab direct access.

If the car is running under the PAN of someone else you'll need to take better control of it with either Master Control upgrades or by kicking the original occupant out with Ostraka or Impersonate.

---

In any case, the biggest threat is not actually grabbing control of the car (which like in 2007 is easy and fun), but in keeping it once Lonestar starts looking into the matter. Jamming the car keeps it off the Matrix and keeps them from WhoIs tracing it (which they will do). But really you're going to at some point need to get yourself a fake ID for it if you want to really "keep" it, which is handled just like any other Veracity test.

-Frank

Denial is pretty much unstoppable right now. Logic+Attack against Firewall+Willpower... handing out automatic success to the dedicated hacker makes that one boring as hell.

Encrypting something seems to need a test, too. One would think the power is in the method, but apparently only trained hackers can do it.

Probe... When does the Firewall get to have its IP? And one bad roll from the defender and any system is toast.

WhoIs should be called WhereIs. WhoIs should exist and have the implied function. Minor nitpick, guilty as I´m likely to be charged.

DataBombs seem useless against owners of recovery. Have a few minutes? At least "only one test" should be stipulated, and then it stays 50-50.

Intercept... all wireless information is free now. See Probe, see Firewall has one IP, see DP sizes possible.

Master Control. A server resists with firewall only?

Taxman see Intercept.

How does Obscure handle Reveal Contents?

Terminate Connection is pretty weak. With the amount of things you made possible without connection, this should be unresisted.

For those of you waiting for the PDF, here's an update:

I've got the custom page layouts ready and waiting with a few bits of art that Frank seems to think are fitting so now it's just an issue of copying Frank's text and my images into the PDF.


If you want any of your work to go in, give me a ring on one of my IM's:

AIM: bluescreen0101
YIM: bluescreen0101
MSN: bluescreen0101@gmail.com

Some stuff worth thinking about:

Ahould the range on black hammer and similar programs be changed to LOS or C instead of just LOS? This makes the black hammer utility more in line with black IC (which we assume can fry your brain from around the world). Unless there was a rule revision, black hammer is just LOS (+ within signal) range. This also lets a defending hacker try to blackhammer you, even on the other side of the world, because you have to have an open connection to hack the system.

This also give the hacker incentives to backdoor people, so that at some future time he can access them from anywhere and attempt to blackhammer them. (You have disappointed me for the last time...)

This also gives the hacker some incentive to establish a connection to people, even in physical combat, since he can still balckhammer them outside of LOS as long as the connection is open. This also makes resetting your PAN an desperate but possibly effective defense against connection range attacks. You can no longer be attacked over the open connection, but you are now vulnerable to plain LOS attacks.

Sigh, but this leads to the problem of:

I'm having a party in your brain, and all the Black IC in my hackkastack is invited.

--------

To recap:

The rules should be designed to produce balanced and interesting gameplay; choices presented by the rules should actually be choices, rather than one choice being batter than all the others.. The natural balance of the rules should lead to people taking in genre actions, and there should be no in rule loopholes. The game fluff supporting the rules should agree with the rules themselves, and try to close off and potential loopholes that arise from applications of the 'rules objects' (in this case, IC, programs, computers, etc) in logical ways not actually covered by the rules.

------------

We want there to be some way of defending a system beyond having security hackers who just hang out in the system all day. While writing IC out of the world, and having all active defenses based on defensive hackers showing up in the system would probably work, IC is part of the fluff we don't really want to give up. IC should be able to react to your intrusion by making you risk being brainfried. However, the best IC should be defeatable by the best hackers, so that even the best defended systems (without security hackers, anyway) are still vulnerable to hackers.

-----------

We want IC and defending hackers to be able to brainfry you from across the world, but we don't want the across the world hakkastack brainfry. If we find this unavoidable, for some reason, then we should at least try to make it have real drawbacks. For example, if Ares is really pissed off at you, they can backdoor your commlink, run a trace on you, and hit you with a thor shot once they find out where you are. We don't want to make thor shots forbidden by the fluff, but we can place enough fluff complications around the use of thor shots that prevent thor shots from being used on every Joe runner who pisses of Ares.

-------------

So, here's a rules + fluff outline that I think will let us keep IC, but prevent the IC hakkastack. I'm not too sure about it, since it deviates even more from standard SR.

Just as hacking programs require a brain to do the work on, the active defenses of IC also require grey matter. Therefor, any IC you run into is basically a brain in a jar somewhere.

