Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Cracking Programs
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Eyeless Blond
Discuss?
WearzManySkins
I also allow access to Cracking Gangs. Just like IRL. grinbig.gif

WMS
Eyeless Blond
Crap, I forgot to differentiate between pilots and autosofts in the second question, and six people voted already. Oh well, better late than never.
Fortune
Yes.
Eyeless Blond
Huh. I'm surprised that there are some people who allow cracking of autosofts and drone Pilots, but not hacking programs.

Or was my poll's wording not very good?
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 23 2008, 09:35 PM) *
Huh. I'm surprised that there are some people who allow cracking of autosofts and drone Pilots, but not hacking programs.

Or was my poll's wording not very good?

No in my games if it is software, it can be cracked, be it Browse programs, autosofts or Pilots, and more than likely have been cracked, that is why Cracking Gangs exist today and in the future too.

WMS
Method
I think one of the best restrictions I've heard of is to make sure the character rolls (i.e. no buying successes) so that any glitch reduces the effective rating of copied programs and any critical glitch destroys the original.
Abschalten
I consider any and all software bought pre-chargen to be pre-cracked -- meaning I allow characters to make free copies of anything they have. The only characters I've seen with high across-the-board software ratings are hackers -- who should already have their software cracked anyway. Your non-Matrix-oriented folk will have more modest ratings on their software, and I could easily handwave or justify those programs as being open source or freely distributed programs obtained online... essentially the OpenOffice or Linux of programs.

Honestly, giving free reign on any and all chargen software like this, in my opinion, is not game-breaking. It seems really permissive, but it makes things a HELL of alot easier for a rigger (who has much, much more to buy in terms of software than a hacker does). If characters swap their programs, they're a team anyway, and I consider that a legitimate, natural part of the group dynamic.

I've run several campaigns using this rule, and to date I've never seen any problems with it. Mileages may vary, of course, I'm just stating what I've seen.
Dashifen
I pretty much allow it across the board without any specific restrictions. But, I do enforce a standard glitch house-rule for it: regular glitches reduce the rating of the program by 1 (if you glitch more than once in the test, you can reduce the rating more than once) representing bugs or other problems introduced into the code when you try to rip out the copy protection. If you critically glitch, the program is destroyed. And this goes for system/firewall cracking, too.

With that rule in place, I've not had one player try it. 'Course, that's probably due to the fact that I've only had one or two characters with a software skill so dice pools for the test have been on the order of Logic - 1 more often than not biggrin.gif
Eyeless Blond
Huh, and still more and more people out there are allowing players to crack autosofts but not hacking programs. Very odd; I expected the opposite.

So, fewer people object to cracking the Clearsight off a Doberman and installing it on a car, than cracking your hacking programs off your commlink and backing them up on a datachip somewhere?
GryMor
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 24 2008, 04:03 PM) *
Huh, and still more and more people out there are allowing players to crack autosofts but not hacking programs. Very odd; I expected the opposite.

So, fewer people object to cracking the Clearsight off a Doberman and installing it on a car, than cracking your hacking programs off your commlink and backing them up on a datachip somewhere?



The questions are different, read them again. The first set is pre-chargen and applies to hacking programs. The second set is in general and applies to autosofts and pilots. I bet that if you added a third set that was about pre-chargen cracking of autosofts and pilots, you would get similar rates to the pre-chargen hacking program questions, but, as written, this poll doesn't ask that.

P.S. In my mind, the built in autosofts are a game mechanics to represent specialised hardware support or innate capabilities of that drone types pilot software, so you can't (and don't need too) crack them separate from cracking the pilot (which itself, isn't useful for other drone types).
Eyeless Blond
Ah, I knew I was forgetting something. Oh well; still very interesting results.
Nightwalker450
Ahh.. I didn't notice the first question was referring to pre-chargen (though neither did the poster evidently).


I want to change my vote! Put me down for no cracking pre-chargen!
Eyeless Blond
heh. The thing I was unaware of was how the second question was *not* about pre-chargen; these were all supposed to be pre-chargen questions.

But this is a better poll, I think. It actually covers both sides of the chargen debate.
BishopMcQ
No to all of the above, pre-chargen. Unless I am having the team be advanced beyond starting runners, all cracking etc happens in games.

Pilot programs I classify as per skill--a pilot program for a walker drone will work in any walker. I treat autosofts similarly.

