Nice one Eidolon.
But I think you can still have a realist world and enough systems you can hack.

Eidolon, why are you posting on this thread?

Your basic point is that you don't have to reconcile the rules and the setting, that you can simply put whatever oposition you feel like to make for an exciting game and just let common sense and the actual rules hang like viscera from a standard. In short: your point is just the Oberoni Fallacy only applied to the setting instead of the rules like it normally is.

Well honestly, you can go do that. In fact, it doesn't matter what the rules are so long as you just ignore rationality and costs when outfitting the target facilities. Sure, there's no reason in the rules for the camera to not be a close circuit affair which sends regular segregated data dumps down a one-way fiberoptic cable connection to a security repository in Chiba. But you can have that not happen because failing to give the Hacker something to hack is out of genre, frustrating, and boring. By simply having the NPCs ignore the cost benefit analysis that your players have doubtless already done, you can give them level appropriate opposition every time.

But you know what? Some of us don't want to play Dungeons and Shadowrun. We want to play in a consistent world, where there is the perception that the world is reactive and coherent. A world in short, where the NPCs are playing by the same rules as the PCs. Where the players only have a tactical edge because of the inherent vagueries of asymetric warfare and not because the GM keeps throwing them slow pitches.

This thread is in fact not about how we can all play magical teaparty and get together once a week to ignore the rules and tell stories of magic and intrigue while eating delicious christmas cookies. This thread is about reconciling what the corporate security can do, what it should do, and what it does do with the rules. And if you don't care about reconciling those things, I honestly don't care what you have to say on this or any related thread.

My own solution involves major changes to the rules and minor changes to the fluff. I could see someone providing a solution that involved major changes to the fluff and minor changes to the rules. Or major changes to the fluff and the rules. But simply saying that you don't give a damn about solutions is called Thread Crapping. As a moderator, you should give yourself a warning.

-Frank

FYI, tin-foil hats sometimes amplify incoming signals.

~J

Personally, I'd go with a Lead Foil hat instead.

Why corps building aren't just bunkers? Why don't they check the id of each and every person present in the building 10 times per second? Why don't they create their own language to "encrypt" the verbal communications between employees? Why don't they forbid their employees from meeting anyone not belonging to the corp? Why don't they have rating 12 wards protecting each and every building with twenty rating 12 spirits patrolling? Why don't they have spider drones all over the walls, ready to attack in case of an intrusion?

I'm sorry, but realism doesn't necessarily means extreme security measures. Some of the things I've listed above can actually be applied everywhere, but they will be restricted to very high security areas.

And even in quite secure places, the hacker still has something for himself: he is a professional. A regular streetsam can take on several trained security guards, his weapons can cut through the best armor, a regular hacker can hack a secure computer system, he can find their way inside the most secure nodes. A Shadowrunning team isn't a bunch of amateurs. Corps can find a way to make their system more secure, and hackers will find a way to counter it.

I'm still boggling at why people think hackers are impotent when it comes to physical encounters. It's not like a smartlink, a nice firearm and Pistols/Automatics 4-6 is hard to come by for crying out loud, nor is a decent Command program (which any good hacker already has) or a cheap drone. I mean, the Lone Star iBall is only 2,000-nuyen, is the size of a large marble, and comes with a built-in flashpak and smoke grenade. And a Body 3 drone (which is smaller than a scooter) can even be mounted with a LMG.

A lot of posters seem to continuously ignore all of that in their weak arguments about why they need "brain hacking" to be effective. Doubly so when on a whim they can augment their arsenal by hijacking anything in the area.

But... whatever.

As for security, a certain level of "eh?" has to go on in this game. The entire premise revolves around a concept that completely shatters one's suspension of disbelief. There's no way a shadowrunning community would exist -- especially one that's in the public eye and well known -- but it does because that's the very premise of the game. Same goes with governments willingly and happily giving up all their rights to the corporations. And because of that, you have to accept other "eh?"s in order to keep it viable. A lack of impenetrable defenses is right at the top of that list. Sure, it's believable to an extent. It's hard to imagine that there's very many ultra-secure locations anywhere in the world, and those that are usually revolve around national security (which is typically ignored) rather than corporate research.

