I and my group are fairly new to SR in general. (I played a short campaign of SR3, and played some SR/Earthdawn stuff back in the day) We've been playing SR4 a lot, lately.

After that play, we found a couple things to be true:

1) The Hacking rules don't seem to fit too well with the rest of the game system. One example is the fact that Hacking is a Logic skill, but Logic never comes into play during the actual use of the hacking tasks. The same is true of Cybercombat.

2) We felt that taking the stats out of the equation opened the doors to a lot of abuses. Some of that was reinforced by things seen on these forums.

So, we are thinking about house-ruling the following:

For any computer-related, hacking or cybercombat task, the appropriate stat is added to the dice pool. For nodes or other things without stats, the first rating mentioned for a task is doubled.

Example: In VR, A hacker with Logic 4, a Cybercombat skill of 5, and an Attack 4 program attacks a Blackhammer IC on a node with System 5, Response 4, and Firewall 4. The hacker's commlink has a system rating of 6.

The hacker would roll 15d (4 for Logic, 5 for Cybercombat, and 4 for the Attack program, 2 for VR), while the IC would roll 12d (8 for Response x2, 4 for Firewall)

Maximum successes on any roll = system (or resonance)

Taking the above example, the maximum successes for the hacker would be 6, due to his commlink's system rating. The maximum successes for the IC would be 5, due to the system rating of the node.

There are a variety of threads involving matrix-related house rules to bring Logic back into Hacking. Many are extremely complicated (like Frank's re-write of the entire Matrix concepts for SR4) and others are similar to your group's idea simply altering the construction of the dice pools for the activity.

The only cautionary thing I'd say is that the SR4 matrix source book, Unwired, is just over the horizon. There may be optional rules for matrix actions therein that may have been vetted by various play testing groups beyond what your group can do. 'Course, if the above works for you and yours, go for it.

The common house rule seems to be Attribute + Skill for hacking tests. Program rating caps net hits.

So, in your example:

In VR, A hacker with Logic 4, a Cybercombat skill of 5, and an Attack 4 program attacks a Blackhammer IC on a node with System 5, Response 4, and Firewall 4. The hacker's commlink has a system rating of 6.

The hacker would roll 11 dice (4 for Logic, 5 for Cybercombat, 2 for VR), while the IC would roll 8 dice (4 for Response, 4 for Firewall). The Hacker cannot score more than 4 net hits (which would inflict 8 damage to the IC before resisting).

Just another way to do it.

Or, if you don't want obscenely enormous dicepools ala TMs threading (I mean any more enormous), you can go with a similar alternative rule set that has been brought several times in regards to the hacking rules: Hacker rolls Logic + Cybercombat/Cracking/Electronic Warfare capp successes by Program Rating. Of course, YMMV.

:EDIT: Curse you Paws!!!!

Be careful not to fall victim to the common misconception that linked attributes are related to dice pools. Most of the time, they're directly used for augmentation effects, not determining dice pools.

While Skill + Program isn't concurrent with the rest of the system (Most being Skill + Attribute), making a dicepool consist of three elements, skill + Attribute + Program also creates much bigger dicepools. I'd suggest the program cap rule posted further up, as that's what I prefer to use, although the devs did intend for programs to be rather important to hacking, and that rule makes them much less important than attribute.

Everything said makes sense. I appreciate the responses. The only reason I really feel like using all three elements (Stat, Skill, Program) is to make all three important to the process. We play on IRC, using an online die roller, so the size of the dice pools really isn't much of an issue, with the cap on hits.

The problem with changing the dicepools to 1+1+1 is that you need to change the thresholds for accomplishing actions.

To be honest, I'd wait for unwired and then either take that or franks rules.

I'm definitely looking forward to Unwired. Like most other people on these forums, probably

The threshold situation could be a problem, but mathematically, every three dice should give a success, so just upping thresholds by 1 or 2 should handle things adequately.

But all three are important in a stat+skill capped by program rating system. Just ask the Logic 6/Hacking 6 character who averages 4 hits on every roll, if it matters that the best he can ever hope for is two successes because of his Rating 2 program.

Until Unwired comes out at least, Here is what I use.

-Frank

And a thing of beauty it is.

That is some very impressive work, Frank. Not sure I like all the implications of it, but it does hang together well, from the quick readover I gave it. Thanks for putting in all that time and effort, with your compadres.

I think like others, I'll see what Unwired holds, then work from there. Till then, I think I'll use the simple one people have been advocating, namely stat+skill with program rating as a cap on net hits.

It is if you think of programs as substituting for attributes. The way I've always thought of it, the Matrix moves at the speed of light (or faster if quantum computing has advanced far enough by 2071), far faster than our sluggish biochemical impulses. So it makes sense that something would replace attributes, and programs make sense to me.

That would be more believable if using Response gave you more dice than using Agility for Shooting. But it usually doesn´t. This generates a feeling that you are nerfed by being forced to use an attribute that everyone can buy for a few grand.

Depends on the character, I suppose. I mean, my first question to a player who built a specialized rigger with a high Agility would be, "Why?"

On the other hand, if you're saying "I don't think the Matrix is faster than people because it wouldn't give them more dice," I'd have to say ... well, I'm not sure what to say to that. I mean, sure, a slow device doesn't aim better, but you're still getting three IPs a Combat Turn.