Hacking programs I use the same rule as Dash for diminishing rating based on glitches.
Dashifen
I'd allow it at character gen. I allow people to buy custom commlinks and I'd let people modifiy vehicles and weapons at character generation, if the hacker wants to hack their programs, I'd let them with my above caveats.
Method
QUOTE (Abschalten @ Mar 24 2008, 12:24 AM) *
I consider any and all software bought pre-chargen to be pre-cracked --
This gave me an interesting idea- couldn't non-pirated (i.e. legitimate) software require activation/registration? That could require a SIN and any registered software you used could become a part of your data trail...

If thats not a reason to crack everything, I don't know what is.
Eyeless Blond
Heh, that's what I was always assuming, and why I am mystified at all the people not allowing programs to be cracked.

I mean, good Lord, if copy restrictions and DRM are as bad as they are now, just imagine what they'll be like when corps really *do* run the world...
WearzManySkins
It is not that bad today, the cracking gangs, compete to see who can break the protections first, including DRMs.

In 2070, much easier.

WMS
Method
In 2070 the corps can arrest you themselves for pirating software... nyahnyah.gif
Cadmus
All in all I don't see why people would not allow it. its not any were near game breaking. and it helps char's like riggers. and more importantly. we are roleplaying crooks,hoods,thugs,mercs,hitmen what ever you want to call runners. Given the fact that many char's might be just as liable to walk into a store put a gun int he clerks face and say. I need one of those two of those and three of those. and then burn the place to the ground on the way out. cracking the software seems a rather small thing smile.gif

Tzitzimine
I don't allow it. The value although stated in nuyen, represents the "cost" of the software. Be it purchased with cold hard cred or purchased through sweat of brow and time spent cracking. For a starting character who chooses to have contacts in a cracking gang, sure, we can work something out on the side.
BishopMcQ
I have no problem with player's making the rolls the first ten minutes of the game while everyone else is straightening out their stuff, I just don't give carte blanche authority for actions during char gen. Just as I don't let alchemists and enchanters make their own foci or deckers in SR3 build a custom deck. (Admittedly in SR4 this is less of an issue)

If a player wants to rob a store, that's fine. I'm a big proponent of player motivated runs--mages have cleaned out competing talismongers, a group even broke into Fairlight to steal three Excaliburs. I like these activities happening in game as it can create a bond between characters and give players a sense of thrill and excitement. YMMV.
MaxHunter
I kind of did not read a little part of the post wording.... I do not allow any cracking during chargen.

In game, almost anything goes, still I do restrict pilots and autosofts to similar vehicles...

Cheers,

Max
Eyeless Blond
So, since so many of you don't allow cracking to be done pre-chargen, what do you set the Thresholds at for copying programs? The book, like so many things in SR4, leaves it up to GM discretion. So, what do you usually discress?
BishopMcQ
Threshold = 12+Rating
Odsh
I allow cracking any program, as long as the character succeeds in the required test.

By the way, it would be interesting to know if some GMs allow their players to crack agents.
Dashifen
I've always intended to use 10 + Rating * 2 (Hacking programs get a +4). Thus, cracking cheap, low rating software is easy, but higher rating software is better protected out of the box. And hacking software is more difficult than common use. 'Course, no one has ever tried it in my game, but that's a separate point.

Example:
Cracking an Edit 4 would have a threshold of 10 + (4 * 2) = 18
Cracking a Track 6 would be a threshold of 10 + (6 * 2) + 4 = 26.
Eyeless Blond
Wow, no wonder you don't have people trying it. A gifted professional (Logic 5, software 4) has a ~40% chance of failing to crack your Track 6 under those rules, and will take all day (9 hours) to do it. And your average hacker will have something like 30 or more programs to crack, though obviously not all of them will be hacking programs.

Oh, and where does the book talk about glitches reducing the rating of the copied utilities? I'm not sure I like the idea of glitching having mechanical drawbacks, given the silliness of glitch rules (you are more likely to glitch with a dice pool of 8 than you are with 7, for example; it's very weird to me that having fewer dice should actually benefit you mechanically.)
Fortune
QUOTE (Odsh @ Mar 26 2008, 03:18 AM) *
By the way, it would be interesting to know if some GMs allow their players to crack agents.


Sure. Why not? It's just software.
Method
EB: I think the glitch = -1 rating thing is a common house rule, not RAW.