As eidilon pretty much said, you're free to try and go hyper-realistic (even if it's not), but doing so is exceedingly boring and antithesis to the very premise of the game. You know, the game that revolves around dwarves with pink mohawks strolling down Main Street after dark with a Panther Assault Cannon strapped to his back.

But even a pure hacker has his times of day. A bit of rigging and he even can do combat. Besides data search, door opening, removing data trails, faking licenses etc. A proper hacker has to have more than matrix skills. As even mages tend to use weapons to some degree and have many social skills. And even a hardwired matrix does not provide protection, as network segregation is broken once the first jackpoint is found.

If you tell your hacker "the network is hardwired" he should think "and once I´m in, and I have a datajack, security is likely low". Had to specifically point that out to one of my players once.

i don't think i'm willing to accept the premise that ignoring a problem will make it go away, Dashifen. after all, not every group is going to want to, or even be able to, ignore it.

Point, to be sure, mfb. That situation can come up. But I guess I'm just farther down the line of thought that you touch on, and don't see it as a problem of the system.

And also, I have to go with what Dash said here, and emphasize it fully, which is that I rarely ever come across a player that goes

"Hey, I really want to play a hacker, because all of the hacking and computer stuff is really interesting to me."

and then 10 minutes into the game complains because he isn't as badass at combat as the specced sammy.

I just don't get that.

If someone writes up a 100% hacker, there are a few things that I'm wondering:

1. Did you ask the GM if a 100% hacker would fit the game that you're playing in?
2. Do you really understand that the hacker isn't the same as a sammy when the bullets start flying?
3. Is a hacker really what you want to play?

And again, even in the "a sam can kinda hack so what good is a hacker", that's the GMs job. The GM should probably say "hey, you might want to have at least one "normal" combat skill. The GM should make sure that sometimes there's a system or a task that only the uberhacker can accomplish. GM GM GM GM.

And I'm far from perfect, just like everyone else here. I'm sure I don't do a great job of this at all times and it's not like nobody never has anything bad to say about my games. But this is theory and my perspective on how things should jive.

And as an aside, after a couple of sessions, if you find out that the 100% hacker isn't really doing it for you or it doesn't work in the game that's being played, roll up something else. It's just a piece of paper.

the thing is, you don't have to ask those questions for any other archtype. if you tell your GM "i want to play a mage" or "i want to play a street sam", he doesn't go "whoah, are you sure? i mean, those characters are kinda hard to fit into a game."

yes, but a hacker with a few points in a combat skill doesn't completely replace a street sam, whereas a street sam with a few points in hacking skill can pretty much do without a dedicated hacker. that's the issue Gelare is bringing up.

and it really doesn't depend on the game. yes, there are some games where a street sam will be useless and a hacker will rule. but those are the exception, not the rule. the GM shouldn't have to make large changes to his game in order to include such a basic, staple archtype as the hacker.

You misunderstood. I'm saying that's the reason why some GM's say that working a hacker in is difficult. Not because it actually is, but because extensive use of VR makes it so.

The only part of this that I have trouble with is the trodes working without being near the head.
Datajack, nanopaste trodes, conventional trodes: all fine. But being able to manipulate someone's mind electromagnetically from a distance gives me problems.

First off, let me say what I'm NOT talking about. I'm not talking about frying a brain like an egg with radiant energy. Yes, standing next to a signal strength 12 transmitter should probably kill you pretty quickly. A fichetti pain inducer turned up to 11 could fry your brain, and I have no problem with that. Microwave guns are a completely separate issue, so as soon as we start raising signal strength enough that it's the energy which is frying the brain, it's a ray-gun, and a completely different issue. We're talking about frying their brain with the "brain-data" (call it whatever you like), such that the signal strength itself would not otherwise be dangerous (or else it's a ray gun) but the precise way that it is applied (becoming brain-data rather than just raw energy) causes the brain to do something very bad.