This is why you will see references to Black IC being 'illegal'. The fact that the IC is trying to brainfry you is perfectly legal, after all, the guards could shoot you right in the face if you were trespassing in a secured area in the meatspace world. The reason Black IC (e.g. high rating IC) is usually illegal is that the corporation has some poor Joe's brain in a jar slaved to run some computer programs. Sure the lower rating IC can be run with stuff like dog or monkey or dolphin brains, but all the best IC requires a human brain.

So why aren't the corps growing cloned human brains en mass, to create armies ofhigh rating agents/IC? Well, the problem is that the cloned brains have basically no experiences, the complexity of their neuron networks is basically non-existant; they are made out of mush. To get high rating IC, you need a brain with a highly complex neuron network. Currently, the best place to find that kind of brain is straight out of the skull on and adult human...

This is what really keeps organ-leggers in business. Anyone who can afford a replacement organ (and the surgery fees, recovery time, and time off work) can afford a clonal, or at least type O limb. But brains, that's another matter altogether...

So why can't you copy agents? because you can't copy the grey matter that is the heart of the agent. Note that agents/IC have what amounts to lifestyle costs, you have to keep the brain fed with a stream of nutrients, and whatever else a brain in a jar needs.

Because IC brains don't have the specialized brain structres of hackers (e.g. they didn't have any hacking skills), the forced integration with the computer is destructive to the brain being used (just like those BTL addicts), so IC tends to be shut down when it's not in use; it reduces the degradation of the brain. This is also why the IC you just crashed doesn't just start back up next turn to trouble you. Depending on how badly you've crashed the IC/Agent, you may have actually killed the brain. Note that crashing high rating IC means that you technically committed homicide, since you just terminated the brain activity of a human brain. Of course, to charge you with the crime, the guys doing the charging have to admit that they had some poor guys brain in a jar to begin with.

So, the blackIC hakkastack is still possible, but costly, and it degrades over time, meaning you keep having to supply yourself with new brains.

This also adds some interesting game dynamics for the rest of the team to support the hacker. If you break into the building to shoot all the black IC life support canisters, then the hackers job just became a whole lot simpler.

This also allows economic raids against places that have IC. You botch the hack enough to trigger the IC, then start frying IC brains. It's raids like this that cause most places of have pretty conservative conditions for the activation of IC, it's only when your threat to the system (how far you've gotten in, what info you can access) is balanced against your threat to the IC that the IC tends to go active (plus the actual cost of activating the IC in the first place).

Thus, the black IC hakkastack party in your brain is somewhat comparable, economically to firing a missile at you, or sending a team of guys to shoot you in the face. And you can either jam your connection or reset your PAN, and cause all that expensive IC to suffer dumpshock. So a lot of the time, it's neither the cheapest, nor the most sure way to take someone out.

Ideally I would like to avoid the nuclear option of restricting IC to networks and servers, and even more dearly like to avoid the hydrogen bomb option of restricting IC to networks.

So while I agree with most of your premises, I think your conclusion may have gone too far. For starters, how are you getting your Hackastack to attack an opponent's brain all at once? Are you using the Chain Letter Technomancer power?

That alone may require IC to be restricted to servers and networks. But so far I'm not seeing a reason to restrict them to networks alone.

-Frank

My logic train went roughly as follows:

As long as IC can blackhammer at connection range (which seems to be necessary to have IC be able to blackhammer at all), then the hacker's blackhammer utility should be able to do the same thing.

If you can blackhammer at connection range, you can do the following:

I'm the sysadmin of a hakkastack running a bunch of nasty IC. Using this system as my deck, I use backdoor to establish a connection to your commlink. Then, I say to my IC army, "OMG! it's an illegal haxxor connected to our system! Get him!" and a bunch of blackhammering ensues. I can throw down my own blackhammer across the connection, plus whatever my IC army is throwing down.

A bunch of hackers could do the same thing to you all at once, but I'd assume that each one would need to backdoor his own connection, risking detection. (Similar dynamic to ritual sorcery, I'd guess, with some of the same security precautions: wards = faraday cages; changing commlinks/signatures/pans similar to changing your genetic code, so that previous ritual samples (backdoors) are no longer useful).

To arrange the 100 hacker raid on your brain, you'd at least need to find 100 hackers willing to screw with you, but IC is just a matter of money (or theft).

The part I'm not getting is how you are getting all your IC into the Hackastack in the first place. Each Firewall only runs one, and the IC can only attack if they have a direct connection.

The weak point of the system as I analyze it seems to be Servers, where people could have arbitrarily large numbers of IC with connections to the server, force a connection to the server and then have all the IC close range. If that turns out to be a problem, and it may well be, it seems that bumping up the IC to the Server level would solve it straight off.