Having said that, how is that different than broken tools, a flat tire or weapon misfires (all of which are cannon examples IIRC)? Maybe I'm interpreting your use of the word "mechanical" too literally? You mean game mechanics?
Dantic
To me it seems acceptable if you start with a Hacker character in char-gen that any program you buy is yours to do with as you see fit. Hackers will simply hack the copy protection as per Source Code and Piracy (SR4 pg228) on any common programs (I'd simply allow that all this was done well beforehand over whatever time period the hacker was developing their skills) Hacking programs will generaly be something customized, or gotten from a source unconcerned about copy protection anyway. Similarly shadow riggers aren't likely to be installing programs requiring registration. I think that any autosofts would work in any drone/vehichle that you wanted to install it in, as long as required skills match (ie. Maneuver (Wheeled) only on wheeled drones, Targeting (Pistols) only works with pistols). Post char-gen, legal software would need to be hacked per rules and illegal software would still be freely copyable. (Just don't get caught re-selling or giving away software provided by UberHakzorezzll33td00dpwnzduezxxxtrasnarky, or he might get mad, hack your ID and ruin your life) rotfl.gif

Pilot, OS, Agents, and Upgrades are different and I would treat all as unique and un-crackable for reasons distinct to each (I know, code is code and code is crackable, but in my matrix vision these are different in some way.)
Dashifen
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 25 2008, 03:00 PM) *
Wow, no wonder you don't have people trying it. A gifted professional (Logic 5, software 4) has a ~40% chance of failing to crack your Track 6 under those rules, and will take all day (9 hours) to do it. And your average hacker will have something like 30 or more programs to crack, though obviously not all of them will be hacking programs.


Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going for. A ~40% chance of failure is still a ~60% chance of success. Some people might like those odds. Plus, I see very few rating 6 programs at my table. Most of the hackers that have played my games keep any program that gets involved in an extended test (e.g., Browse) to rating 3 and only those which are involved in success tests or opposed tests at 5 (since that's the cap from the System/Response limits at character generation). I've never actually seen a rating 6 program, although I've had two TMs get some of their complex forms to 7 eek.gif

QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 25 2008, 03:00 PM) *
Oh, and where does the book talk about glitches reducing the rating of the copied utilities? I'm not sure I like the idea of glitching having mechanical drawbacks, given the silliness of glitch rules (you are more likely to glitch with a dice pool of 8 than you are with 7, for example; it's very weird to me that having fewer dice should actually benefit you mechanically.)


It doesn't; that's my own determination for glitches during software cracking tests. I'm not going to disallow such things because it's a legitimate action to take, but it's also something that I would prefer to avoid because most of the people who sit at my games don't care much about the programs they have running and those that do, buy them all at character generation. At my tables, software cracking isn't the rule for anyone, really, it's the exception.

To be honest, I've never actually shared any of these rulings with my players because no one's ever asked. I came up with the above equation pretty much off the top of my head after thinking about it for a while one day and made a note of it on my laptop. In other words, I don't think it's the rulings that are making people less likely to attempt to crack their programs, it's that cracking their programs has little or no value to them as players.
Odsh
QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 25 2008, 05:06 PM) *
Sure. Why not? It's just software.


Everything in the poll is just software too...
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Dashifen @ Mar 26 2008, 06:32 AM) *
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going for. A ~40% chance of failure is still a ~60% chance of success. Some people might like those odds. Plus, I see very few rating 6 programs at my table. Most of the hackers that have played my games keep any program that gets involved in an extended test (e.g., Browse) to rating 3 and only those which are involved in success tests or opposed tests at 5 (since that's the cap from the System/Response limits at character generation). I've never actually seen a rating 6 program, although I've had two TMs get some of their complex forms to 7 eek.gif
And you don't think it's a problem that the Thresholds are so much higher than just about anything similar in the game?

I mean, what else in the game has a Threshold of 26:
-Finding a deltaware cyborg CCU? Nope; Availability 24.
-Building a car engine from scratch? No.
-Building a Response 6 hardware upgrade? No.
-Writing the program from scratch? Also no.

Even the BBB disagrees with you, stating that the Threshold should be between 10 and 20. Of course the decision is up to you, but the fact that there is a nontrivial level of failure when a certified genius, who's a recognized, longtime expert in the field (LOG 5/skill 4) in cracking a program, when that same person could probably write the program from scratch anyway, is a little silly. Someone who is merely far above average intelligence and has a master's degree in computer science (LOG 4/skill 3) would find the task nearly impossible, as he would have to get 4 hits (TN 5) out of 7 dice, six times in a row.