We're also NOT talking about a single waveform propagating through space at non-dangerous power levels which, when it meets the metahuman brain, carries some kind of self-destruct signal. If this is the case, then a single transmission kills everyone on the planet simultaneously. (note: this is kind of what mfb has been talking about) So lets not go there. I'm just going to assume that sending a kill-signal to everyone in the world simultaneously shouldn't be possible. Moving on.

We're ARE talking about an antenna array. At least when we're talking about trodes we are. Not necessarily so with datajacks, but I have no problem with people possibly being brainhacked through a datajack, so I'm just talking about trodes, near and (potentially, for the sake of this discussion) far. Why am I so sure that it's an antenna array? Well, it's obviously an antenna, since it's sending an receiving electromagnetic stuffs. It's listening to waves that come from the brain, and it's inducing neurons to fire in the brain by sending waves back at them. Check, it's an antenna. Why is it an array? Because it's not a single point. You wear trode nets, or nanopaste in a significant area around your head, NOT a single point. It can't be a single transmitter sending a single (arbitrarily complex) waveform, because that leads to the kill-everyone-on-the-planet problem. It's lots and lots of little transmitters, and if they know their own spacial relationship to each other they can do neat little tricks with interference (both constructive and destructive) and phase differences so that they can listen to and transmit to very specific areas in space. The precision of this array is based on two things. 1) wavelength, which we will go ahead and assume is arbitrarily small and precise without any negative effects. 2) number of elements in the array. See, a few transmitters can make a few hot spots or dead zones pretty much anywhere you want, but there are going to be side effects so you need to add more to cancel out the unwanted hot spots/dead zones, but you have to do that in a way that doesn't mess up your desired spots. In other words, the more complex you want your antennas potential pattern(s) to be, you need geometrically more transmitters. So to send/receive "brain-data" I'm figuring that you need A LOT. Easily millions and billions. But hey, no problem, they're molecularly small, individually use almost no power, and they're distributed across the trode net/paste. So this isn't a problem, it's simply a reasonable concession we have to make for this type of device to be remotely possible. No problem.

Now you do have to know the spacial relationship between the transmitter and the neurons, but assuming arbitrary computing power (which we will) each element in the array could listen to each other and figure out where they all are, potentially in real-time. I can't begin to imagine how much processing power would be required to do this with a flexible array, but again, lets just assume we have it, because otherwise we have to scrap trodes altogether, and I don't want to do that just yet. If you know the arrangement of the array, and you know what type of waves a brain is supposed to be making, then the trode net can listen and deduce where the neurons lay in relation to it. So even a paste full of microscopic transmitters could be smeared on the head and with a moment of self-calibration, function as an antenna array attached to your head and send/receive waves carrying "brain data" to and from any particular part of the brain it wants.

Geez this is long, I sure hope I have a point. So far my point is to explain, in very vague terms, how a 'trode net, if possible, MUST work. I'm staying vague because I want to remain in the realm of what physics says is possible and not get into the specifics of implementation.

Now I want to think about differences between doing this with an array which is physically very near to, and surrounding, the head, vs doing this from an unspecified distance. I'll say "across the room", but what I really mean is greater than or equal to a meter or so and smaller than infinity.