Anything I'm missing?

-Frank

I was using 'hakkastack' to indicate some large collection of computing power. Whether that be a bunch of commlinks I stole from a Best Buy all wired together or a complete server setup I stole with the help of some forged work orders and a rented truck, it doesn't matter too much. The more computing power I can lay my hands on, the more IC I can have in my army.

The IC doesn't normally gang up on you when you are hacking the system because they don't know you from Joe, authorized user. But if I force a connection to you, and then tag you as a really bad guy, then I'd expect all the IC to take a swing at you.

The thing is, the IC army is much more effective than just the hacker by himself, but there doesn't seem to be any more risk than if the hacker had done it with a regular commlink. If the hackee resets his PAN, the hacker might suffer dumpshock, but the real tool (the server full of IC) is still fine. So the hacker will be back tomorrow with the same trick. If I have a billion Y server full of a billion Y worth IC, I can have tag teams of hackers trying to blow up up with it every couple of minutes.

I wrote up the Agents/IC as brains in a jar, so that if you try that trick, all your expensive brains in a jar suffer dumpshock too, and potentially you lose some of them (the brains die), or at least they are damaged and reduced in rating, or something. If I have a billion Y server full of a billion Y in IC, if you use the simple defense of shutting down your PAN, I might be left with only 750 million Y worth of IC and a little bit of ghoul food. I lost 250M Y because you were very fast with the off switch. Thus, to use the IC army, you have to actually risk the IC army.

Thinking about it for a while, some of this can probably be solved by carefully working the rules and fluff.

Here's the example:

I'm a defensive hacker, protecting a server. I'm the only defensive hacker around right now. The server is running rating 6 IC with black hammer.

I'm not connecting directly to the server, I'm connecting to it through my rating 4 commlink. This commlink is running rating 4 IC, with blackhammer, in case somebody is trying to hack me personally, and not the server I'm protecting. If I detected someone connected to my comlink and trying to hack me, I could tell my IC to blackhammer him, as he is within connection range. I could also try to blackhammer him myself.

Then, the server's IC detects a hacker and start blackhammering him, and sends me an alert. So I start blackhammering the hacker too. Now comes the sticky part. If I'm in connection range of the hacker, because we are both logged onto the same server, then why can't I order my rating 4 IC (on my commlink) to blackhammer the poor hacker too?

------------

Requiring all connections to be explicit (so that the defensive hacker has to backdoor a connection to you first, before he can start blackhammering you too) will solve a some of this problem. Being logged into the same server only puts you in handshake range.

This means that for a defensive hacker to have the best response time, he should be connected directly to the server (and thus, onsite). Remote defensive hackers have to log onto the server under attack, and then backdoor a connection to your commlink to be able to blackhammer you.

-----------

This still leaves the rather odd mechanic that any matrix fight between two hackers is them + the IC native to the systems they are running:

The hacker1 and hacker2 are within connection range of each other, and are hostile. Hacker1 gets initiative. As a (free?) action, he sends and alert to his local IC, saying, "hey, blackhammer this connection". Then uses a complex action to blackhammer hacker2's connection himself.

Then it's hacker2's turn. He send and alert msg to his own IC, and blackhammers hacker1.

At some point, each IC acts and attempts to blackhammer the other hacker.

Why don´t you continue the "IC can´t team up"-logic?

Just check the target instead of the attacker, have the IC-attack take place on the targets IP with the strongest rating of any IC that attacks. If the IC has more actions than the attacker (who might just spend no action in that system anyway), subsequent actions use the targets initiative.

A possible addition to Frank's Technomancer mentor spirit list:

Cake
This personality of Deus thought dead from the Second Crash the old Otaku and new Technomancers were surprised to find that this aspect of the Resonance is: Still Alive. The Cake's ability to lie and corrupt the Matrix stems from it's need to manipulate data for science. It's HUGE SUCCESS is only furthered by the select Technomancers that it picks.

Advantages: +3 BackDoor operation, +2 Corruption Sprite.
Disadvantages: The Cake likes to think with Portals, or rather think of alternative routes to impossible obstacles, and incurs a Willpower + Logic (3) to avoid telling lies to get things to go his way.

Frank, I've decided to try out these rules for my next Shadowrun game, but I've having a few problems with a technomancer.

It states that complex forms are 3 bp, does that mean that the technomancer just buys it like a spell and the rating is equivalent to his resonance? Would "overcasting" be possible for the technomancer only powers?

Also, as previously mentioned, it would be great if you could provide some samples of what actual machine hacking looks like with your system since it looks like this is geared towards hacker v hacker warfare.