QUOTE
It doesn't; that's my own determination for glitches during software cracking tests. I'm not going to disallow such things because it's a legitimate action to take, but it's also something that I would prefer to avoid because most of the people who sit at my games don't care much about the programs they have running and those that do, buy them all at character generation. At my tables, software cracking isn't the rule for anyone, really, it's the exception.

To be honest, I've never actually shared any of these rulings with my players because no one's ever asked. I came up with the above equation pretty much off the top of my head after thinking about it for a while one day and made a note of it on my laptop. In other words, I don't think it's the rulings that are making people less likely to attempt to crack their programs, it's that cracking their programs has little or no value to them as players.
Well, how often do your hackers lose their commlinks/have them wiped/have them destroyed? That's an awful lot of cash to lose all at once.

Part of the reason I think that experienced players don't think about it is because in SR3 if the decker ever lost his deck he was utterly screwed, and as a result it almost never happened. In a way it's kind of like D&D spellbook syndrome: that wizard's spellbook was supposed to be a balance consideration, but if he ever lost his books he suddenly became a peasant, so few DMs would ever bother doing it, and instead just go after the wizard himself. The same thing went for the decker: in OOC terms it is easier to just replace the decker than for a decker to try to replace his million-nuyen deck, so most GMs wouldn't even consider destroying the deck over just straight up killing the decker, because doing so would ruin the game for the decker's player.

That's not the case anymore. Nowadays, the physical commlink itself only costs 7-15,000 nuyen to replace, and most competent hackers will have a backup commlink or two already, for running hackastacks or coordinating Agent Smith armies. You can challenge the hacker by taking away/destroying his commlink, and not ruin the whole campaign forcing the hacker to spend tens of thousands of nuyen to come back from being utterly useless. If, that is, he has backups of at least his most important programs somewhere. Replacing the decker's programs is far costlier, upwards of 50,000 nuyen sometimes, not to mention the hassle of Availability. Losing all of them could destroy your hacker's player more surely than if you put a bullet in his head, because at least with the later scenario the player can roll up a new character; in the former he's just become the SR equivalent of a civilian.
BishopMcQ
Odsh--I think you will find that any of the GMs who allow cracking of Pilots will allow cracking of Agents. The most common knee-jerk reaction against cracking Agents is to avoid the Agent Smith problem. My understanding is that Agent Smith is dead with Unwired. (Note: I was personally never swayed by the arguments used in the Agent Smith debates, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.)
Dashifen
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 26 2008, 12:49 PM) *
Even the BBB disagrees with you, stating that the Threshold should be between 10 and 20. Of course the decision is up to you, but the fact that there is a nontrivial level of failure when a certified genius, who's a recognized, longtime expert in the field (LOG 5/skill 4) in cracking a program, when that same person could probably write the program from scratch anyway, is a little silly. Someone who is merely far above average intelligence and has a master's degree in computer science (LOG 4/skill 3) would find the task nearly impossible, as he would have to get 4 hits (TN 5) out of 7 dice, six times in a row.

Well, how often do your hackers lose their commlinks/have them wiped/have them destroyed? That's an awful lot of cash to lose all at once.


I don't mind disagreeing with the rules; it happens. If I'm at my own table I probably make any number of contradictions with not only the rules but with myself. I don't claim to be consistent, and I tell my players from the get-go that I'll do my best to keep things in line, but that if I mess up to just tell me. If they do so, I treat them with respect, determine if a mistake has been made, if so -- rectify it, and move on with life. If I'm running a game at a Con or some other situation where I'm not representing myself but rather CGL in an official capacity, then obviously this changes things and my focus would be less on the storytelling of my plot and more on ensuring that the experience of the people at my table would be generalizable to the experience they'd have at other tables with other GMs.

But, I digress. I think it appropriate that a good programmer be better at producing a newer and better program than cracking someone else's work. Plus, I'm not sure the threshold is the appropriate determining factor with respect to easy in this case: the interval to program your own is on the order of many months while cracking is still on the order of hours. Yes, it might be very, very difficult to crack a program but you're going to know if you succeed or fail by the end of the day. If you try coding your own software, you're not going to know if you're sunk for a (potentially) much longer time.