First: distance. I said smaller than infinity. The size and shape of an antenna array's beam pattern (and all possible patterns it can generate) depend very much on the physical arrangement of the elements in the array. Out at a distance of infinity, your fabulous array is really just a point source, albeit one capable of generating a very complex waveform; but still just a single waveform. (again reference kill-everyone-signal problem from earlier) So as you move your transmitter farther and farther away from the brain, it needs to be physically larger in order to do the same job. You could make a trode net 3m across which could affect someone sitting in the middle of it, except now what you're trying to affect is smaller relative to the arrangment of the array, thus you again need to add geometrically more elements. But that's okay, the thing is frickin' huge, we've got space, and we'll assume we've got power. Of course, as you move farther away you DO require more power and elements, and even if we're allowing that then you're VERY rapidly creating a device which can, if tuned slightly differently, just make a single hot spot in the middle of their brain and kill them with the energy rather than the "brain data", and that's a ray-gun, NOT a long-distance 'trode net.
Second: near-field vs. far-field. Say you have an antenna array which is approximately 1 foot in diameter, and you're transmitting to something far away. By "far", I mean more than a few feet, and continue to assume short wavelength. Whether you're 5 feet away or 5 light-years, the shape of that array's beam pattern is the same. You're in the "far-field", and so other than signal strength falling off with the square of distance, the shape of the field doesn't change. But inside a few feet, or even inside the antenna array you're in the "near-field" and the shape of the beam varies dramatically with position/distance. It's a completely different pattern. So going from near-field to far-field is not simply a matter of turning up the juice, you need a completely different system for tuning your array. I'd be willing to concede that you could have such a system with your arbitrary processing power, so I'm not going to belabor this point, I just want to mention that you can't go from near to far simply by increasing the power.

The real issue here is the rate at which the complexity of the array increases as you move the head out of the near-field and across the room. A trode net on your head is one thing. And I could even see a specially created very large trode net the size of a room which could affect anyone in the room, or maybe even a huge wall-sized dish that could affect someone within several meters of it but not actually surrounded (again, keep the signal strength small or it's a ray-gun). But those are huge macguffin sized plot devices. These are things that I can imagine at a shadowrun level of technology. But the way the complexity of this task ramps up with distance, the level of technology which can accomplish this same feat from across the room with handheld devices (without simply flash-boiling the person with the radiant energy) also has teleporters, replicators, brain-copying, and a warp-drive (if possible). Easily.

I'm not saying that it's impossible (impossible as in physics does not allow it in this universe), I'm just saying that the across-the-room trode net is countless orders of magnitude more complex of a problem than the on-the-head trode net, and I would be far more comfortable just saying "it's magic" or "I don't care, I don't need realism in my game" than allowing the across-the-room trode net to work. A complete, perfect, fully self-aware simulation at a neuron-level of a recently scanned human brain in real-time is a trivial problem in comparison.

I am sorry, but at my current level of understanding of the brain and of electromagnetics I cannot concede the across-the-room trodes at Shadowrun's technology level. I'd rather just say it's magic. In which case, technomancers can do it.

Now as soon as you add proximal trodes, or a datajack, or anything which can communicate with another device with more conventional point-to-point data transmission, my argument vanishes and brain-hacking is cool. But brain-hacking the naked brain from across the room I just can't swallow. My loss, perhaps.
Now bring on the microwave ray-guns!

I hope this was clear. If anyone's still reading, I'd be happy to clarify any bits of it. I'm aware that I made some approximations/assumptions so as to make this only an incredibly long post and not a 4-year course, but if you feel that I've approximated or omitted something important, I'd be happy to talk about it.

I've never seen a hacker or rigger not also be pretty capable with a gun. The only archetype I have every seen not be good at shooting things, has been a mage...

So, I'd agree with Fortune on this one, most characters that take a liking to hacking also have at least one other skill set that they use at least 50% of the time...in most games...

Superbly said, Moon-Hawk, bravo. That has been the major beef with Frank's theories that I think even the people not disinclined to use his rules have been having a hard time accepting. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to swallow that particular prerequisite, but I do think that with the "brain-hacking waves from outer space" issues removed, we got something workable here that is reconcilable with standard SR fluff.

In arguments like this, we all make logical leaps. It's nice to see someone actually run through the logic of the argument for once, Moon-Hawk. Good job.

Isn't the premise of the ruleset under discussion that connecting your brain to a commlink and firewall actually restructures the way your brain operates and runs in your brain

Give that, which is a fundamental assumption of the rules as layed it, why are people making the stupid statement that they cannot see how the firewall proggie protects you from things trying to attack your brain! The firewall actually runs IN YOUR BRAIN and prevents other people trying to run programs IN YOUR BRAIN that cause you to have a seizure!