Also, some rigging examples, since people who screw around with the matrix always forget what the riggers are supposed to do. *cough*core book*cough*

After thoroughly reading your rules I just want to say thanks for the excellent work.

Sorry, didn't notice this the last time it came up:

I'm playing a slightly aberrant game of shadowrun with franks rules atm, and most informational gathering powers has really been repeatedly using taxman or the sprite 'find' powers to solicit information, which is just a face off test with the target system - quick and easy.

I think a couple examples of how a hack would go using these rules would be a good basis for the thread.

Wow, I find this hard to get my head around. I'm getting a glimpse of it being good, though. I couldn't quite find what programs do anymore, if the test is now Skill + Logic. What does the program do to the dicepool?

Caps the number of hits, exactly like force does for a spell (it also determine the drain of compiling and decompiling forms for technomancers).

Frank, is there a place to DL the PDF version of your Matrix rules?

Also, after reading all 10 pages, I'm surprised no one else suggested this to "limit" the power of brain hacking: To Brain Hack a person, you have to subscribe them to your PAN. This would eliminate the possibility of an "Evil" hacker from ruling the world as you can only subscribe a limited amount of devices to your 'Link.

After reading these rules, and the thread, and thinking about them, these rules seem to me a significant improvement in the RAW Matrix rules.
While I understand the argument about hacking brains, I follow FrankTrollman's reasoning on why it makes sense. However, one question did finally occur to me:

Given that braqins can be hacked remotely.
Given that a naked brain is more vulnerable.
When is a brain naked?

The reason i am asking is that it seems that if hackers and technomancers can reacha brain even if it is not "connected" via DNI, etc... then a carried commlink ought to be able to reach that brain.
So does this mean that a person with no cyberwear, but carrying a well equipped commlink has some protection, or not? (I know lots of folks like Mages and adepts with Cyber, but I would hope that is a choice, not a necessity with these rules.)
If carrying a turned on commlink isn't enough, than what degree of connectivity is enough? Having cyber-eyese wired to your brain, with skinlink?

I apologize if I missed somewhere that stated this more clearly already.

Yorus,
Joel Halpern

You hook up with your commlink, as normal, and get protection from its firewall. Your brain is generally only naked when your commlink has been reset, or is damaged in some way.

I think that your brain is naked in any circumstance where you don't have a DNI, because the level of control required to defend your brain is higher than it is to induce a seizure.

All the actions that can take place at Signal range are comparatively simple.

Cthulhudreams and Crusher Bob are both right. To avoid having a naked brain, you need to have a DNI. However, a standard commlink setup can provide a DNI to people who don't have a datajack through trode or skinlink technology.

The primary advantage of a Datajack is that the DNI is not interruptible with jammers or oil.

-Frank

Since I introduced these rules to my group over half a year ago they are in love with them. The ability to resolve simple tasks with a simple opposed test instead of several rolls speeds up gameplay and allows for more iconic deckers than the original rules.

On the downside Technomancers still are a tad expensive if they don't go the route of summoner.

If brains can be hacked directly with wireless, why is a trodenet or skinlink necessary? The device is already able to access your brain.

You can wirelessly connect to a brain as well, yes. But now you're getting into even sketchier connectivities. Someone else could take over just by having a bigger signal.

-Frank

I am looking for some insights on the rules that I'm hoping someone will be kind enough to provide. I have been working my way through this thread looking for recommendations on whether Frank's system is a good replacement for the core rules. I have yet to read through them in any detail and don't want to make that investment of time if it's easy to determine that his system isn't for me. I still don't truly grok the RAW, but the group I'm running for is happy with the job I've been doing so far. I stopped reading every post after page 3 or so, but have read every response Frank has written in detail. As the author if there were questions not evident in the rules he'd be the one giving the answers for the most part. I apologize if the questions I'm asking have been answered by someone else and not commented on by Frank.

The key bone of contention with this set of rules is Brain hacking. I understand that there are strong parallels to the magic rules, and that there are elements there that are easily abused. I am very interested in a set of rules that are logically consistent as at least by comment Frank's appear to be. I am more concerned that the game retains a balance between characters and that it remains fun for all. The group's hacker (out of 7 players) does the data research as well as the system hacking.

So with that being said, here are my questions.

My impression of brain hacking is that it allows the hacker to treat a brain as a computer with thoughts, memories and actions effectively being files and processes. It is therefore possible for the hacker to not only control another as a puppet, but to substantially read, edit, upload and download memories whole cloth.