As for losing a commlink ... it's never happened. Really, though, the cost to replace the software on a commlink is roughly similar to the cost necessary to replace a heavily modified vehicle or perhaps a really heavily modified drone. Even some modified weapons can be pretty costly and a high level focus could break any mage's bank when they lose it. Every archetype has something that's valuable to them, and I don't see a major issue with asking a person who has such a piece of equipment to both:

  • do their level best to try and protect that item from damage and/or destruction, and
  • replace it with time, effort, and nuyen should that protection fail.

I suppose that part of protecting a commlink and its associated software could be considered to be cracking the software to make backups, but that hadn't occurred to me or to my players in the past. And, to be honest, I don't think I'd have a problem with the owner of a piece of software making a backup of that software on some form of storage. Black storage media comes in at 1:nuyen: per datachip. If the hacker is worried about software loss, buy a bunch of chips and write the program onto them. Then, when the commlink is stolen, just read the chips off and back onto your commlink. Problem solved.

nathanross
QUOTE (Tzitzimine @ Mar 25 2008, 12:13 AM) *
I don't allow it. The value although stated in nuyen, represents the "cost" of the software. Be it purchased with cold hard cred or purchased through sweat of brow and time spent cracking. For a starting character who chooses to have contacts in a cracking gang, sure, we can work something out on the side.

I completely agree with this. At chargen, everyone must pay for the programs they are expected to have (no sharing with group right after). This does not mean they necessarily bought the programs, but is a representation of the time/effort they put into making it, etc. After all, any hacker/decker worth his salt makes his own utilities.

Also, I like contacts like the Choson Rings or hacker contacts to be worth something, and allowing cracked software because of these is fair in my mind. Contacts aren't cheap!
GryMor
QUOTE (Dashifen @ Mar 26 2008, 01:46 PM) *
I suppose that part of protecting a commlink and its associated software could be considered to be cracking the software to make backups, but that hadn't occurred to me or to my players in the past. And, to be honest, I don't think I'd have a problem with the owner of a piece of software making a backup of that software on some form of storage. Black storage media comes in at 1:nuyen: per datachip. If the hacker is worried about software loss, buy a bunch of chips and write the program onto them. Then, when the commlink is stolen, just read the chips off and back onto your commlink. Problem solved.


Except, due to the super awesome copy protection, you can't actually DO that without cracking the software.
Dashifen
Why not?

Edit: Nevermind. I guess it depends on what you see as program duplication. IMO, duplication means I run the software and you run the software. So there are two duplicate copies of the exact same source code being used. If I run the software and make a backup on a chip, then I'm still only running one copy of the software. Thus, no duplicates are running.

In other words, I would allow someone to make a backup copy of their own software. They couldn't however, distribute those backups to other people and expect them to be able to use them without cracking the program. Why does it work this way? Who knows -- maybe the system has biometric data as a part of the copy protection key or maybe it uses a far more sophisticated and accurate type of hardware key so that any given program only runs on one given commlink (which could be problematic for upgrades and new commlinks, etc.).

Regardless, I'm comfortable with the rules that I've stated above. I don't think they're too rough and they've been successful at curbing software piracy at my table, which was their intended purpose.
Fortune
QUOTE (Odsh @ Mar 27 2008, 12:56 AM) *
Everything in the poll is just software too...

And your point is?

I already responded to the poll questions. My answer to those were the same as to Agent crackability ... yes.
Odsh
QUOTE (BishopMcQ @ Mar 26 2008, 12:50 PM) *
Odsh--I think you will find that any of the GMs who allow cracking of Pilots will allow cracking of Agents. The most common knee-jerk reaction against cracking Agents is to avoid the Agent Smith problem. My understanding is that Agent Smith is dead with Unwired. (Note: I was personally never swayed by the arguments used in the Agent Smith debates, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.)


I think cracking agents is somewhat more powerful than cracking pilots. With a cracked pilot program, you still need to pay for the drones that will use the pilot. Agents "only" need the node that will run them, and that node doesn't necessarily have to be your commlink, you could as well hack your way in the commlink of a random unsuspecting target and load your agent(s) on it.

So I could imagine that some GMs would allow cracking pilots, but not agents. But anyway, as you say, the Agent Smith problem will (hopefully) be solved with Unwired.


QUOTE (Fortune @ Mar 26 2008, 04:39 PM) *
And your point is?

I already responded to the poll questions. My answer to those were the same as to Agent crackability ... yes.


Never mind, I thought you implied that the question had no point as any GM would allow it, but you were just giving your opinion, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Fortune
Ah, not at all. Every question has merit. smile.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012