As noted in one of Frank's posts, the longest a willpower 1 person is likely to be under the influence of a control thoughts spell is 75 seconds. This provides an inherent limitation. Because the spell requires LOS it is a lot easier for someone to be moved out of sight whether the cause is traffic, someone else closing blinds, polarizing glass, whatever. My recollection is that control thoughts doesn't screen out the thoughts that are put there. So if the controller starts requiring the target to review passwords or codes, there is at least a chance that the target will be able to recognize the problem and contact the appropriate system alerting them to a possible breech. This doesn't mean that a character couldn't get away with paydata, money, etc in that 75 seconds or so, but it does mean that the trace and pursuit could be VERY close behind. Casting a spell also requires a drain check. It is certainly possible that the mage could be built with a large drain resist pool, but they will continue to run the risk of taking drain through a glitch or critical glitch at the very least.

My questions therefore are what are the inherent limitations or balances on a brain hack? The posts indicated that planting a repeater on an individual is fairly easy, so the LOS is bypassed. There's no drain for a standard hacker. Making permanent modifications to a target including a replacement of memories for what happened in the last 30 seconds is HUGE as it eliminates the possible discovery or suspicion that something's been done. There are a limited number of magically active folk, especially ones of a sufficient bent, rating and talent to go the control route. This isn't to say they are incredibly scarse, but certainly limited. The number of hackers by comparison is arguably measured in orders of magnitude.

If widespread mind control is effectively possible, then why hasn't there been an arms race for global domination? The first organization to put a sufficient set of orbital mind control lasers in place wins the planet. Game over. There are mob control spells, but they have limited areas. Multiple castings can expand the area, but must be maintained and at the very least the area for the spells are limited by magic/force. Technology doesn't have those limitations. Additionally, sustaining foci of any sufficient size are expensive and to have them in sufficient numbers for large scale manipulation makes it curious as to why the person's still running the shadows. The active spells can also be traced and if active have a signature associated with it making identifying the fact that a person's being influence as well as potentially the identity of the caster easier to get to.

All of the above aren't intended as a "your rules suck!" sort of commentary. As I've already said, I haven't read them. I expect many of my questions already have a balance that's described in detail and a response of "here's the relevant section of the rules, come back after you read them" is sufficient. My impression is that some of the balances/failsafes aren't in place as they would otherwise have been used by Frank as part of his process of refuting the arguments.

I'm not opposed to the process of brain-hacking. I'd certainly want to consider it carefully before accepting the rules. I'm still working my way through the process of how to limit the power and effectiveness of the mages in the group as it is, or at least ensure that the other character types are able to contribute an equal amount. No limitations on astral scouting either in person or by proxy (spirit) already limits the effectiveness and role of some characters including the rigger.

Brain hacking if permitted especially for minds that aren't more traditionally accessible has large world implications and before I change my world radically, I'd prefer to better understand whether the new system is going to provide the game-balance in order to make the conversion effort worthwhile.

Respectfully and with a sweep of his...

Hat

I have read the rules closely. While I haven't played with them yet, they struck me as head and shoulders better. As for balance, magicians still have more options and sammie still do more damage. There is just a rules justification for bringing the decker on the actually run rather than just needed to get the comlink past the wi-fi pant. All and all it is absolutely worth your time to read it ... unless you can just hold off on until unwired comes out and see if that makes the matrix rules playable.

My plan is to do just that, then see if want to switch or not.

The rules actually are rather conservative in regards to what a hacker can accomplish in terms of brain hacking if he isn't allowed time measured in days alone with his target.

If you take a look at the veracity table you'll find that a hacker needs quite a few net hits to convince a target of more than just the simplest factoids. Combined with the limit on hits being equal to program ratings makes this really hard to accomplish.

Take a decker fresh out of chargen, sporting an effective logic of 7 (5 + 2 for cerebral boosters), a maxed out hacking skill and a rating 6 Jingle Program. He rolls an impressive 15 dice (including specialization) and usually gets five hits.

John Doe has average stats so three's all around. Even if John never took a course in Matrix safety and therefore doesn't bring any cybercombat to the table he'll average 2 hits on the Firewall + Willpower test opposing the deckers attempt to implant any information in his brain.

This leaves 3 net hits, which is on par with something you saw on yesterdays news show. Handy for making people think they read about the change in cleaning services, so you can smuggle your team in ? Yes. More effective in terms of world domination than simply owning a news station ? No, since it's easier broadcasting your newsreel to lots of people at once, than hacking each and every member of your target audience to implant a fact that they'll take at the same face value.

If there's interest I'll post a short rundown on the programs seeing the most action, or other material that has accumulated during play.